Our Enemies Are Watching...With Glee

Read on Substack

How loud will the bear roar?

I started to write this piece last week, before we bombed Iran.  Most would not refute that Iran is a troublemaker.  They’ve aligned themselves with terrorist organizations and have been fighting proxy wars in the Middle East and North Africa for some time. 

They also still want to avenge the killing of Qasem Soleimani, the IRGC Quds Force commander, which Trump ordered at the end of his first term.  Not long after his killing, they issued a hit list containing the names of various U.S. government and military officials.  Whether Iran has the ability to make good on their threats is questionable (and three were arrested last year for plotting to murder Trump and others), but there’s no doubt they will at least try something. 

The fact of the matter though is that all this is coming at a time when the United States is at one of its weakest moments. It is a feebleness born from a combination of creating a large pool of disgruntled federal employees now vulnerable to compromise, placing individuals with questionable experience and integrity in national security leadership positions, and politicizing our military.

Our year started with a slash-and-burn approach to downsizing the federal workforce. I don’t think anyone is arguing the federal government shouldn’t trim some fat, but the administration took an approach that was as irrational as it was irresponsible. 

At a time when we need our Justice Department more than ever, approximately 4,000 employees took Trump’s/Musk’s ‘fork in the road’ buyout option, of which about 1,500 were within the FBI.  The Department of Defense is to eliminate about 50,000 positions.  The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is cutting about 1,000 positions.  (Perhaps no one told Secretary Noem how much Iran loves cyberattacks?)  None of these were the positions to cut. 

The administration should have gone to each agency and said, ‘I need you to cut X% of your workforce.’  They could have directed agencies to reduce their budgets by a certain percentage.  The agencies know better than the president or a special government employee which noncritical resources, to include personnel, could be eliminated. The administration would have achieved the efficiency they were seeking while also preserving the commitment of the federal workforce, the vast majority of whom want nothing more than to serve and protect their country without political interference.

Instead, the administration fired en masse good employees, loyal employees, employees doing important work.  Now we have a massive pool of former federal employees who are lost, who have no job, and who are angry and resentful.  These are individuals who know secrets and sensitive information.  They’re also facing a flooded job market, especially in areas with high concentrations of federal employees, making it even more challenging for them to get back on their feet.  Some of those dismissed federal employees will be desperate and they are vulnerable. 

These individuals are prime targets for recruitment by foreign adversaries and inevitably some of them will be successfully recruited.  As Bob Dylan sang, “when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” 

We have yet to see how damaging these actions are to our security, but I have no doubt we will see them someday.

Those left behind at these agencies are not faring much better.  Many are also outraged and nervous.  Add to that mix loyalty pledges and polygraphs when most just want to come in to work, do their job, contribute positively to their country, and get paid, and you’ve created an environment fraught with bitterness and wrath.  

Just two weeks ago a DIA employee—and someone who worked in the insider threat division, of all people—was arrested for trying to pass classified information to a foreign government.  His motivation was allegedly that he “did not agree or align with the values of the administration.”

With all people, in all walks of life, trust builds loyalty.  Acknowledging the good work and efforts of federal employees who sacrifice much for this country builds loyalty.  Treating the people who work for you with dignity and respect builds loyalty.  Trump’s (through Musk) reckless approach to managing the federal workforce does more to foster betrayal than loyalty and that puts the whole of the United States at risk. 

Then, as if that was not enough risk, we have individuals in national security leadership positions with questionable integrity and experience.  Our Director of National Intelligence has met with one of the most ruthless dictators in modern history.  During her confirmation hearing, Tulsi Gabbard also refused to condemn Edward Snowden, the individual responsible for the largest leak of classified information in NSA’s history, even after being asked repeatedly by both sides of the aisle.  

And as much has been made of it over the past couple days, back in March she stated, “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

This she did say, but she now claims those comments were taken out of context.  So, for context, here’s what she said on the topic of Iran at the hearing:

“Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data. The [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program. In the past year we've seen an erosion of a decades long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of likeminded terrorists and militant actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance.”

