In their new book, Bob Woodward and Robert Costa report that Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was worried that Donald Trump might do something deranged after losing the 2020 election. So he did two things.
First, he called the head of China's military to assure him that the US was stable and had no plans to start a war. Second, he convened his senior officers and told them to let him know if they received orders to launch nuclear weapons. This came after a phone call with Nancy Pelosi following the January 6 insurrection in which they both agreed that Trump's mental capacity had deteriorated and he was going crazy.
The big question here is whether Milley's actions violated the US tradition of civilian control of the military. Was he seizing control from Trump, the legally elected commander-in-chief?
On the calls to China, I don't see it. It's routine for people in Milley's position to speak privately with their counterparts in other countries, and all Milley did was try to reassure Li Zuocheng that he had no need to worry about a surprise attack. That doesn't strike me as being outside his lane, especially taking into account that Trump really was acting so erratically that even his own staff was deeply worried about him. Reassuring both allies and adversaries is part of the territory under circumstances like this.
The call with Pelosi and the order to his senior officers is a different thing entirely. The former could easily be construed as a conspiracy to oppose the president, and the latter could just as easily be construed as direct interference in the president's legal authority over nuclear weapons.
At the same time, what do you do if you honestly think the president is acting so bizarrely that he can't be trusted? Just sit around and stew about it? There are, unfortunately, things that simply aren't black and white.
My tentative sense is that (a) Milley did the right thing, but (b) he needed to resign afterward. That's a heavy price, but if the situation is that serious you need to demonstrate clearly that it's a price you're willing to pay. A personal sacrifice sends the message that you take civilian control of the military seriously even if you felt you had to interfere with it temporarily under extraordinary circumstances.
Resigning isn't a "heavy price" for Milley. He has not political ambitions and can just slip into comfortable retirement. Indeed, he'll have paid speaking gigs till kingdom come.
"Second, he convened his senior officers and told them to let him know if they received orders to launch nuclear weapons."
If he told them to disregard Trump's orders outright then I'd agree with Kevin, but if all he asked for was to be notified if such and order came through, after which he'd presumably go straight to Trump to try to talk him out of his madness, then that would still be him acting within his position and fulfilling his duty as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Agree.
Exactly! and, thank you for making that quite clear.
I agree to an extent, but it's clear Trump had no authority to order a nuclear strike on anyone. Congress has certainly been delinquent in allowing presidents to get around its constitutional prerogative to declare wars, but not to the extent that a president can unilaterally decide to start the most destructive war in history for no good reason. Milley should have done what you say, and if Trump persisted, directed the relevant combat commanders not to obey an unlawful order.
It's all a bit academic. I imagine the first thing a general would have done after the election if Trump ordered them to nuke someone would have been to place an urgent call to Milley and/or Pence, saying "Do you know what the maniac just did?"
This was my reaction as well. Milley did the right thing for the country, but the wrong thing when it comes to affirming civilian control of the military. He should have given Biden his resignation on Jan. 20. and informed him about what he did.
I'll also note that the Trumpsters thought it was absolutely outrageous when Mike Flynn was investigated for attempting to short-circuit Obama's sanctioning of Russia in the wake of their interference in the 2016 election. Totally routine for an incoming natsec advisor to use a backchannel to the Russians to undermine the current administration's policy. Now they're calling for Milley's head? Give me a break.
I'm not clear on when Kevin Drum thinks Milley should have resigned. On the day of Biden's inauguration?
No, right after telling his subordinates to go through him. That way, the Wackadoo in Chief could appoint a certified stooge to Milley's position and go ahead with Armageddon. Civilian control at all costs!
I'm no military expert, but from what I understand, the "nuclear football" that launches the missiles is simply designed to confirm that the real POTUS is in fact authorizing a strike, not that the POTUS was in full possession of his faculties when he did so. It's unclear how or if the SecDef, chairman of the NatSec council, or Chair of the Joint Chiefs can actually intervene to stop a launch once the codes are sent. It's a bit of a problem because as long as Trumpism remains a force in American politics, the chances of another mentally unstable/ideologically unhinged president coming to power in the future is not out of the question.
