On Jan. 3, on the orders of the President of the United States, a drone strike assassinated Iranian General Quasem Soleimani and nine others at Baghdad’s International Airport in Iraq.  The attack was conducted without explicit Congressional authorization and absent even notification of Congressional leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Soleimani, considered among the most powerful figures in Iran, was the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, which handles military operations abroad as well as clandestine ones. Soleimani had deep connections with a number of Iranian-backed proxies throughout the Middle East and was considered one of the principal architects of Iran’s foreign policies, especially in the Middle East. Many of the proxies Soleimani had ties to have been designated terrorist organizations by the United States, as has the Quds Force itself.

Soleimani has long been on America’s radar. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama both declined to authorize strikes on him. Soleimani was undoubtedly a foe of America and responsible for the deaths of a number of Americans through operations he organized, financed, and directed through his proxy militias. But the former presidents reasoned that his assassination would likely serve to substantially inflame tensions between Iran and the United States and threaten retaliatory action that would result in more American deaths. 

The fallout of the attack was stunning. The Iraqi Parliament, outraged at what they considered a breach of their sovereignty, passed a nonbinding resolution to expel U.S. service members from Iraq. The coalition fighting against ISIS was forced to suspend operations for fears of retaliatory attacks on their personnel. The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran were launched into dangerous escalation, with many scholars arguing that the killing constituted an act of war by the United States.

Though since then both the United States and Iran seem to have taken steps to de-escalate the conflict, it still should be shocking that the United States lurched onto the precipice of war with a U.S. military strike while most of Congress, including Congressional leaders, were uninformed.

In the aftermath with Congress, the media and publc demanding answers, the Trump Administration provided a shifting set of responses before ultimately settling on the president’s Article II Commander-in-Chief powers to respond to imminent threats as a basis for the strike. However, administration officials contradicted one another and offered differing explanations on the nature, timetable and scale of the purportedly imminent attack. 

This justification was signified by the administration sending a notification to Congress pursuant the War Powers Act of 1973.  The report remains classified but reportedly members of Congress who have seen it and attended a subsequent briefing on the strike were left unimpressed. 

This action has reignited many debates in the United States ranging from the need to repeal the Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 and 2002 to what is the strategic vision and priorities of the country in the Middle East and how it should. be involved in the region. These are important and legitimate debates to have, but what should not be lost in the shuffle is that even if the AUMFs were repealed, this strike still could have gone forward, as the Trump Administration asserted Article II powers instead of statutory authority. 

Thus, in examining how the United States came to stand on the precipice of war, one must examine Article II. This article of the Constitution outlines the powers of the presidency and has been at the center of several of the most notable controversies in the Trump Administration, from the Mueller investigation to the Trump-Ukraine scandal. 

“Then I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump has notably asserted,  

This is a position legal scholars have roundly rejected, citing sections of Article II itself as well as Article I and Article III. 

However, presidents asserting an expansive view of Article II, commonly called the Vesting Clause Thesis or the Royal Residuum theory, is not a new phenomenon. It has been central in the development of the Imperial Presidency, and presidents of both parties have been aggressive in advocating for it to enhance the authority of the presidency. 

In this view, the president has a vast reservoir of powers that give them unrivaled preeminence in matters like national security and foreign affairs. This theory, while always controversial, has gained ascendancy in the public imagination since the Second World War. 

Concern over presidential power in this realm and the president’s ability to entangle the United States in conflicts abroad with limited or no congressional authorization has been a perennial worry, especially since the Vietnam War – prompting erratic action by Congress such as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to try to constrain the presidency. 

The steady evisceration of democratic norms and traditions by the Trump Administration presents an opportunity to seriously reexamine this thesis. Whenever the Trump presidency ends and the task of rebuilding, repairing and strengthening America’s democratic institutions and norms begins in earnest, it will be worth reviewing the Vesting Clause Thesis to answer two primary questions: Were the framers, who had just fought a war against King George III and were adamantly against a single figure having the power to launch the nation into conflict, seriously intending to set up a system of governance in which the presidency had such immense powers in foreign affairs? If they did, is such a policy desirable after seeing the extreme degree it can be carried to?