They may not be assembling nuclear weapons (or at least they may not have been when she said it), but I also don’t think they were keeping a uranium stockpile “at its highest levels” for fun (or energy production). 

Add to this Trump’s recent appointment of a 22-year-old, Thomas Fugate, to lead the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships.  The Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships seeks “to prevent acts of targeted violence and terrorism by working with the whole of society to establish and expand local prevention frameworks.”   No, the Center isn’t responsible for routing out terrorists in our midst, but it does have an important function to prevent individuals from becoming radicalized.  It requires leadership with some experience, preferably national security experience.  Fugate has none. 

And let’s not forget Signalgate.  I will not bemoan that point. 

When our national security officials cannot be trusted because of perceived or real questions about their integrity or experience, our allies will stop sharing intelligence with us. Gabbard’s and Fugate’s appointments also come from a president who was indicted for mishandling classified information.  That was bad enough, but he also discussed classified information with a reporter.  All of this makes us less safe because our allies have legitimate concerns that the United States cannot be trusted with secrets. 

Finally, we have the parade.  That parade, with Army soldiers marching route step behind squeaky tanks, was a national embarrassment.  To be clear, that’s not to discount the bravery or skills of the Army.  Their birthday is very much worthy of celebration.  Being used as a political pawn wasn’t the way to do it.  It was an insult to the Army and a disservice to our service members, our veterans, and to all Americans.  The power of our military comes in part from being relatively apolitical and being singularly focused on protecting this nation.  That reputation has now been tainted.

The truly powerful don’t need to boast because everyone already knows their dominance.  When a country’s might paraded around is met with empty streets, a sparsely populated rally site, and an overall collective yawn, it does nothing to bolster an image of dominance.   It is an example of “bad pride” which John C. Maxwell, the leadership guru, reminds us is “the deadly sin of superiority that reeks of conceit and arrogance.” 

And as the Bible reminds us, ““Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). 

The parade was the most recent in a long line of actions that eroded the impartiality of our military.  We had the firing of the top three Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) and the firing of Inspectors General, just a month after Trump took office.  The actions came across as more of a vendetta determined to eliminate opposition and oversight than restoring “confidence” in the roles. 

In short order, the administration also removed several high-ranking military officials.  These are some of the most experienced individuals in the Department of Defense.  They are the ones you want in times of conflict or crisis.  To summarily dismiss them without cause weakens us at a time when world events require strong military leadership.

Then we had the renaming of military bases.  We can pretend that removing Confederate names is “erasing history” or we can acknowledge the bases were named after losers. 

One would think the military would want to celebrate its heroes instead of those who lost the war.  One would think the military would want to name bases after those who exemplify the warrior ethos and who embody the core values of loyalty, duty, respect, courage, and honor. 

Instead we’re arguing that a guy, Lieutenant General Leonidas Polk, who was promoted to general despite his lack of combat experience after chumming it up with the Confederate president, and who is widely cited as being responsible for one of the greatest blunders in the Civil War (ordering troops into Columbus, Kentucky, disrupting the state’s neutrality and all but cementing Kentucky’s Union membership) is more deserving to have a military installation named after him than a guy who engaged in front line combat, fighting Germany soldiers with everything he had, including his bare hands, and was the first American to receive the French Croix de Guerre avec Palme, France's highest award for valor, in World War I. 

Adding insult to injury, Sgt William Henry Johnson’s biography has been removed from the Medal of Honor’s website (but you can still find it here).  It’s just nonsensical and does nothing to fortify the military’s image as strong, impartial, and exclusively focused on preserving our freedom.

Our enemies plan and then they wait.  They are good at playing the long game and they will wait for opportunity.  Hamas knows this.  They didn’t wake up on October 7, 2023, and say, ‘hey, you know what we should do today?’  They planned and waited.  The same could be said of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  It was more than a lack of intelligence, ignoring the intelligence, or failing to prepare. 

Enemies wait for moments of weakness and distraction, and then they strike.  When will our strike come?  We have assembled all the ingredients for a perfect storm and our enemies know it.  Do we?