posted by majorspark
What you have described would require the ability to read minds. Its an impossible to discern hypothetical.
I would argue offensive military action is far more unlikely and politically difficult during domestic turmoil. The POTUS is weakened. Its just too risky it doesn't distract it draws attention. The POTUS unilaterally approves a military attack he does not unilaterally create it.
A situation warranting a possible military response would have to be planned and hold the support of many on the national security team and materialize during domestic turmoil. Boogie used the term "magically" to describe opportunities for these types of missile strikes. That term leans my mind toward an orchestrated illusion for action. Which would necessitate conspirators.
Your hypothetical leans to selfish human nature in weighing options presented. Plausible but not conspiratorial as the latter would take more than one. Like I said impossible to discern.
If you think it would require reading minds, then I'm not explaining myself well enough.
I'm not sure how a president himself would be articulably weakened during an excessive amount of discord here in the US if military action draws attention to something other than itself (however that would work), unless you're talking about wanting re-election, which might, in theory, also be helped by military action, depending on how it's framed. Would you mind teasing that out?
I did use the term "approve" for that reason, as I understand that it's obviously more than just the president telling the military leaders, "Go invade BFEistan!" but I have to think the intelligence community is constantly feeding him intel, and at any given time, I'm sure there are at least a few national security leaders who would be on board, so I'm not sure why there wouldn't be an opportunity to move fairly frequently. As such, the "yes" really wouldn't HAVE to involve much consulting, and even if it did, there's nothing to suggest it would have to be honest.
Now, if I'm wrong about how frequently intelligence that could be argued as actionable comes in, or if I'm wrong about the notion that virtually any such action would be supported by at least a few military leaders, then certainly I'm willing to admit it, but if I'm right, then saying it's "magically" time to act with military force, while hyperbolic, would still lead to a plausible point.
But I digress to the fact that I don't actually espouse the view that military action is primarily a function of distraction. I think it's more arrogance, collective self-importance, and an inability to view other sovereign states as equal to our own, but that's one of those things that I think the two sides have demonstrated that they have in common.