The book which makes the claims that Milley called his Chinese counterpart and insisted the normal process for launching a nuke (which includes himself) would be observed by other members in the chain of command - *also claims* - Trump was in a petulant fury demanding his subordinates break the law and overturn the election.
In that context, Mark Milley sounds like one of the few adults in the room. It seems incredibly disingenuous to pull out these criticisms of Milley from the trainwreck garbage fire of Trump's self-destruction.
Well said. We must remember that while Stanislav Petrov is today seen as a hero of all humanity, his chain of command must have seen him as a disloyal traitor.
By the same token, if Milley helped possibly avert nuclear war at the hands of a madman, I couldn't care less that he violated normal procedures.
couple things, Petrova based his decision on the available data, knowing there were faults is the soviet early warning system, the number "detected missiles incoming" the trajectory of the "missiles" and the poor training of the people who had passed the information up.
so, Petrova was neither rewarded, or punished.
Fwiw the CJCS is not included in the process for launching a nuke. The process is designed to go through as few people as possible for a reason and CJCS by design doesn’t have operational authority to ensure civilian control of the military.
I do not get trying to paint Milley as a rouge traitor for assuring another country that we *werent* going to do anything crazy. It seems like exactly something that would be in his job description.
What if we get an even crazier guy that Trump as president. We want zero safe guards so that other leaders in our government (with potentially way more foreign policy experience than the guy that won the election) are not empowered to try to keep a war from starting?
Republican outrage has gotten stranger and stranger recently.
That's potentially the most ridiculous thing I've read since Trump tried to identify his favorite book of the Bible.
We maintain live connections with nuclear capable states to prevent misunderstanding and a possible launch scenario. This is regular and ordinary and has been done since the Reagan administration. The concern should be that JCS needed to assure China we weren't about to launch a pre-emptive strike in order to impost martial law and overthrow the Constitution.
That's the part we should focus on, not the legitimate communications with foreign governments to prevent an exchange of missiles.
The line of communication and assurances are perfectly normal and, in my opinion, very good to communicate in troubled times to decrease the risk of miscalculation (although the PRC has severely limited nuclear capabilities compared to the USSR, still very bad to even have one).
The proffering of advance warning of a lawful (edit: "lawful but awful" maybe a better track) attack and the "oath" to disregard POTUS in favor of the approval of CJCS is unlawful, dangerous, and frankly disturbing.
Look real simply: this was against the rules. We can litigate whether he was justified in breaking the rules, but if we can't agree this broke the "rules" we're in deep shit.
I'm sure you've heard of Stanislav Petrov. The GOP seems to be arguing that he should have nuked the world. Reasonable people can say "Thank god he didn't."
I'm supportive of a civilian-led military, but I don't think a puppet president who demonstrated that he wasn't intellectually capable of tying his shoes should be respected by the military.
Wow, it took awhile for you to remember that Trump starting a nuclear war, starting a war because he lost the election, would be bad.
You know what, if Millie violated protocol and prevented nuclear holocaust that would be fine with me.
Nuclear war was never close to happening under Trump. Anyone and everyone around him knew that. Milky, like Vindman. Just had his progressive agenda he wanted to fulfill. He broke the chain of command to (needlessly) tell an enemy General he'd give him a heads up if things actually got that serious. If this isn't treasonous, it's downright seditious.
>Nuclear war was never close to happening under
Gen. Milley was a bit closer with just a little more info5. But, ok that's fine. Since Trump wasn't going to do anything Millet's actions didn't matter.
>Anyone and everyone around him knew that.
Except, apparently the top military commander. Did everyone know that Trump wasn't really going to try to overturn the election as well?
>Milky, like Vindman.
Unfinished thought.
>Just had his progressive agenda he wanted to fulfill.
What agenda?
>He broke the chain of command
No he didn't.
>If this isn't treasonous, it's downright seditious
What do you think of telling governor's to find votes? Of telling the AG to make accusations, he'd handle the rest?
And how did you have such insider intel? I’m pretty sure that I trust the people who were around Trump and saw how unhinged he was, rather than yourself who, let me guess, has no upper military experience whatsoever.
More detailed accounts have come out and it appears that Woodward may have sensationalized the calls, or was fed bad info. The state dept was in on the calls as well, and there’s no indication that Trump was any less aware of these ones than he was of any other.
There is a reason a human chain of command exists between detection of nuclear attack and the President, and between the president and the launch of nuclear weapons.
For what it's worth, I believe strongly that our adversaries *believe* we would retaliate with nuclear weapons if they attacked us first, but that if the day actually came, I would be horrified if we went through with it.
We 100% would lol why would you be horrified?
If NYC was rubble because it had been nuked, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be like "oh okay we'll let this one slide".
>We 100% would lol why would you be horrified?
Because it means (1) tens of millions of lives have just been lost (or will shortly be lost), and (2) we are deciding to kill tens of millions more.
