Do you think there is a legitimate distinction between criticizing Trump’s wording and deciding whether the wording makes him a “small POTUS?
Trump called the Iran fighting a “military conflict” rather than a war because, in his words, it is “small potatoes for us” and “not a big thing.” This comes after 18 U.S. service members have died and the conflict has reportedly cost the U.S. more than $37.5 billion. Hhttps://www.wwnytv.com+1
Why would he say it?
There are several plausible reasons:
- Political messaging: Calling it a “war” makes the administration's military involvement sound much larger and more consequential. “Military conflict” and “small potatoes” make it sound limited and manageable.
- Defending his policy: If Trump portrays the conflict as relatively minor, he can argue that the military action has achieved its objectives without becoming another Vietnam- or Afghanistan-scale war.
- Responding to Vance: Vice President JD Vance had just said he wouldn't call it a war. Trump was essentially backing up his vice president's characterization. C
CBS News
- Domestic politics: The comments come ahead of the November midterms, when casualties, military spending and fuel prices could become politically damaging issues. P
Punch Newspapers
But there's an important problem with the rhetoric.
“Small for the United States” is not the same thing as “small.” Eighteen American service members are dead. Hundreds more have reportedly been wounded, and Iranian casualties are substantially higher, although the precise Iranian death toll remains uncertain. TThe Guardian
And there's an especially uncomfortable human dimension: the widow of an American airman killed during the Iran operations recently complained that she had initially been told the conflict wasn't a war while dealing with her husband's military benefits. AAP News
Does that make Trump a “small POTUS”?
Not automatically. But it is fair to say that the remark can make him look small in a presidential sense.
A president is entitled to argue that a military operation is strategically limited. In fact, that's potentially a perfectly reasonable argument: 18 deaths is tragic, but compared with the enormous casualty figures of Vietnam or Afghanistan, this is a relatively limited American military engagement.
But “small potatoes” is a remarkably dismissive way to describe the deaths of American service members and potentially thousands of Iranians.
There's a difference between:
“This is a limited military operation compared with previous American wars.”
and
“This is small potatoes.”
The first is a strategic assessment. The second can sound like the human cost doesn't matter very much.
So I wouldn't conclude, “Trump is a small president because he said this.” That's too broad. But I would say that the remark provides legitimate evidence for criticizing his judgment, empathy and presidential rhetoric.
And there's an interesting irony: if Trump himself authorized the military action, then minimizing it after American soldiers have died can look less like strength and more like an attempt to minimize responsibility for the consequences of his own decision.
That's probably the strongest criticism of the “small potatoes” comment.