According to the book and Milley's comments, nothing was ever discussed over intervention. He simply wanted assurances that he would be informed.
There may be more to this, Swan over at Axios says that Mark Esper was involved and there was a larger group of people in meetings.
https://www.axios.com/mark-milley-woodward-trump-crisis-bb8a80b1-3e3a-492b-934a-99825cc6ef7f.html
There were crazy rumors back in January that Trumps cabinet had agreed to a de-facto 25th amendment putting Pence in charge. I wonder about that.
Tillerson, Mattis and Mnuchin, and I think it was confirmed. Tbf there were a few GOPers around the country that stepped up when the time came even though some are lying now to escape the Trump purity blood letting now (looking at you Pence).
Looks like there's confirmation on Esper took the lead on this, not sure how this effects the fallout, other than more faux channel outrage.
https://www.mediaite.com/news/officials-say-defense-secretary-mark-esper-took-lead-on-gen-milleys-calls-to-china/
Slate has a write up on this too. In other words, no collusion with China. As for the "order" to officials--it really was a call for them to follow protocols to the letter.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/milley-woodward-book-trump-nuclear-chain-of-command.html
Milley did what he had to do because the US Senate failed in their duty. Pretty simple.
He shouldn't do it, at least not in the short term. If i were to resign it would be a vindication for Trump (he ask for his resignation/arrest) and his followers that he was wrong for acting like he did.
Your president didn’t even have an army to command back in 1789!
Today are you handing over the unchallenged command of the most powerful military in the history of mankind to someone who’s merits is being a modestly successful reality show host..
Maybe it’s time to realize we no longer are living in the 18th century
A small reminder from a Swede
Once again, I miss the "Like" button. Thanks for this.
Actually our President in 1789 was in charge of the army we did have, George Washington. And he did use the army to force farmers in western PA to pay what they owed in taxes a few years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
But the point remains, far different army than today!
actually washington did have a national army at his disposal in 1789. in fact, washington took his title as commander in chief so seriously that he personally lead the army, in uniform no less, to suppress the whiskey rebellion in 1794. if you're going to comment on u.s. history, know it first.
the concept behind civilian control of the military is simple: it prevents the military from becoming an entity unto itself — an entity that could rival or even threaten civil government. it's hardly an outdated idea. the president of the united states is elected and accountable to the electorate; the generals who lead the troops are not. also note that it's allowed presidents like lincoln to find generals like grant in 1864 and roosevelt to find generals like marshall and eisenhower in 1942.
beyond that, every man and woman who enters the military swears an oath to defend the constitution, not the president. military people, like gen. milley, take that oath seriously. it's the reason why, despite handwringing from some, the odds of military involvement in a coup to keep trump (or any president who might attempt one) in power was only slightly greater than nil.
our constitution is certainly flawed, but it's been around a lot longer than sweden's been a democracy. there are things in it that work.
If you call this an army….
“After the war the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of the First American Regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. “
(A quote from a history site)
The military is under civilian control in all western democracies I know of but that doesn’t mean the operational control is granted to one single nonprofessional civilian as it was when sovereign monarchs existed
One can probably find things that still are working …if we once again are talking about your Constitution but the oldest car out on the road is hardly the best one and the same goes for a Constitution that hasn’t had any important changes (amendments) these last 100 years
If you call this an army….“After the war the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies..."
Washington didn't become president immediately "after the war" but some six years later.
Your ignorance about the United States of America is truly impressive for someone with such (misplaced) confidence in his pronouncements about all things American.
Sigh…
I wasn’t talking about Washington or any specific person I was talking about your “president” as an office .
When your Constitution was affirmed didn’t an army exist and , as I understand it, wasn’t asked for
The fact that it soon was obvious that an standing army was needed has nothing to do with the situation when the Constitution was drafted
Trump was in the WH. Pence was in the Senate chamber and under "attack" by people with signs indicating they wanted to hang him.
So, it's NOT OK to talk to THE NEXT person in the line of succession? To plan for all contigencies???
Shades of Afghanistan !!!!!
