Three-star general warns Trump's military blunders could trigger bigger war

What happened

AlterNet reports that retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling and Sen. Angus King argue President Donald Trump’s military decisions have weakened U.S. deterrence and increased the risk of a larger war. Their central warning is that reduced support for Ukraine, troop cuts in Europe and an inconclusive war with Iran may persuade Russia or China that the United States lacks either the capacity or the resolve to sustain a prolonged conflict.

In a New York Times guest essay published Monday, Hertling and King cited reported Russian provocations involving Romania, Germany and Poland, alongside diminished U.S. deployments in Germany and Eastern Europe. They argued that roughly seven months of fighting with Iran depleted American munitions and exposed regional bases and tactical limitations without achieving most of Trump’s stated military goals.

They also pointed to the previous year’s 52-day bombing campaign against Houthi forces in Yemen, which they said did little to eliminate threats to Red Sea shipping. Their proposed response includes restoring support for Ukraine, enforcing sanctions against Russia more aggressively, reversing troop withdrawals and ending attacks on European alliances.

Power belongs to the administration

The operative power here does not belong to Ukraine, NATO’s eastern members or military commentators warning about escalation. It belongs to the Trump administration, which determines the level of U.S. support for Ukraine, the placement of American forces and the signals Washington sends to allies and adversaries.

Those are policy choices, not atmospheric changes. If the United States reduces forces while questioning its alliances, the resulting uncertainty is produced in Washington. Hertling and King’s case is that the administration has weakened the political commitment that makes military capacity credible.

Force without strategy

The reported pattern is not simple “weakness.” It is the substitution of visible violence for durable strategic leverage. Months of fighting with Iran and a lengthy bombing campaign in Yemen can demonstrate destructive capacity while also exposing logistical limits, consuming munitions and failing to secure the announced objective.

That distinction matters. “Lethality and testosterone,” as Hertling and King characterize the administration’s emphasis, are political branding. Deterrence requires adversaries to believe that the United States can sustain a coherent commitment. Bombing that reveals constraints without producing decisive results may communicate the opposite.

The misdirection of inevitability

Coverage of military escalation often treats war as something that simply “breaks out,” erasing the decisions that make it more likely. AlterNet largely avoids that trap by identifying the administration’s withdrawals, reduced support and alliance politics as the contested actions behind the warning.

But the rhetoric of “blunders” still risks understating agency. A blunder sounds accidental. The reported conduct consists of deliberate policy decisions whose critics warned would carry foreseeable consequences. The evidence supplied does not establish that Trump intends a wider conflict; it does support the narrower charge that his administration chose policies Hertling and King believe make deterrence less credible.

The invitation created by retreat

The larger pattern is an administration demanding the prestige of military dominance while weakening the alliances, deployments and supply depth that sustain it. That is not restraint. Restraint would align objectives, resources and risks. The account presented here describes expensive military action in one theater paired with reduced commitments in another.

The consequence is strategic exposure: allies have more reason to doubt Washington, while adversaries gain more opportunities to test its limits. When power advertises aggression but neglects credibility, logistics and coalition strength, the danger is not merely that it loses a confrontation. It is that its own choices make confrontation more tempting.

Thanks to Alter Net

Source: Three-star general warns Trump’s military blunders could trigger bigger war