I was in the military for 30 years. Trump must be as far away from the US armed forces as possible.

In October 1973, four days after President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of the special counsel investigation into the Watergate scandalAmerica’s global nuclear alert level was raised to DEFCON III – one step away from an impending nuclear war. That increase in the alert level was ostensibly a response to the announcement of new support for Egypt by the then Soviet Union during the Second World War. the Yom Kippur Warwhat was going on at the time.

Was the decision to go to DEFCON III driven by national security concerns? Or was it the Nixon White House’s attempt to distract the public from his scandal-ridden presidency?

I was a second lieutenant on West Germany’s border with what was then East Germany, and my battalion was ordered to load our conventional and nuclear war munitions and prepare for a possible war that could have led to global destruction . Wash the decision to go to DEFCON III driven by national security concerns? Or was it the Nixon White House’s attempt to distract the public from his scandal-ridden presidency?

As we prepare for Tuesday’s elections, it’s important to remember that we’re not just electing a president, we’re also the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. And we need someone we can trust who won’t use the military inappropriately.

During an October 24, 1973 meeting in the Situation Room, Admiral Thomas Moorer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted in his diary Secretary of State Henry Kissinger notes that “the Soviets were influenced by the current situation the president finds himself in,” that Democrats and the American public were “laying siege to their government” and that “we must stop them from getting away with this.” In private interviews I had with four Nixon officials, including three who were in the Situation Room that evening, Nixon felt he had to break the news about something other than Watergate.

When I think about how close Nixon brought us to nuclear war, I say we cannot trust Donald Trump with the presidency. I don’t think he would hesitate to use his position as commander in chief for his personal and political advantage. We know this because he has promoted policies that threaten our military, democracy, and those who call the United States home.

In the past month alone, Trump has said several times that he would use the military against citizens who oppose his candidacy and he has reshared social media posts suggesting he is taking on his opponents, including former President Barack Obama and former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, for military tribunals. He has repeatedly stated that the country’s greatest threat comes from his political opponents, whom he has labeled “the enemy from within.”

The thought of Trump exacting retaliation by politicizing the US military would terrify us all. It goes against the principles underlying our democracy, and his plans to do just that should disqualify him from entering the White House again.

The former president has repeatedly called for millions of undocumented immigrants to be rounded up and deported. Such a gigantic operation would require the American military, and Trump has that promised to use. Imagine using American soldiers to round up, house, guard, transport and deport millions of immigrants. They would knock on doors, look for anyone who might be undocumented and put them in camps.

He has also said he would consider taking the military for domestic law enforcement in large cities without the intervention of local mayors or governors. These are all policies reminiscent of Nazi Germany, not the United States.

Because Trump promised “exterminate military officersBecause they are ideologically opposed to him, military officers could in the future be promoted or appointed based solely on their party membership. The members of our professional military swear an oath to the Constitution, but Trump seems to believe they must take an oath of loyalty to him.

The members of our military swear an oath to the Constitution, but Trump seems to believe they must swear an oath of loyalty to him.

During a second term, Trump would be uninhibited. He would surround himself with selected sycophants for their total loyalty – not their expertise or their willingness to speak hard truths. The absence of officials willing to “speak truth to power” during a major crisis could be disastrous.

If Trump follows through with his plans to politicize the military and turn it against the American people, I fear we could witness a mass resignation of senior officers who find such orders contradictory. to their oath to support the Constitution, and chaos could ensue within the ranks at a time of increasing global conflict. In the future, there may even be massive turnover within the officer corps, depending on which political party wins a future election.

This would not be a professional military focused on defending the nation, but a politicized military in which the American people would likely lose confidence. And I wouldn’t blame them, because if Trump follows through on his threat, that military would no longer exist to protect them — it would be a force used to threaten them.

My military career of thirty years was marked by continuous training, numerous operations, wars, strategic arms control negotiations and the study of civil-military relations. All of these experiences, but especially my research into our civilian government’s relationship with the U.S. military, have contributed to my conclusion that Trump is unfit to be president.

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no respect for the historic relationship between America’s military and civilian leadership — or for honor, duty, service and sacrifice — and his policies will not only erode American confidence in the military but also undermine our democracy. set the game. the brink of disaster.

Our system of civil-military relations is essential to the professionalism of our military. The members of our military take an oath to the Constitution – not any military or political leader. This was fundamental to me when I was a young lieutenant in West Germany, commanding troops in combat in Iraq, serving in senior positions in the Pentagon and White House, or teaching the subject to students at West Point, the Naval Academy and the Army War. Secondary school.

The relationship between U.S. civilian and military leadership rests on an implicit “contract” that requires mutual respect, trust and consultation. The military accepts the final authority of the civilian leadership, but in return tries to remain apolitical. Why would we give up something that has served our democracy so well for someone who has served our nation so poorly?

I fear that if we abandon this basic principle of our democracy, my service and that of other veterans will be in vain.