By Bob Gaydos

The nation’s top military leaders listening to a pep talk from Pete Hegseth.

   A famous political leader once said, “Problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top …”

   I tend to agree. Actions taken or not taken by those at the top, in my experience, often have a profound effect on situations. In fact, four recent, seemingly unrelated situations illustrate that theory perfectly.

     First, we have the command performance of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth before 800 of the nation’s top military leaders at Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia. Hegseth summoned generals and admirals from around the globe at a cost of millions of dollars and untold security risk to subject them to the most insulting, embarrassing lecture on leadership. He complained about “fat generals,“ insulted women in the military and told the brass they could start beating up recruits again. He inflicted a war ethic on those who know war all too well and who also understand the wisdom of quiet strength.

    The commander-in-chief, never one to miss what he apparently thought was a public rally, decided to show up and told the generals to train their troops in America’s cities to fight “the enemy within.“ Both men, although clearly looking for applause, were greeted with silence before, during and after their addresses, to the immense credit of the assembled military leaders of this nation.

   At the same time this was happening, the federal government was rushing to a shutdown because Congress has yet to pass a new budget. In fact, instead of meeting with congressional leaders, Trump was busy delivering his usual rambling “speech“ at the generals and admirals. Despite having control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government,  congressional Republicans have not been able to deliver a budget on time because they can’t get enough votes. They blame Democrats. Democrats say they would be happy to sign a budget bill, so long as it did not remove medical insurance coverage for millions of Americans. Which it does.

   Complicating the budget problem is situation number three. House Republicans were actually still on vacation. That’s because Speaker Mike Johnson, who is clearly lacking any modicum of self-respect, is seeking to delay as long as possible the swearing in of the newest member of Congress, Adelita Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona. She would be the deciding vote on the passage of a bill requiring the Justice Department to release the full Epstein files. Interestingly, the votes are apparently there in the Republican Congress for release of the Epstein files, but not to pass a budget.

   The fourth problem situation was the Ryder Cup golf tournament at Bethpage, Long Island, which was more like a drunken beach party. The match pitting a team of American golfers against a European team, was marred by rowdy, drunken American fans, hurling insults, water bottles and beer cans at the European team and in general behaving like a bunch of drunken hoodlums. Not what one would expect at a major golf tournament. It was also embarrassing for the American team and, indeed, another reason for Europeans to lose respect for this country. Europe won the match, by the way.

    So let’s start from the top. 1. Trump appointed Hegseth, a Fox News personality with a drinking problem, to head the Defense Department, a job for which he is criminally unqualified. 2. Trump also refuses to negotiate a budget deal with Democrats on the budget because he is not capable of understanding political negotiations. It’s too difficult. For him it’s always warfare and he doesn’t care about the casualties. 3. Trump clearly doesn’t want the Epstein files released because his name is all over them and Johnson is totally in his pocket. 4. Trump, perhaps the most famous golfer in the country, has given a large segment of the population permission to behave like ignorant buffoons and worse in public via his own language in public, including name-calling political rivals and encouraging an attack on the U.S. Capitol and then pardoning those responsible for the attack. And he has provided the example to followers that it is acceptable to publicly insult allies, be it Team Europe or members of NATO and indeed the entire United Nations. There is no friendly competition, only us versus them and they are the bad guys.

    So there it is. If you haven’t guessed yet, Trump is the famous politician who uttered that quote at the top. These problems all started from the top. They need to be solved, from the top.

    Prove me wrong.

National Guard troops picking up trash in Washington, D.C.

By Bob Gaydos

The National Guard is picking up trash in Washington, D.C.  This, my fellow Americans, is apparently the crisis Donald Trump felt could not be handled by regular employees of the nation’s capital. It is also an insult to every member of the National Guard units on duty in Washington and, indeed, to anyone who now serves or ever served in a National Guard unit anywhere in the country.

These are private citizens with jobs and families and responsibilities and lives to lead who signed up to help their communities, their nation if need be, in times of crisis. Like, maybe, an angry mob assaulting the Capitol, assaulting police officers, running wild through the seat of the nation’s government, threatening the Vice President, trying to undo an election. A time to be of service.

Instead. Picking up the trash. At a million dollars a day, no less. Simply because someone in the White House apparently got tired of all the criticism levied at the absurd reason given for the callup in the first place. Crime is running rampant in D.C., Trump claimed. A lie. The crime rate is down.

Beyond that, the National Guard is not a police force. It is not trained or even authorized to make arrests. It does not do riot control. It is not authorized to fire on its fellow citizens and, in fact, it showed up for duty in D.C. without carrying weapons.

And it stood around for days in uniform, looking like a bewildered occupying army, occasionally walking through streets or standing in front of buildings. So Trump could look tough. The man who could have called up the Guard to stop the January 6 assault on the Capitol but chose to watch it unfold on TV for three hours without doing anything, now has his little private army surrounding him and standing around doing nothing, away from their families and jobs and meaningful activities

Someone in the White House eventually had the idea to allow them to carry weapons. Apparently Kent State was written out of U.S. history. Then some genius apparently said have them pick up the trash. Clean up some graffiti. At least they’d be doing something.

