WASHINGTON
 — For weeks before the midterm elections, President Trump warned 
ominously about the threat from a caravan of migrants streaming from 
Central America toward Mexico’s border with the United States. It was a 
fearsome mix of criminals and “unknown Middle Easterners,” Mr. Trump 
claimed darkly, one that constituted a genuine national emergency.
But
 since the election last week, Mr. Trump has tweeted about the caravan 
exactly once — to issue a proclamation preventing those who cross the 
border illegally from applying for asylum in the United States. Fox 
News, which faithfully amplified Mr. Trump’s warnings about the 
migrants, has gone similarly quiet on the subject.
There
 was little dispute, even before Election Day, that Mr. Trump was 
exploiting the caravan for political purposes. But analysts, historians 
and veterans of previous administrations said there were few comparable 
instances of a commander in chief warning about what he called a looming
 threat, only to drop it as soon as people voted.
While the caravan has faded from television screens, the costs of Mr. Trump’s response to it have not. Nearly 
6,000 active-duty troops remain deployed
 from the Gulf Coast to Southern California, where they are putting up 
tents and stringing concertina wire to face a ragtag band that is still 
not near the border.
 
 
“Now
 that the political utility of troops on the southern border to face a 
fictitious caravan invasion threat is over,” said Adm. James G. 
Stavridis, a former commander of the military’s Southern Command, “let’s
 hope the president will stand down the troops so they can be with their
 families — especially over the holidays.”
But
 some officials in the Defense Department worry that Mr. Trump could do 
the opposite — seek an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 
law that prohibits the government from using active-duty troops to 
enforce laws inside the country’s borders.
As
 pure political calculation, analysts from both parties said that 
seizing on the caravan mobilized Republican voters, dramatizing 
immigration in a way that resonated with Mr. Trump’s political base. But
 it is far less clear that the dire warnings helped Republican 
candidates with independents or other late-deciding voters.
In some places like Arizona, where the Democratic Senate candidate, Kyrsten Sinema, 
narrowly beat her Republican opponent,
 Martha McSally, analysts said the caravan might actually have 
backfired. Ms. McSally echoed Mr. Trump’s language about the coming wave
 of migrants, calling it a “public safety and national security issue.”
 
 
David
 Axelrod, a former aide to President Barack Obama, said on Twitter, “The
 president’s calculated histrionics about the caravan, about which we 
have heard very little since Election Day, may have sunk the @GOP in 
AZ.”
 
 
In
 exit polls, voters who made up their minds in the last three days 
before the election said they voted for Democrats over Republicans 53 
percent to 41 percent. That coincides with the period in which Mr. Trump
 redoubled his focus on the caravan, rejecting the advice of aides who 
wanted to air a commercial promoting the healthy economy.
Exit
 polls did not contain a specific question about the caravan. But they 
did show that voters who made up their minds in the final week of the 
campaign, before Mr. Trump’s last-minute push, chose Democrats over 
Republicans by a narrower tally: 49 percent to 48 percent.
Privately,
 Republican pollsters pointed to the fact that their party had picked up
 just three of 10 Senate seats held by Democrats as evidence of the 
ambiguous effect the caravan crusade had on Republicans.
At
 one campaign rally after another, Mr. Trump said the election came down
 to “the caravan, law and order, and common sense.” In Mesa, Ariz., on 
Oct. 19, he said: “You got some bad people in those groups. You got some
 tough people in those groups. And I’ll tell you what — this country 
doesn’t want them. O.K.? We don’t want them.”
A
 day earlier, he tweeted about the “assault on our country at our 
Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in.”
Mr.
 Trump posted footage of an undocumented immigrant on trial for killing a
 police officer, and his campaign organization produced an ad featuring 
migrants trying to scale a wall to dramatize the stakes of the election.
 
 
“I’ve
 never before seen an American president, after going all over the 
country about this national crisis, then the day after an election 
shrug,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice 
University.
The 
closest parallel that Mr. Brinkley drew was to President Lyndon B. 
Johnson, who seized on — and mischaracterized — two murky encounters 
between American and North Vietnamese warships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 
1964 as a pretext to accelerate America’s engagement in the Vietnam War.
 Still, he said, Mr. Trump’s response was of a different order.
 
 
“It
 was a dangerous form of xenophobia, aimed solely for electoral purposes
 and had nothing to do in the end with real national security,” Mr. 
Brinkley said.
For 
the troops, so far, it has mostly been an expensive field trip. The cost
 of the deployment is not known, but budget officials believe it could 
reach $200 million if all 15,000 troops that Mr. Trump pledged are 
ultimately sent.
Defense
 Secretary Jim Mattis said on Tuesday that the Pentagon was “capturing” 
the expenses daily and would update the public when he knew the total 
cost. On Wednesday, Mr. Mattis plans to meet with soldiers at Base Camp 
Donna, the forward operating base built over the last month near the Rio
 Grande.
Mr. Mattis 
said there had been no change to the mission; the troops were not 
receiving extra combat or hostile-fire pay. His visit, a defense 
official said, is meant to be low key and reminiscent of his days as a 
Marine general, when he could meet front-line troops with little 
fanfare.
 
 
Living
 conditions at Base Camp Donna are spare, but since its construction 
this month, the Army has added showers and a larger living area aside 
from the initial allotment of tents.
Defenders of Mr. Trump said the troops would take little notice of his sudden lack of emphasis on the caravan.
“Knowing
 the troops, knowing how busy they are, they’re not focused on him,” 
said Jack Keane, a retired four-star general who is a former vice chief 
of staff of the Army. “They’ve got a job to do.”
But
 other former military officers said the soldiers were well aware of the
 political motivation behind their mission. Lacking much else to do, 
they will quickly pick up on Mr. Trump’s loss of interest in the 
caravan, and it will add to their already depleted morale.
“Having
 spent months in the desert with nothing to do, at least we had 
scorpions to have scorpion fights with,” said John A. Nagl, a retired 
Army lieutenant colonel who served in Operation Desert Shield in 1990 
and 1991.
“But we had a real mission,” he said. “These guys don’t have that.”
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment