By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The surfacing of two oarfish in California this year, a rare event interpreted in Japanese legend as a harbinger of disaster, coincides with unsettling news. Simultaneously, a Trump transition team reportedly plans to investigate and potentially criminally charge military leaders involved in the Afghanistan withdrawal. Adding to the unease, the selection of Chris Wright, a climate change skeptic, as Energy Secretary and Brendan Carr, an opponent of broadband expansion, as FCC chairman, further exacerbates concerns. These events, coupled with the oarfish sightings, suggest a confluence of ominous developments.
Read the original article here
Trump is reportedly considering bringing criminal charges against military leaders concerning the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. This move is particularly striking given that the withdrawal itself was a direct result of his administration’s policies and agreements with the Taliban. The reported consideration of criminal charges seems to directly contradict the reality of the situation, making it appear to be a politically motivated action rather than one based on genuine culpability.
The reported plan to pursue criminal charges against military officials seems to be an attempt to shift blame for a withdrawal plan conceived and executed under Trump’s watch. His administration negotiated a deal with the Taliban that included a timetable for withdrawal and a prisoner exchange, all without adequately planning for the subsequent security challenges and the potential for a swift Taliban takeover. This suggests a profound lack of foresight and planning on the part of the Trump administration.
The absurdity of potentially charging military leaders for following orders given by their Commander-in-Chief is undeniable. The military is expected to implement presidential decisions, even if those decisions prove controversial or ultimately disastrous. Holding military personnel accountable for executing a plan initiated and approved by the Trump administration creates a troubling precedent, one that could severely undermine the chain of command and the military’s ability to execute policy.
Furthermore, the timing of this reported consideration is suspect. It appears as a potential attempt to deflect criticism of the Trump administration’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and to consolidate power by purging potential dissent within the military. This seems to be more about removing potential obstacles to Trump’s future political ambitions rather than seeking justice for the failings in Afghanistan.
This move could also backfire significantly. It could provide military leaders with a legal argument to refuse to follow orders they deem unlawful or unconstitutional. This scenario creates an inherently unstable situation, one with the potential to erode the military’s loyalty to civilian leadership. Such a risk is enormously significant, especially from a former President who continues to exert a strong influence on a considerable portion of the population.
The suggestion that Trump’s motivation is to eliminate obstacles to his political objectives is supported by the broader context of his actions and statements. His efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, his ongoing rhetoric against opponents, and his handling of classified documents all point to a pattern of behavior aimed at consolidating and exercising power regardless of established legal norms.
The potential ramifications of pursuing these criminal charges are far-reaching. It could damage the military’s morale, trust, and operational effectiveness. Such repercussions would extend beyond the immediate individuals involved, influencing the broader relationship between the military and the civilian leadership of the nation. Moreover, it threatens to open up a Pandora’s Box of legal challenges and could very well lead to a constitutional crisis of considerable magnitude.
To summarize, Trump’s reported consideration of criminal charges against military leaders for their involvement in the Afghanistan withdrawal is fraught with significant implications. It appears to be a politically motivated maneuver aimed at shifting blame, eliminating potential opposition, and consolidating power. The legal, political, and military repercussions of such a course of action are substantial and potentially destabilizing, and the likelihood of such charges succeeding in court seems extremely slim. The action appears more as a dangerous power play than a genuine attempt to secure justice.