Everyone is assuming that Woodward's account is factual. Over the years, Woodward always gets these insider stories that seem to be just a little too good to be true. I'll wait for this story to be corroborated before I pass judgment.
Yes.
Follow the money.
In this case, Bob's advance.
I think Woodward gets these stories because he's been hanging around DC through eight administrations. He knows everyone there, he actively cultivates sources, and apparently he's pretty persuasive. He's also more famous than most of the people in the government, and people want to tell him things.
For this book he worked with Bob Costa, a much younger reporter but one cast in Woodward's mold: constantly patrolling the halls of power for information and building a reservoir of sources -- people who remain in the government through repeated regime changes. Between the two of them they may actually know everyone in DC.
Over the decades, many of Woodward's revelations have been vehemently denied -- not by the sources, but by the principals -- but I can't think of any time he's had to walk back an anecdote from any of his books because it was too good to be true.
Also, Yamiche Alcindor said on PBS yesterday that she has confirmed some of the more incendiary stories through her own sources.
Woodward's purported deathbed interview with CIA Director William Casey strains credulity. I've been wary of Woodward ever since.
So Woodward is the Walter Winchel (sp?) of politics?
"My tentative sense is that (a) Milley did the right thing, but (b) he needed to resign afterward."
Shortly after Bill Clinton was impeached, speaker Livingston resigned when his own affairs became public. Comedian Mark Russel quipped "There is a litte known provision of the Constitution that requires that, if the president is caught dallying with an intern, the speaker of the House shall resign."
Regardless of what happens now with Gen. Milley, or what he should have done back then, what it is clear is that when it comes to pre-emptively using nukes (and I'd argue any type of military action in general) against a nation not openly at war, the decision should not be in the hands of a single person. The world could literally end if a madman like Trump or Trump himself gets back into the Oval Office and one day decides to throw a tantrum because reasons.
Once again, lest we forget:
... or something like that. I saw a few variations.
+1
But he ran to her left.
On a lot of things.
Please enumerate.
This is emphatically the lesson to be learned. The US Congress needs to adopt and enforce a no-first-use policy, and require a multi-authority protocol that determines whether an enemy has launched a strike.
There's a reason the system works the way it works. That's because the launch systems are so quick, a rapid first-strike ability is the only real deterrent of nuclear attack.
Much better to hit Russia right before they launch than right after.
If you need to launch because a missle is on its way, or its launch is imminent (as in you just received unquestionable confirmation that they are about to launch), then you aren't attacking pre-emptively, you are responding to what the other nation did.
I'm talking about launching an attack when there is really no imminent threat nor need to do so, and the attack is merely due to the President wanting to do so because he can.
I don't think Kevin's thought this through.
First, in what way did Milley compromise civilian control of the military? A preemptive strike of any kind (not just nuclear) would be a war crime and also an order which Milley would have been entirely justified in refusing to obey. He simply stated in advance to Americans and Chinese leaders that they needn't be worried or on a hair-trigger about a nuclear first strike because the order to launch would be illegal and he wouldn't obey an illegal order.
Second, by resigning, wouldn't Milley make a nuclear war with China more likely? The natural assumption by the Chinese would be that Milley's resignation meant that because Trump's political situation was dire, a nuclear first-strike by the Americans was almost certainly imminent? As indeed it would have been since with Milley gone, his successor (named by Trump) would almost certainly have to be presumed willing to carry out the first-strike Milley was warning against. So China would be in the position of either launching its own preemptive first-strike or being wiped out by Trump and his Republican allies.
Third, it seems to me that Kevin's missing the really crucial point here: The fact that Milley was the necessary backstop to prevent both a global thermonuclear war and a violent self-coup by Trump means that the more genteel world that most of us grew up is not our world today. This was a radical event in American history, the response to which has been grossly inadequate by the Democratic Party.
Thank you.
Would the order have been illegal under US law? IIRC, the US has never announced a no-first-use policy.
