I think it's pretty clear what happened in the Trump telephone call to the mother of the deceased soldier: Trump asked John Kelly what he should say; Kelly gave him an outline of what had worked for him (so to speak) when his own son had been killed, involving in part something like "he knew what he was signing up for". But Trump delivered that line in a ham-fisted way that made it sound insensitive (and it is, frankly, no mater what Kelly may think, a line that is readily capable of coming out sounding wrong, and he might have thought more carefully how it could go wrong in delivery from his far from eloquent boss.)
So was Kelly right to be upset with the Congresswoman for her criticising the line? Maybe, to some extent, but as many in the American media has noted, it was Trump himself who started politicising the whole matter of Presidential contact with "Gold Star" families, so it seems a bit rich to be weighing in on how outrageous it was for Wilson to say what she did.
And let's face it, a more presidential President might have reacted to the news with an apology to the mother if his meaning had been misunderstood, and then expanding on exactly what he had intended - reading off a card to make sure he gets it right, if necessary. Instead, what did we get - a typical Trumpian "I am always right" line of denial that he had said it at all! (Which was, essentially, contradicted by John Kelly in his appearance.)
But the more important aspect of this now is the creepily elitist militaristic line that John Kelly took in his press appearance.
Some might think that Masha Gessen at the New Yorker went too far with her assessment in
"John Kelly and the Language of Military Coup, but I think she was basically right. I liked how she pointed out that Kelly actually exaggerates the numbers, as if the nation barely knows anyone who has ever done military service (an argument I found odd, given the amount of fawning of the military you see as part of certain sporting events there):
Fallen soldiers, Kelly said, join “the best one per cent this country produces.”
Here, the chief of staff again reminded his audience of its ignorance:
“Most of you, as Americans, don’t know them. Many of you don’t know
anyone who knows any of them. But they are the very best this country
produces.
”The one-per-cent figure is puzzling. The number of people currently
serving in the military, both on active duty and in the reserves, is
not even one per cent of all Americans. The number of veterans in the
population is far higher: more than seven per cent. But, later in the
speech, when Kelly described his own distress after hearing the
criticism of Trump’s phone call, the general said that he had gone to
“walk among the finest men and women on this earth. And you can always
find them because they’re in Arlington National Cemetery.” So, by “the
best” Americans, Kelly had meant dead Americans—specifically, fallen
soldiers.
To anyone sensible, this should be starting to ring authoritarian elitist alarm bells.
And it elevates the moral importance of what the military does in ways that are not really justifiable. Sure, we can all agree that all fighters who died in a "good war" as clear as World War II died in an entirely morally justified enterprise. We can also all agree that, even in times of relative peace, each individual soldier deserves respect for doing their government's bidding to the point of risking their life.
But because the use of the military for much of the time is in enterprises that involve various shades of grey, we should reject any suggestion that military service
per se is a morally elevating thing that makes you a "finer person" that the rest of society.
An
article in Slate notes that Kelly being a Marine is probably part of the problem here. Of all the services, they are most inclined to believe their own PR:
It’s striking that Kelly feels comfortable highlighting the
civil-military divide, and even emphasizing its virtues, from the
lectern of the White House briefing room. Kelly’s remarks break with the
popular view among many of his contemporaries that the divide is a bad thing and that the military has grown too far apart from the nation during the 44 years of the all-volunteer force. Indeed, Defense Secretary James Mattis (Kelly’s former comrade from the Marine Corps) edited a book
on the topic last year before joining the Trump administration. But
perhaps Kelly’s views should not be surprising given his pedigree as a
retired Marine (the Marines have always stood apart from the other
services with respect to their martial virtues) and his own record of
service and family sacrifice. Kelly reflects a slice of military
sentiment that exists in barracks and team rooms across the globe but
rarely appears in public.
Nonetheless, the implications of Kelly’s performance should worry us. If
there’s no role for civilians to play other than to salute the military
and give them resources, that would seem to invert the relationship
between the military and the nation it’s supposed to serve.
And at Vox, an article is accurately summed up in its subheading:
The chief of staff divides America into those who “serve” in uniform — at home and abroad — and those who should shut up.
From the body of the piece:
In Kelly’s eyes, those who serve America understand it
and those who do not simply don’t. The latter, in fact, can’t really be
trusted to preserve America’s goodness.
“We
don't look down upon those who haven't served,” Kelly said at the end
of the presser. “In a way we're a bit sorry because you'll never
experience the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kind
of things our service men and women do.”
In fact, he said at another point, they “volunteer to protect our country when there's nothing in our country anymore that seems to suggest that self-service to the nation is not only appropriate but required. That's all right” (emphasis added).
So when Kelly waxed nostalgic about the days when certain
things were “sacred” — women, religion, and battlefield sacrifice — he
wasn’t just echoing the complaints of so many who support Donald Trump
because they too feel America is no longer great. He was saying that
there are Americans who have kept the flame of American greatness alive —
those who serve the country for a living — and that the best thing the
rest of America can do is keep a respectful distance.
It all puts me in mind of the military elitism apparently promoted by Robert Heinlein in
Starship Troopers, and I'd be surprised if I am the first to write that.
Oh yeah,
as usual, I'm not:
So, Kelly won't event take questions from people who aren't sufficiently
close to the military. It's a step towards Starship Troopers.
The thing to remember about Kelly, too, is that no matter how good his reputation as a military leader may be, anyone willing to work for a person like Trump has to be suspect in judgement.