This map gained the attention of the U.S. military when Nathan Ruser, a 20-year-old Australian student, tweeted Jan. 27 about how the map “made military bases clearly identifiable and mappable.” Two days later the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State issued a statement explaining that security procedures regarding fitness trackers and related technology is now being revised. Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Department of Defense were made aware of the situation and involved in redesigning security protocol.

Strava released their global heatmap. 13 trillion GPS points from their users (turning off data sharing is an option). https://t.co/hA6jcxfBQI … It looks very pretty, but not amazing for Op-Sec. US Bases are clearly identifiable and mappable pic.twitter.com/rBgGnOzasq

— Nathan Ruser (@Nrg8000) January 27, 2018

“The rapid development of new and innovative information technologies enhances the quality of our lives but also poses potential challenges to operational security and force protection,” the statement said.

According to open-source imagery analyst Scott Lafoy, it is still too early to determine how useful the map data really is. Having the ability to track movements in military bases can give more insight into patrol routes or where specific personnel, such as diplomats, are. Other Twitter users potentially located U.S. special operations in Africa, a Patriot missile base and a suspected CIA site in Somalia.  

“If the data is not actually anonymous, then you can start figuring out timetables and like some very tactical information, and then you start getting into some pretty serious issues,” LaFoy said.

Strava stated that the information available on the global heat map is completely anonymous and does not include movement in “private” or “user-defined privacy zones.” 

The Pentagon issued over 2,500 Fitbits as part of a program to fight obesity. It is still unclear whether these government-issued fitness trackers provided any of the information shown on Strava’s global heat map. A spokesperson from U.S. Central Command stated that the military is constantly working to refine security policies to address any challenges that come up.

Photo courtesy of Daily Express.

When I first read about the treatment of this gold star family, I was shocked, appalled and incensed. In the death of this soldier, that family lost a father, a brother and a son. In the death of this soldier, the nation lost a gallant public servant who answered the call to duty and made the ultimate sacrifice for the republic. I wish that I could write that this was an isolated incident; that cold-hearted and inconsiderate people like those outraged passengers are a rarity in this society. Unfortunately, that is simply not the reality.

The reality is that we live in an era where public service is made a mockery of and, sometimes, where the sacrifices made by others are not honored. If you need any more evidence, look no further than President-elect Donald Trump, who derided the Kahn family and attempted to compare the sacrifices that he made in business with the same sacrifice that the Kahn family made.

While Mr. Trump did attempt to walk-back those comments, the damage was already done. Trump’s attempt to level with the Kahn family represents the problem with America’s perception of public service. It is easy to criticize those who have given their lives both in a figurative and literal sense to the republic. What they do not recognize, however, is that many of the people in public service have made sacrifices. They have sacrificed personal gain and financial success for a greater purpose. Instead of using their great talents to purchase massive homes, foreign cars and other amenities that their abilities could easily net them, they have chosen to live a more modest lifestyle so that they can serve, rather than be served.

While these sacrifices should certainly be considered, all Americans should show nothing but the utmost respect to those who have given their lives serving the republic. Being a soldier or a member of the armed forces is the pinnacle of public service, and it is one of the most noble pursuits in life. Many of us will probably never understand what it is like to serve in the armed services. But to those who have served and fallen, the least we can do is show respect and make an attempt to understand. Americans need to understand why they answered the call to service and what they made the ultimate sacrifice for.

What those people did on that plane is inexcusable. Americans, however, should not let that define them. The vast majority of people respect those who have dedicated their lives to public service and  who have fallen in that pursuit. However, it is becoming more and more clear that a culture of misunderstanding and disrespect has begun to fester in the United States. As the torch is on the verge of being passed to our generation, we have a responsibility to uphold the strong tradition of respect and reverence. However, we should not simply be content with maintaining the status quo, for all things in life can certainly be improved. While it will be difficult, we should not shy from this challenge. Therefore, I call to you, in the words of Lord Tennyson, “Come my friends, tis not too late to seek a newer world.”