Technically, it is international law which would apply since otherwise there would be no such thing as a war crime since a country which would launch wars of aggression or herd political enemies into death camps could immunize itself from consequences by legalizing such things in domestic law. Equally technically, a military attack waged without the justification of self-defense is a war crime. The order to launch such an attack is technically illegal and obeying such an order is itself illegal and not a defense in a subsequent war crimes trial.
As a practical matter, the US military considers itself inherently incapable of committing war crimes. It rarely prosecutes its own war criminals and when it does it typically either acquits them or pardons them. And frequently exalts war crimes as "toughness" or "patriotic".
But, on the other hand, technically Milley would have been justified in refusing an order that was clear illegal under the laws of war and other aspects of international law. But, of course, if he resigned as Kevin suggests, his sucessor (loyal to Trump) would've either launched attack or provided troops for a self-coup or both; after which president-for-life Donald Trump would've had Milley shot. All of which suggests that maybe Kevin needs to rethink things a bit.
Well said. This was a crisis, and I think Milley did the right thing in the crisis. If there were (or still are) questions about whether the military in general or Milley specifically defied the chain of command, the time to sort that out is after the crisis of transition has passed. I see no evidence of Milley or the Joint Chiefs not following civilian orders.
Your post is irrelevant because everything enabling the Trump Organization was foreign. It's also why his foreign handlers called off the counter protesters and the "battle outside the capital" . Sadly, the organization itself imploded which led to the capitol riot. I suspect Trump's Alzheimer's was a part of this. He is a puppet now. A rapidly aging one for the Organization. A Organization cut off from its handlers.
I’m pretty sure Kevin’s not suggesting that the general should’ve resigned while Trump was still in office, but rather, after Biden had taken over.
But the question is why should he resign at all? The consensus on here seems to be that Milley should not resign because he neither refused to obey a legal order nor went outside of the chain of command. But if he should resign (for whatever reason Kevin ultimately decides upon), why should he remain in power illegally and illegitimately undermining civilian authority until we are safely out of danger?
I don't see it. For reasons other people have stated, and also - if Milley was taking steps to prevent an order from being followed before determining the legality of the order... Military personnel are obligated NOT to follow illegal orders.
There's nothing resign-able/fire-able here.
Kevin, your call for his resignation would carry more weight if you could cite a remotely similar example from your life thus far where you took the oath you suggest he take.
Path …
I’m happy to see an army general hung out to dry. When can we hang trump?
Trump was not a general. and, likely, will never be one.
yes because of your preconceived and uninformed notion of what the military is. you want to blame the military for all our wars, fine. but in each, they were acting on the orders of a duly elected president, not on their own authority.
It's the other way around. The China call was the real subversion of civilian authority over government. This was no ordinary call from one officer to another. Milley knew his assurances would reach the highest levels of the Chinese government and that's precisely why he gave them. They'd have no value at a lower level. Imagine general Patton phoning his German counterpart to say: "Don't worry, I guarantee we won't be landing in Normandy." That would be a message to Hitler, not a mere general. And it would be insubordinate to Roosevelt.
Inserting himself into the command chain as regards nukes, though, was just precautionary. He wasn't claiming military authority over launching decisions, not yet at least, nor did he didn't prevent any strike. But when you know a launch takes as little as five minutes, while invoking the 25th takes, ahem, a mite longer, and when you doubt whether it would be legal, prudence is a virtue.
China was a major bankroller of the Trump reelection campaign. Oh, how little we forget.
Thats a great point, but is sort of depends.
This wasn't the same as your hypothetical. For all we know there are routine general to general back channel calls where said generals assure other generals that political nonsense is just that.
If anything, basic intelligence means that those calls are then dissected - i.e., was that call a fake out? Without a ton of background no way to tell.
For example Putin calling Trump with assurances over whatever is clearly B.S.
Miley making a call might be much different.
I would imagine, and speculate, that other than Trump, actual calls between top officials in established governments are taken very, very seriously by both parties, for obvious reasons.
On the other side, as making an unauthorized call for a Chinese general means instant beheading or worse, I would bet those calls are very carefully made, and, accordingly, are taken as such on our side.
Can you imagine the problems Trumps idiotic tweets caused actual professionals? We haven't even scratched that surface.