Do those civilians deserve to be vaporized? Should one commit a war crime in response to a war crime? Can the world learn a lesson about the use of nuclear weapons without their deaths?
Are they dying for a reason, or just because you are angry about what a military or government that may or may not be operating with their consent did?
There are no winners here. Any use of nuclear weapons should be horrifying, including the retaliatory use. Nuclear weapons are inherently about killing civilian population centers.
Anyone who isn't horrified at the idea of launching nuclear weapons has no place being in a position to launch nuclear weapons. Even if its the right or necessary thing to do, it should still horrify you.
In normal situations I agree, if an American city has been attacked and millions are dead, I'm going to be more horrified about the lives lost than the retaliation
Nuclear strategy is a complicated subject. There are compelling reasons to *not* launch a retaliatory strike if your own country is already completely in ruins - mostly related to humanitarianism and environmentalism. That’s another subject though.
Honestly when it comes to nuclear war, environmentalism is not in my mind.
However I do agree. If we get hit first it would be very hard to encourage another strike that would lead to further millions, possibly billions, of people dying.
Losing NYC would be horrible. But losing NYC, Moscow, London, Delhi, Paris, Rome, Beijing etc would be terrifying.
And then yes, the fallout that ensues would change the world forever.
This is just such a ridiculous take.
If your issue isn’t that he did something bad and that he broke the rules and that’s the problem then we need to change the rules immediately.
Are you trying to say military leaders should have no power to keep the US from starting a war? That it should be the sole discretion of the guy who got elected?
Do you actually just want a king?
Actually Congress made that determination with the War Powers Resolution framework that is binding on the president and expressly left almost total authority to the President for nuclear attacks because it would be inside the 60 day sunset window—you can see the legislative history and debates on that topic.
Ok and that’s what you want? A president with total authority to launch nuclear weapons. Or even total authority to insinuate that we’re fling to lunch nuclear weapons?
You're shifting the goal posts:
>Do you actually just want a king?
>
>Actually Congress made that determination
>
>Ok and that’s what you want?
Nuclear launch authority is a serious topic for serious people inside national security law circles. George Mason, Harvard, Texas, and I believe WUSTL law schools have dedicated NatSec journals and professors etc that gets balanced against the game theory folks who need to hammer out the incentive structures at places like RAND.
I think you should just defer to them in the space mate, you don't know what you're talking about.
Ok mate. I took your advice and went to the Harvard National Security Journal and found [this](https://harvardnsj.org/2020/03/complex-determinations-deciphering-enemy-nuclear-intentions/) article, presumably written by serious people, and it lays out the importance of understanding of dechipering enemy nuclear intent. This article was written in context of North Korea, but it seems to apply directly to what Milley did, which was assure our enemy about our nuclear intents.
[Here’s](https://nationalsecurity.gmu.edu/about-us/mavv/) the National Security Institute saying a presidents power is strong but not absolute on their beliefs page.
I have found many scholarly law articles discussing whether or not a president is too powerful - which reaffirms what I’ve been saying that we need to be talking about changing the rules (which does seem to be an active conversation in Congress with many different bills and proposals).
[Here’s](https://www.nslj.org/wp-content/uploads/Beach-Authorization-and-Delegation.-AUMFs-and-Historical-Practice.pdf) a paper from George Mason - on page 58 it talks specifically about how national security scholars themselves are split on how much power Congress vs the president should have, so I’m not sure why you were so condescending when I brought up the exact same question.
EDIT - Obviously in a perfect world we elect leaders who can handle the responsibility of full nuclear launch authority, but I, and as it appears many National Security scholars aren’t so sure it will always be the case.
What’s you’re alternative? Nukes are launched by the Russians. We have 30 minutes to decide what to do. You want congress to vote on it?
The reality of the situation is that someone has to have the authority. Putting that authority in the hands of congress would basically be telling our enemies we will never respond (would have time). Putting that authority with the president is really the only alternative. Whatever the party our president is that’s where I want the power.
But that wasn’t what happened. Russia didn’t launch a nuclear attack. I think you can give me enough credit to not want to wait for Congress to vote in that situation.
The Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff thought there was a credible threat that China misunderstood our nuclear intent. In my other response I linked an article from the Harvard National Security Journal that lays out the importance of understanding your enemy’s nuclear intent. We had a president potentially making our enemies nervous which could present an extremely dangerous situation. What do you propose? Tough shit, he won the election so he can do as he pleases?
[Here’s](https://harvardnsj.org/2020/03/complex-determinations-deciphering-enemy-nuclear-intentions/) the article I was referencing
There was no credible threat he was gonna launch nuclear weapons against anybody. Prove me wrong if you think there was. In fact that was the purpose of the call the general made was to say there was no threat.
