By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Military officials, concerned about then-President Trump’s social media activity potentially jeopardizing operational security, devised a plan to mislead his team regarding a planned attack on Iran. While publicly maintaining a facade of deliberation, the administration was actively planning the strikes. The military, fearing Trump’s unpredictable online behavior, deployed decoy bombers to Guam, ensuring only one group flew towards the actual target. Despite Trump’s claims of obliterating Iranian nuclear facilities, damage reports indicated a more limited impact.
Read the original article here
So, let’s get this straight: military officials, the people who are supposed to be the guardians of our national security, were so worried about President Trump, their own Commander-in-Chief, that they had to actively work around him to protect a planned bombing of Iran. The report paints a picture that is at once alarming and almost farcical. The idea that the person at the very top of the chain of command was deemed the biggest threat to operational security is just mind-boggling.
The article emphasizes that Trump’s social media habits, his general unpredictability, and his propensity for loose talk were the primary concerns. It’s as if the military was dealing with a loose cannon, a toddler with a loaded weapon, in charge of deciding when and where to launch a military strike. The report indicates they feared his actions would tip off Iran, giving them time to prepare or even evacuate key facilities. Think about that – the very person whose job it is to maintain secrecy and protect national interests was, in this scenario, considered the greatest risk.
The irony is almost too rich to swallow. We’re talking about a situation where those tasked with safeguarding the nation’s secrets felt the need to go behind the president’s back, creating a plan that essentially treated him like a liability. And it looks like this wasn’t just some theoretical worry; the report suggests that the plan didn’t succeed, and he still gave them a heads up. The mission didn’t go as planned, suggesting Trump’s actions directly led to the failure of the attack.
This whole affair raises some really troubling questions. Who was actually in charge? Was Trump truly making these decisions, or was he just a figurehead? Is this a situation of a shadow government operating behind the scenes? And if this is the case, why? How did they manage to circumvent the president? If military officials were truly concerned about national security, isn’t it their duty to speak out or act in a way that could potentially remove a threat?
The article touches on the chaos and lack of control. This could have serious repercussions for the security of the US. It’s not just about one military action; it’s about the larger picture. It raises questions about who is making decisions, what their motives are, and whether the checks and balances of our government are still functioning properly.
The article also highlights the concern of Trump’s team being filled with individuals who aren’t experienced in OPSEC. This calls into question the qualifications of those around him. And, if people can’t be trusted to maintain these core standards, how does this affect national security?
The report suggests a level of mistrust and disregard for the president’s role that is unprecedented. Imagine a scenario where a president is not privy to crucial information about a military operation. This is not only concerning from an operational standpoint, but also raises fundamental questions about the very nature of our democracy and the balance of power. The fact that military officials felt compelled to work around their own commander-in-chief, is something most people can’t comprehend.
Then there’s the discussion of who may benefit from this kind of behavior. Sanctions, immigration policies, and military strikes. Are those things benefiting Trump and his supporters? And does this help shed light on the motives and potential payoffs that might be behind some of these decisions?
Ultimately, the report raises a lot of red flags. It paints a picture of a leader who was considered a security risk, a military forced to operate in the shadows, and a country grappling with uncertainty. The implications are profound, touching on everything from the integrity of our military to the stability of our democracy. If this report is accurate, it’s a stark reminder of the fragility of our systems and the need for vigilance in protecting them.