Trump appointed many retired generals to key posts in his administration at the outset of his first term; these men and women were prominent figures in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts that followed 9/11.
Now Trump counts among his closest advisors and officials a group of young officers, grunts, and foot soldiers who were responsible for carrying out the so-called global war on terror (GWOT) instead of planning it.
Each of the current vice presidents, defense secretary, national security advisor, and director of national intelligence—from low- to mid-ranking soldiers—deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan at different points in time. Waltz is the only one who is above 50; he was a Green Beret.
They constitute an important part of Trump’s national security staff and are emblematic of a younger wave of veterans who, after years of fruitless conflicts in the Middle East, are often seen as disillusioned and intrinsically suspicious of established institutions.
It’s a mindset that fits perfectly with Trump’s rhetoric, which includes his professed fears of sending American troops overseas and his general skepticism of institutions like the CIA and State Department.
Appointees from the global war against terror, like Gabbard and Hegseth, have come under fire from critics on both sides of the political spectrum for lacking the necessary qualifications for cabinet-level positions. Such positions are typically thought to necessitate prior experience in either overseeing strategic foreign policy or leading a larger organization.
However, they have both maintained that their first-hand knowledge of the effects of policies enacted in Washington has given them a unique perspective.
At a NATO summit in Brussels and an international security conference in Munich this week, Hegseth and Vance’s significant positions were on full exhibit. Characteristic of Trump’s populist approach to international relations were both of their messages. The former Army general Hegseth urged Europe to “own responsibility for its own security” and pushed for more funding for defense from NATO members.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius criticized Vance’s “unacceptable” speech in which he demonized European democracies for allegedly stifling free speech and failing to cooperate with hard-right parties while simultaneously playing down the dangers posed by Russia and China. Vance is a former Marine.
“Proceded to war under false pretenses”
All parties represented by ex-veterans of the Iraq War and Afghanistan War recognize that GWOT veterans are a potent voice for societal discontent.
Democratic Representative Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who served three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, made the observation that, “Politically, global war on terror veterans are more skeptical of politics than not. They are folks who realize that we were in many instances sent to war on false pretenses and felt like the system that was supposed to provide checks and oversight failed not just once, but over and over again.”
According to Crow, “the link” with the American public as a whole is “deep dissatisfaction of unfulfilled promises and being led wrong — and whether it is economic frustration, the fact that upward mobility is a historic low right now…). in the fight on terror may have been misled, leading to failed promises.
“In both cases, it was our system and our institutions that failed the people… so, the anguish is genuine.
Allison Jaslaw, a Washington, DC-based GWOT veterans’ awareness organization leader and an Iraq War veteran, stated that veterans of these conflicts possess a special moral standing to denounce the conventional political nobility. Politicians “who are responsible… aren’t touched by it,” Jaslaw added, despite the fact that this generation of veterans has grappled with suicide and PTSD. Since we are in an authoritative position, we find ourselves in a slightly different situation.
‘Salute and carry out’
President Trump’s first defense secretary, Jim Mattis; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley; and chief of staff, John Kelly, were among a string of acting and retired three- and four-star generals who frequently irritated the president by trying to rein in his more isolationist or transactional foreign policy tendencies.
According to a former US official who was close to Trump, one of the reasons why candidates like Hegseth and Gabbard were attractive is because they weren’t general commanders.
According to this source, Trump is taking a double-edged sword by elevating lower-ranking officers and enlisted men to senior posts. On the one hand, it’s a clear rejection of conventional elites like four-star generals. On the other hand, it’s sort of like buying insurance that those officials would do Trump’s bidding.
According to one source, “he’s looking for people who want to salute and execute.” “Retired generals who sat on boards and were spoon-fed things when they were in the thick of it are one thing, but these people have had to work for a living in the last five to seven years of their jobs are another.”
Because they weren’t involved in high-level interactions with NATO and other conventional multilateral power structures during their time under Trump, these new generals may also lack the same commitment to these institutions that Trump’s previous cabinet wanted to preserve.
They may also be less likely to support sending American soldiers to participate in global wars, a move that Trump infamously attempted to reverse during his presidency. Pew data shows that most veterans of the war on terror feel the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not worth fighting for.
This enormous human cost of war and its impact on my fellow brothers and sisters in service is why I’m so outspoken on the matter of ending these costly regime-change wars,” Gabbard stated in 2019, while still a member of the Democratic party. “I am determined to end the practice of putting our brave men and women in uniform in harm’s way to fight in these pointless and destructive conflicts.”
Opponents of war and those who support it
Several other GWOT veterans who talked with AWN made clear differences in the service of various leaders in the Trump administration, while others stressed that not all veterans are the same ideologically or experientially. Within their own subculture, GWOT veterans are infamous for intracine feuds about the authenticity of other veterans’ service, and the amount of violence observed by service members during deployments varied greatly over the years.
According to Seth Lynn, a former Marine Corps commander who now leads a group that assists veterans in running for public office, Waltz is perceived by many on both the left and the right as being more institutionalist than the other three. This is especially evident when looking at appointments like Hegseth and Gabbard, who seem to have a deep-seated grudge toward the US Army, their former employer.
The military’s diversity, equality, and inclusion policies have been sharply criticized by Hegseth, while Gabbard has condemned “warmongers” in Washington.
Lynn pointed out that Vance has downplayed the significance of his military service in his political narrative, instead highlighting the strong links he has to his Appalachian family.
Both Crow and Jaslaw contended that Trump was taking advantage of the public’s faith in them because of their military service, as well as what scholars refer to as the “civilian-military divide”—the perception gap between the public and the military in a nation with a small, entirely volunteer force.
“When someone… uses that reverence and respect to try to undermine that system, I find the irony in it,” Crow added.