“God, no! Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order [the killing of family members] once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act,” said Hayden. “You are required not to follow an unlawful order.”

Not surprisingly, this was brought up in the March 3 Fox News GOP Debate not long after. The previous day, 122 Republican foreign policy leaders signed an open letter denouncing Trump, citing, among other things, Trump’s call for reviving torture. Hayden’s words were backed by experts. Finally, moderator Bret Baier posed the question:

“So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?”

“They won’t refuse.” said Trump

In just three words, Trump himself put what has been made very obvious by his campaign on full display. He disrespects the military to seem like a progressive and invokes its personnel to seem like a patriot. Trump is neither. Relative to his new-found colleagues, Trump doesn’t know a thing about the military’s culture or its ways.

Trump has repeatedly denounced veterans and families that he doesn’t like, seemingly as much as he claims to support them. He not only denounced but slandered Khizr and Ghazala Khan, parents of fallen soldier Humayun Khan, after their anti-Trump speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Trump’s response drew widespread criticism from members of his own party who claimed that Gold Star families—those that have lost a family member in military service—deserve a level of respect that Trump didn’t give. Trump’s repeated claim that Captain Khan wouldn’t have died during a Trump presidency is not only untrue but insults his sacrifice.

But Captain Khan wasn’t a first. One of Trump’s earliest controversies involved claiming that Senator John McCain, a hero of Khan’s, is not a war hero. Trump had previously called McCain a “dummy” in response to the Senator’s criticism of Trump’s anti-immigrant proposals. When asked about his comments during a presidential forum, Trump claimed McCain was not a war hero before adding sarcastically “he’s a war hero because he got captured.” Trump was referring to McCain’s service as a Navy pilot during the Vietnam War. McCain retired from the military due to permanent injuries sustained as a prisoner of war. His actions as a prisoner of war, credited with saving the lives of many imprisoned with him, earned him a Silver Star and a Purple Heart.

Unlike Captain Khan, McCain is still alive as a reminder of his sacrifice. His grueling five-year capture left him with white hair and disabled, handicapped shoulders. Still others live to this day with an injury that no one else can see: post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). With regards to the military, PTSD is as old as war itself, but our current understanding of the disease has shed more light on the subject. When asked about his solution to PTSD and veteran suicides, Trump not only flopped, but demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of PTSD itself.

“[Military personnel] see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over and you’re strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can’t handle it,” said Trump.

Gaffe or not, Trump’s uninformed characterizing of PTSD, a mental illness, as the result of being unable to “handle it” is just as ignorant as telling people with depression to “cheer up; it’s all in your head.” Those with PTSD suffer without choice. Trump’s obsession with strength and “winners” and “losers” causes him to not only misunderstand one of the most basic aspects of mental illness, but simultaneously insult scores of veterans and civilians suffering from “invisible wounds.”

It should come as no surprise that Trump’s insults extend to those currently wearing a uniform, as well. Claiming at one moment that “two hundred generals and admirals” have endorsed him despite the fact that active duty personnel are not allowed to make partisan political statements, he also insists that he won’t listen to them.

This goes against a common defense of Trump—that he’d hire good advisors. He’s claimed that he knows more about ISIS than “reduced to rubble” senior officers. At the Commander-in-Chief Forum, he vowed to either fire or listen to different top officers if elected. This level of disrespect would not only be unprecedentedbut damaging. The military has long maintained a status of being separate from politics. It’s what has arguably prevented and will continue to prevent a military-led dictatorship in the United States. Senior military officials may be appointed by the president, but their terms often extend to the next president, even if the next president doesn’t like it.

