Dangerous tension hangs over US President Donald Trump's relationship with the military after Defense Secretary Mark Esper rejected the White House master's call to deploy the military to control the protests, while former senior Pentagon figures, including Jim Mattis, criticized Trump's handling of the demonstrations.

And Esper's announcement on Wednesday that it opposed the deployment of soldiers on duty to control protests against the use of force by the police constituted an exceptional confrontation with the commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces.

"I do not support resorting to the law of the uprising," Esber said, referring to the law dating back to 1807 that Trump sought to enforce with the goal of deploying armed elements of the army to take control of the cities in protest. Hours later, Jim Mattis, Esper's predecessor, launched an attack on Trump. He wrote: “When I joined the army about 50 years ago, I swore to support and defend the constitution ... I never imagined that soldiers who were swearing an oath could take the matter, whatever the circumstances, to violate The constitutional rights of their citizens ».

Political goals

Two former chiefs of staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - now the most senior figures in the Pentagon - are now on the line of records. "America is not a battlefield," said retired general Martin Dempsey, who was chief of the General Staff from 2011 to 2015. Our citizens are not the enemies. ”

In turn, his predecessor, retired Admiral Mike Mullen, wrote, "I am deeply concerned that our army personnel will be re-employed while they are given orders for political ends."

These developments actually shake the image that Trump has repeatedly insisted on regarding his alliance with the military, something that he promotes in his political propaganda as an indication of his hardness. Esber appeared to agree with the president when he ordered the dispatch of 1,600 military police to the Washington area, to prepare for the event of increased riots, before calling on state governors to "take control of the battlefield."

The politicization of the army

When Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Millie appeared next to Trump last Monday to take memorial photos at a church near the White House, minutes after the security forces cleared the area of ​​the protesters, they seemed to agree with Trump's desire to deploy the soldiers.

But the US defense secretary retracted his position on the accusations that he was turning the military into a political tool in Trump's hands.

On Wednesday, Esber firmly confirmed his opposition to the use of soldiers on duty to deal with protesters.

In an effort to clarify their positions, Esber, Millie, and other Pentagon officials assured the soldiers that they had sworn to defend the US constitution, especially the right to freedom of expression.

A former Pentagon spokesman, David Laban, said he had never seen an opposition to this extent to the White House master, especially by a figure in Mattis' shrine.

"The president politicized the army in unprecedented ways," said Laban of the "Bipartisan Policy Institute".

He added that Esber and Milli were "very late and allowed the situation to worsen."

- Recent developments shake the image Trump has always insisted on regarding his alliance with the military, and promoted it in his political propaganda as an indication of his hardness.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news