I don’t think the analogy is apt. I see nothing about a hypothetical communication from Patton which wouldn’t be treasonous. I see nothing about Milley assuring Chinese officials that our military would not obey an illegal order from our mentally unbalanced president to launch a sneak attack in violation of international law.
I don't think that's what Milley told the Chinese. American presidents have ordered surprise attacks often enough. Not nuclear ones, but Milley wasn't necessarily speaking of that. He said there would be no surprise attack, period. Without knowing at that point what the outcome of the scholarly debate on its legality would be.
Imagine Trump was using Nixon's "madman theory". In such a case he might, dangerously but not illegally, want the Chinese to worry about a surprise attack. Would Milley have the right to undercut that? Morally, to me, yes, if he thought Trump wasn't pretending to be crazy but really was. But legally probably not.
The problem here is that we’re talking two different things: on the one hand, the practicalities of domestic politics of a country which considers itself exempt from international law and its military to be exempt from the rules of war and even its own code of conduct which has been reduced to a propaganda tool which is completely divorced from how the American military actually conducts itself. But, on the other hand, we freely apply international law to vanquished enemies.
As a matter of the law which we apply to others but not ourselves, assuring foreign governments that our military does not participate in wars of aggression, does not launch unprovoked sneak attacks, and does not follow illegal orders wouldn’t be a court-martial offense. So undercutting a “crazy” leader like Nixon or Trump by giving assurances that the American military does not commit war crimes is not a courts-martial offense, even if it does exhibit a shocking lack of self awareness.
The United States once hanged vanquished generals for following exactly the kind of order Milley was worried about.
That's completely backward. Highest level military contacts exist precisely to prevent misunderstanding and have for decades. Inserting into the chain of command where there is no formal role for him was the extra legal part (and i'm glad he did so).
Prevent what misunderstanding? This, repeat, was no ordinary call from one officer to another. It was an affirmation of US policy which Milley was not sure existed let alone would continue to exist.
as i understand it, there were routine military exercises going on in the region at the time. again, as i understand it, the milley call was intended to convey just that, that the exercises were routine and not intended to be a provocation, especially in context with belligerent messaging coming out of the white house.
i'm not a lawyer. don't pretend to be. but a surprise attack without any provocation from the chinese would be illegal, and that milley would be obliged to disobey under international law and the ucmj.
Well, through Patton’s leadership of FUSAG, and the rest of the deception campaign along side of D-Day, in effect Parton was saying that to his German counterpart. He just wasn’t phoning them 🙂
It seems like the area we strayed into was the space between military action (which the President can unilaterally take) and declaring war (which only Congress can do).
Since Vietnam (at least, I'm sure others know details) there has been the question of what force a President can authorize and what needs to be sanctioned by Congress.
If a nuclear strike = war, I see nothing wrong with a member of the joint Chiefs discussing the war, or possibility of it, with Congress, especially the speaker of the House.
Miley's concern, somewhat obviously, is that Trump was the type of guy to nuke first and ask questions later.
I had a chance to read the article and the discussion with Pelosi was two days AFTER 1/6 not the same day
Alexander Haig being in charge when Saint Ronnie was shot comes to mind here
This isn't a fie-able offense, but one that needs to be addressed in a private meeting between Milley and Biden along with Harris - and SHE plays a critical role here. Joe has GOT to trust Kamala, and Kamala has to trust the General but he has to trust BOTH of them. In the case of Trump - Trump didn't trust either of them, Pence trusted Trump to a point and Milley knew that Pence was targeted by the protesters and he did NOT trust Trump - so "that circle" was broken in several spots JB and KH have got to get the circle back into a round shape and solidify it
The vice president has no formal military role.
Vice President assumes command should an emergency use of the 25th be instituted
Under the circumstances of 1/6 the Speaker of the House would be number 2 should Pence have been "caught" in the chamber by the rioters, or otherwise removed from office. Then SHE would assume the office.
She has no role in the military but in the line of succession to the Oval Office she's 3rd in line
Then she would be CiC of all military forces
I actually agree with you. He should resign and then get the Medal of Freedom, a civilian honor.
