A president at war needs resolute advice, not cheerleading

This is an opinion piece arguing that President Trump requires candid counsel from advisors rather than uncritical support as he pursues his policy agenda. The author contends that effective decision-making on domestic and military matters depends on officials presenting complete information—including risks and downsides—rather than simply validating the president's instincts. The piece reflects broader debate about how presidential advisory structures function during periods of significant policy change and potential military engagement. Without honest dissent from trusted advisors, the argument suggests, even well-intentioned decisions can proceed without full consideration of consequences. The underlying concern is that groupthink or fear of contradicting the president can undermine the deliberative process needed for sound governance.