A number of decisions by the Trump Administration define itsproclivity for military action. These decisions give context to the attack on Iran. They’re almost a path to the present conflict.
And a part of this path is what can be called thechicken-hawk factor. The term describes an individual who has avoided military service but who promotes a martial or pro-fighting stance. It’s a show of bravado to the world. And there’s an assertion that the President is a chicken-hawk.
One chicken-hawk assumption is that the decision to engagein hostilities may come more quickly than for someone with combat experience. It may also be repeated more often.
And while a number of presidents never served in combat, theidea of combat and war appears to engage President Trump more than most of his predecessors. It’s the bravado effect that sends our military into harm’s way without due process, and in the case of Iran, without an end plan and goal in mind.
A few examples of this bravado are the attack on Venezuela,the adoption of a more martial persona and the attempt to force Denmark to cede Greenland to the US. It sets a pattern that helped lead us to the war in Iran.
We’ll also cover the failed War Powers Resolution to limitthe President’s ability to engage in a war without Congressional approval, the agreement with Iran made during the Obama Administration and the confusion created by the Administration’s shifting reasons for engaging in this war.We’ll also raise a question: what do we do when the fighting stops? Other related topics are covered as well.
To read the full text of the podcast and the links to thequoted materials, please see: https://erm76.substack.com/p/podcast-and-full-text-the-path-to