Milley’s Soft Coup While well-intentioned, the Chairman's actions were illegal and dangerous. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/milleys-soft-coup/ excerpt: In addition to my longstanding view that reporters who have information vital to the public have a duty to publish that information as soon as it is vetted rather than saving it to juice future book sales, this raises troubling questions about the propriety of Milley’s actions. Regular readers know that I agree with his assessment of Trump’s mental state and fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. But it is the job of civilian policymakers, not the armed forces—much less the Chairman—to check an unstable President. Milley is not in the chain of command. His perch is the most prestigious in the US armed forces but his role is to serve as the principal uniformed advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council. He can not, therefore, “pull a Schlesinger.” The Secretary of Defense is second in command of the armed forces, appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and empowered by statute to make policy. Were the President to decide, against the advice of the Chairman, to launch a surprise attack on China, Milley would have a handful of options. He could, of course, obey orders and help execute the mission. If he believed the attack to be illegal under US or international law, he could certainly go to Congress and express his concerns. He could resign and take his concerns public. But it would be an act of literal treason for the Chairman to call his Chinese counterpart to warn him. Nor is the Chairman a decider on the use of nuclear weapons. That call, again, is that of the President. By law, the Secretary of Defense has to verify the order of the President and, as a Senate-confirmed policymaker, his refusal to carry out the President’s order would carry a lot of weight. But, ultimately, the President makes the call. Telling other officers to defy the orders of the Commander-in-Chief until the Chairman could be consulted is a huge, huge red flag. Further, while it’s perfectly reasonable for the Chairman to assure the Speaker of the House that there are protocols in place to prevent the rash use of nuclear weapons, expressing his opinion that the President is crazy is at best unprofessional and quite arguably a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s Article 88 prohibition of “contemptuous words” against certain officials. more at the link
This is how a tone deaf "moderate conservative" pleads to or gaslights sane people, all while ignoring the fire burning down their own building. Republicans controlled Congress with a bent knee to Trump, doxxed whistleblowers that lead to his impeachment and farted at another impeachment sentencing with no consequence or sense of shame. Oh, but there are certainly reasonable venues for him to alert his misgivings Totally glad he risked his cushy pension and future Golden Handcuffs as a Military Consultant to avert any risk of thermonuclear war. What a traitor...to the Republican flag!
They would definitely do EVERYTHING in their power to make sure the transcript never see the light of day WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS and LYING ABOUT WHAT IS IN THE TRANSCRIPT Rocket River
Don't know about you, but I'll take "unprofessional" and "contemptuous" over aiding and abetting nuclear holocaust.
His counterpart in China called up the US Secretary of HHS on covid outbreak in China. They talk to each other often on matters that concern both nations. Talking between high-level officials happens all the time. It is indeed very stupid to think that doesn't happen. Imagine a world where officials can't talk to each other. And it was not "secret" calls according to the latest reporting. There were 15 people in the calls with recorded transcripts and representation from multiple departments.
I love this man. And the disrespect to General Miley, a man who has served this country for 40 years and to label him treasonous over a clown show character like Trump is absurd. People like @Commodore need to ****ing wake the **** up and understand what the **** they are accusing and who they are accusing.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/waitin...ward-report-11631744398?mod=opinion_lead_pos1 Waiting for General Milley The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has more explaining to do. By The Editorial Board Sept. 15, 2021 6:45 pm ET Donald Trump’s behavior as a candidate and President unhinged some of America’s vital institutions, including the press and the FBI. It would be disturbing to find out that military leaders also responded to the President’s norm-breaking by betraying their institutional obligations. That’s the implication of a report of national-security freelancing by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley at the end of Mr. Trump’s term. Congress needs to find out how much is true—not because of partisan demands for retribution against the general, but because even the appearance of attenuating civilian control of the military is damaging to democracy. A forthcoming book by journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa alleges that Gen. Milley called China’s top military commander shortly before the November election and said, “If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.” After the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and a call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gen. Milley tried to increase his control over nuclear launch procedures out of fear of what Mr. Trump might do. Mr. Woodward’s opaque method makes it impossible to judge the accuracy of his reporting. He relates conversations he didn’t hear based on sources whose motives aren’t explained. Those on the right now demanding Gen. Milley’s head based on Mr. Woodward’s book were rightly cautious of the journalist’s insider accounts of GOP presidencies. Yet the statement from Gen. Milley’s spokesman released Wednesday contains no denials. It merely says the general’s “calls with the Chinese and others in October and January” were intended to “maintain strategic stability” and were “communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency.” It says the nuclear-weapons meeting in January “was to remind uniformed leaders in the Pentagon of the long-established and robust procedures in light of media reporting on the subject.” Four-star generals have always been political actors, though the trend has accelerated in recent years as they try to please a wider range of constituencies. Gen. Milley was nominated by Mr. Trump in 2018 but sought to distance himself amid the summer 2020 riots. He apologized for appearing with President Trump in Lafayatte Square in June after U.S. Park Police moved against protesters outside the White House, publicized his opposition to using troops to suppress riots, and expressed support for Black Lives Matter protests. Gen. Milley should be asked to clarify, under oath, the context of his communications with China and nuclear launch procedure when he testifies before the Senate on Sept. 28. America’s military brass rightly has deconfliction channels open with adversaries when their forces are in proximity, but promising a tip off before the President ordered an attack would be an outrageous usurpation. While the military reviewing “long-established” nuclear protocols is hardly a scandal, the book suggests this was done after his calls with Mrs. Pelosi. Generals can take her calls, but she’s not in the chain of command. Mr. Trump was erratic in the final days of his term, staging an unprecedented if doomed political effort to overturn an American election. But if Gen. Milley genuinely felt the President was that much of a global menace, he should have sounded the alarm and resigned. Figures like William Barr and Don McGahn constrained Mr. Trump’s worst instincts without eviscerating political norms. Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs are typically respected across the political aisle. Gen. Milley’s reputation is already damaged by a botched Afghanistan withdrawal and a Kabul drone strike that killed civilians and is still unexplained. Even if Mr. Biden retains confidence in Gen. Milley, as he said Wednesday, the general’s credibility is in doubt. If the book’s account isn’t accurate, he needs to say so explicitly and specifically. If Americans are to trust their democratic institutions, and the world’s other powers are to trust America’s defense commitments, it needs to be clear that the military is under the elected President’s control. Appeared in the September 16, 2021, print edition.