Insulting. Embarrassing. Infuriating. Ignorant and arrogant. Everything Trump and his toadies are. Millions of Americans have served or are serving in National Guard units in every state as well as D.C. They signed up for a variety of reasons, going through regular training as citizen soldiers knowing that there was always the possibility they would be called up to help in some legitimate local state crisis and possibly even to serve on active duty with the regular military.

Not to pick up the trash because at least it looks like they’re not just standing around wasting taxpayers’ money.

Trump says he’s going to do the same thing in other Democrat-governed cities because, well, just because he wants to try to scare people by sending in an armed force even though there is no justification for it. The man who has called people who serve in the military “suckers“ or “losers,“ likes to play commander-in-chief but doesn’t know anything but fear, threats and retribution. Hollow, shallow and, more and more, alone in his own mind. It’s beyond troubling.

Fortunately, some governors and mayors are telling him to pound salt. We don’t have a crisis and don’t need you to create one to feed your ego and your fellow racists.

Maybe some military folk should speak up, too. And some Republican elected officials, especially those who have served and may still serve in some Guard unit. The lies and insults and abuse of power can become routine when they are a daily occurrence. Even without a legitimate mission, an occupying army is still an occupying army.

If the Guard is going to take out the trash in Washington, D.C., it should start with the Oval Office. That would be responding to a legitimate crisis.

By Bob Gaydos

Heavily armed police watch protesters in Ferguson, Mo.

A white cop shoots and kills an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., and police respond to the ensuing peaceful demonstration with a massive display of manpower in riot gear. They are supported by armored vehicles mounted with heavy weaponry, lots of rifles and automatic weapons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and verbal threats to shoot anyone who dares resist. They arrest anyone with a camera, including journalists.

Suddenly, Americans notice that many of their police departments resemble occupying armies more than agencies charged with protecting and preserving the peace in their communities.

Where have you been, America? This has been going on — gaining momentum, in fact — for several years. Indeed, the militarization of domestic police forces and the use of modern military equipment and tactics played a major role in quelling the Occupy movement demonstrations a couple of years ago.

The Occupiers were unarmed private citizens, who gathered across the country, protesting the power and privilege large corporations and banks were given by Congress to use and abuse the economy to their benefit at the expense of individuals. The citizen protesters were treated by police as if they were terrorists. They were tear-gassed, Maced, had rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades fired at them. They were roughed up and arrested, all by local police armed with military grade weapons and supported by armored vehicles.

The military hardware came free, courtesy of a Congress looking to do something with surplus military equipment. (The idea of maybe spending less money on military equipment in the first place apparently has not occurred to the members.) Today, dozens of police departments across the country have such military gear at their disposal. What they apparently don’t have is the proper training to use such equipment appropriately and judiciously.

That is, like a police force dealing with private citizens exercising their constitutional rights to assemble, to speak, to report on the goings on, rather than like an army moving in with intimidating force, intent on quashing resistance in any and all ways. Those weapons, remember, are not intended just to scare. They are designed to kill.

But deadly force, or the threat of it, should not be the first option for a police force dealing with unarmed citizens and peaceful demonstrations. Yes, troublemakers need to be dealt with, but again, police should be trained to do that without automatically resorting to threats and aggressive actions against everyone. When protests are handled properly by police at the outset, there is less likelihood or opportunity for troublemakers to join in. The longer confrontations last and the more aggressive police action becomes, the more likely it is that things will get worse because of outside agitation.

But it’s almost as if, in putting on the new military gear and marching alongside armored vehicles, the mindset of the police changes from preserving the peace and protecting their fellow citizens to overpowering anyone who stands in their way.

In Ferguson, the obvious racism of the local police only increased the us-versus-them mentality. But even during the Occupy sit-ins, police seemed to forget that they were — are — us, and that the protesters were speaking on their behalf, too. The mission has been clouded.

There’s talk in Congress now of, not only stopping the giveaway of military hardware to police, but taking some of it back. Good luck with that. Some agencies might be able to admit they don’t really need it, but a lot of others are not going to want to give it up. And cops vote.

The Ferguson shooting and the abysmal handling of it by local authorities has led to a movement called “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” The Occupy community has been part of the coordination. This movement has been fueled by incidents elsewhere similar to that in Ferguson. It speaks to the breakdown of trust between blacks and police, something that was already badly strained.

And not all the incidents involved weapons. An unarmed black man died on Staten Island recently, apparently the result of a chokehold applied by a police officer. The hold has been banned for years by New York police. The man was selling loose cigarettes. Michael Brown, the youth shot in Ferguson, had shoplifted a box of cigars.

There’s obviously something more going on here. Taking the military hardware away from police may be a good start on reminding them of their mission, but massive retraining and serious recruiting of minorities would seem to be even more critical.

A caveat: Not all police departments behave the same way. It would behoove community groups, politicians, concerned citizens to identify those agencies that understand their role as police, not an occupying army, and that demonstrate the proper way to fulfill it. Use them as models to teach those that don’t. They can start in Ferguson.

rjgaydos@gmail.com