Wait until Biden replaces Trump's ineffective tariffs with strict capital rules on stuff like steel........oh boy. It's coming. The global supply chain/cheap debt era will end. It's ending now.
As pointed out above, by the Constitution, the decision to make war is in the hands of Congress, not the President. This should be binding on the military as well as the President (who else would enforce this, the Supreme Court?). If he orders something like a first nuclear strike that would start a war, it is ipso facto illegal and should not be obeyed by the military.
The United States hasn't declared war since 1942 (On Romania, the last Axis power - minor historical trivia).
For what is worth, the Constitution simply states that Congress has the power to declare war, but it doesn't state that it has the "exclusive" power to do so. What it does have is the power to make the US go to war - with or without the President's consent.
Sadly, avoiding a first-strike secenario by any American President relies on someone in the chain of command doing a check-back.
Something we all rather not think about.
You know, I think there's an element of "hot take" in all of this. I have learned to be wary of Woodward, & the book itself is not yet published, is it? I think we need to have a more complete investigation. It sounds bad on the face of it but there has been a bit of countering already about the "secret" meeting.
On the other hand Steve Schmidt (another person to be wary of, but very eloquent) says Gen Milley should resign in any case because his effectiveness in as chairman is at an end. That might well be true - that's a political decision up to Mr Biden.
In this false equivalence world of split realities, it might be reassuring to know that when Republicans bring up issues over Biden what they're really doing is projecting over Trump's failings. But, it does not resolve the problem of a political party bent on bringing about the collapse of American democracy for the sake of power.
I am not sure that I understand this conversation here at all, or even Kevin.
What was under question was the certain ending of humanity on the Earth....by blast, by fire, radiation poisoning.
Ending of everything!
This isn't a question of morality, constitutional law...or anything for that matter.
Maybe there is a discussion on..."Should mankind possess the means and power to end all of mankind?"
Milley did the right thing in all three instances. I might note that Polsi is third in command after all....but I am guilty of falling back into fallacy that I accuse most everyone here, though of course not everyone, that this is an insane conversation to be having.
Fist acknowledge that what we are discussing is you being dead, your children being dead, there being no more children at all and mankind strangling to total death pus filed death from radiation poisoning.
Start your conversation with this fact and then there is maybe, but only maybe, something to say.
I am kind of in a shame on Kevin in these regards for being baited into this media conversation without noting the first necessary premises.
Good luck to mankind.
I sense that EVERYONE is afraid to have this conversation about their personal horrible death and the more lingering death of everyone that survives.
Traveller
I'm with Kevin.
I hate to circle back to a conversation that is largely over, but sometimes you must to keep the record clean and because the basic reporting of facts were substantially wrong:
1. The calls to China were apparently authorized by both Secretary's or Defense
2. All appropriate other US Agencies were in the room with about 15 people being there, notes being taken for the record, (unlike Trump in Helsinki)
3. This was not a secret private backdoor conversation as initially reported.
Just sayin`
Traveller
Although, this take suggests that there was nothing wrong with what Milley actually did, as opposed to the reporting of what he did.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/09/15/everyone-needs-to-stop-the-hysterics-regarding-general-milley-and-read-what-is-actually-being-reported/
"My tentative sense is that (a) Milley did the right thing, but (b) he needed to resign afterward. "
I agree and I hope he does so on his own accord rather than force Biden's hand. I appreciate the fact we're all not vaporized in a nuclear exchange with China but there's a chain of command for a reason and allowing to be violated in this sense even for the best of reasons is not acceptable as consequences must be faced.
Historically this is not the first time this has happened. Old timers should remember that Secretary of Defense James Schleisinger did the exact same thing back in 1974 during the final days of the Nixon Administration because Nixon had been drinking heavily and he worried that some Middle Eastern flare up would cause a drunken President to order a nuclear strike so he made sure no authorization of the use of nuclear weapons could happen without his assent. When the Ford people found out about it he was fired back in November of '75 and replaced with Donald Rumsfeld (the infamous "Halloween Massacre"). Again, the wrong application of policy for the right reasons.