But this gets into the other, more concerning side of the issue: Trump doesn’t understand how the military works. He isn’t even aware of its current state. As President Barack Obama so plainly put it in his recent State of the Union,

“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close… Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation attacks us directly, or our allies, because they know that’s the path to ruin.”

His words would be even bolder if they weren’t backed up by high-tech jet fighters, 19 aircraft carriers and an ability to operate anywhere on the globe at a moment’s notice, a trait shared by no other military. While it’s true that our enemies are getting stronger, we’ve hardly reached the embarrassment levels that Trump is claiming. His regular rhetoric of big scary China seems to ignore the fact that their deeply flawed military is limited to, in crude terms, pissing off anyone that tries enter its space. He claims that we haven’t done well against the Islamic State, despite the fact that we have.

Trump criticizes his opponent, Hillary Clinton, for having an actual plan with regards to ISIS.

“You’re telling the enemy everything you want to do,” Trump said in the first presidential debate before appealing to General Douglas MacArthur.

Not only is the existence of Trump’s “secret” ISIS plan highly questionable, but the childish claim that his opponent is “telling the enemy everything” demonstrates that Trump doesn’t understand the difference between strategy and tactics. No amount of knowledge of ideas or goals (that is, strategy) in a war effort will benefit the enemy in any major way, let alone an undisciplined enemy like ISIS. Clinton’s website outlines goals that, at this point, should seem obvious: lead a coalition effort and resolve the Syrian Civil War diplomatically. At no point does Clinton speak of what she’d arm the Perhmerga with or when she’ll conduct air strikes (that is, tactics).

Perhaps it’s Trump’s attempt to distract from the obvious: he doesn’t know a thing about fighting wars. His ISIS strategy had been limited to, “I would bomb the shit out of them,” as he said at an Iowa rally last year. This method, known in defensive circles as strategic bombing, aims to incapacitate the enemy’s ability to wage war. Despite claims to the contrary, it has never won a war. Though Barack Obama’s war strategy has used strategic bombing extensively, he’s backed it up with other cooperative strategies like training allies, logistical support, military aid and special operations missions. Trump wants to ditch the latter four tactics and expect better results.

It’s all part of Trump’s brazenly stupid dream of a non-deployed American military that cooperates with no one. As stated above, the United States operates a global military force. It’s able to respond quickly to any threats against the U.S. or its allies, be it war or natural disaster. Trump rejects this long-employed source of American strength and foolishly suggests that we instead deploy, if needed, from American soil, claiming that it’s cheaper.

Trump’s obsessive application of basic (and often incorrect) economics to foreign policy makes his suggestions dangerous. Defending allies and preventing war is not a business transaction, it’s a moral obligation. We’ve never questioned the economic costs of defending allies—even though, contrary to what Trump says, allies do pay us—because the cooperative bulwark it creates is priceless. NATO exists to keep Russia in-check. South Korea and Japan are too strong for North Korea to reasonably fight. China’s territorial disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam get nowhere because of the U.S. Naval presence. It’s not about money, but even if it was, the solutions would be the same: keep our friends safe because getting invaded is bad for business.

A Trump presidency would be the worst thing for the US military and American strength abroad. Period. Never has a major American political party put forward a candidate more ignorant and disrespectful of one of the United States’ most treasured and successful institutions. What’s baffling is that he polls so well among military personnel. A recent poll conducted by the Military Times and Syracuse University shows Donald Trump tied with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a man virtually unaware of anything going on outside of the country’s borders. The opinion differs greatly between commissioned and enlisted personnel—two very different demographics—with officers placing Clinton at second and Trump at third.

It’s clear that Trump’s war against truth has been effective. By hurling insults with no factual basis, failing to put forward concrete or informed ideas and disregarding the way things work or can work, he’s brought a grotesque, modern form of fascism to American politics. It’s that, or he’s just as stupid as many claim. Either way, the egotist and his toxic ideas have no business leading the “finest fighting force in the history of the world.”

Photo courtesy of NBC News.