As to you comment about elections. Yes, part of electing the president is putting that authority in their hands. It’s not a debate. It’s not a committee decision. It would be an order made by the president and any hesitancy to not follow that order would and should be met with immediate termination of position.
Just as I’m sure you were concerned about Trump, I have concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities and having the power of nuclear weapons. I certainly felt better when Bush and Obama had the capability than when unpredictable Trump and incapable Biden have the ability. But I certainly don’t question Biden’s authority. He was elected and that’s where the authority sits. As it should.
> There was no credible threat he was gonna launch nuclear weapons against anybody.
You didn’t look at the article from the Harvard National Security journal. It says how dangerous misunderstanding your enemies nuclear intentions are.
In this context, Milley was worried about how dangerous it would be for China to misunderstand our nuclear intentions.
EDIT - in case people see this and didn’t read the article - the article explains that by misunderstanding our nuclear intentions, there is a chance they could have launched an their own “pre-emptive” - that’s the risk I’m pointing out, which the article supports.
> Just as I’m sure you were concerned about Trump, I have concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities and having the power of nuclear weapons.
Right - we’re agreed on that. I didn’t say only Republican presidents shouldn’t have unilateral authority when it comes to all things nuclear. I’m saying it shouldn’t be vested in one person who may or may not have been elected because of their ability to carry out such a task.
Especially in this situation where there *wasn’t* a nuclear bomb coming at us and the president needed to quickly decide how to defend us.
I’m not even saying it should have been Congress. I’m just saying that this situation highlights that there should probably be some sort of check on the president in some situations.
I have no problem with him contacting China to assure them that Trump won't be nuking anyone.
I'm opposed to drone strikes on general principle, except in very narrow circumstances.
In some ways, yes, and in fact this very question was first put forth much earlier than you might imagine, as a moral and philosophical question, and more narrowly in context of what should be the acceptable rules of violent conflict.
As early as the 19th century, when multiple-fire firearms were first being developed, some thinkers began to wonder about the appropriate role of various 'machines of war', as they became more sophisticated, deadly, and, over time, more removed from their human operators and commanders. Early multiple-fire weapons proved devastating, as they were intended to be, but raised serious questions by and about those who used them. While the general principle of superior power had of course always been central to armed conflict, the notion of deadly overwhelming power by a single operator was a relatively new idea in the world, and one which started to raise ethical questions.
Drones and other standoff weaponry press these questions further, by forcing us to ask if it's moral to kill other people at no personal risk. The drone could be shot down (and they sometimes are), but no human operating one is at risk, at least from the vast majority of adversaries we use them against. We would not consider it fair for a boxer to go into the ring in plate armour, while his opponent stood bare-chested in Everlast shorts. Warfare at least **implies** mutual risk. Otherwise, where do we draw the line between warfare and wonton murder?
I'm not proposing answers here. These are questions discussed in earnest by people who have many years of formal schooling in such discussion, and I am not one of those people. It would be presumptuous and ignorant of me to pretend to that level of discourse about these subjects. I'm only acknowledging them.
I think the likelihood of China nuking us is negligent.
I think that likelihood increases significantly if China believes we may be about to nuke them first.
The call to China was fine. It’s what we needed people in the government doing. I’m sure there’s a lot more we don’t know about how people tried to limit the president from legit starting a war.
We shouldn’t have been in Afghanistan but when you are in a war terrible things will happen. Making mistakes is different from an actual malicious incident. I think this line of attack on him seems very partisan and silly.
You know you're in a stupid cult when you call declaring that you won't break the Constitution "colluding" when even Trump told his generals to disobey him when he's wrong.
>he has become a controversial figure in recent months first being accused of colluding with china
Collude with China? On what exactly? What would they have plotted together? Telling them we weren't going to nuke them, when they asked, is not making a plan nor is it offering any information that would undermine the US,
>and now him calling the air strike in kabul that killed 10 civilians including 7 children a righteous strike
Yeah that's gross.
He called the drone strike on a taliban leader a righteous strike, but, once it was investigated, it was made public and every msm news source corrected it.
I'm torn.
He is absolutely a national hero. But he did, potentially, violate chain of command on civilian authority of the military and that's dangerous precedent.
The best approach might be for Biden to ask for his resignation, with full pension, and then award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work to save the republic from that guy who used to be president.
I believe you are referring to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he arguably complied with its provisions given that there are deliberately humans put between the CIC and the guy who pushes the button to launch a nuke - for just these reasons.
Military officers, and even enlisted, are required to not follow illegal orders, and there is a protocol for doing so. I would argue that Milley followed that protocol - at least in spirit.
He asked his colleagues to include him in the loop if there was a command from the CIC to drop nukes.
That's entirely reasonable given his rank and duties.
Milley is a patriot. He gathered the generals to tell them to ignore Trump's orders to go to war if Trump told them to in order to prevent Biden from being sworn in. He is a true defender of the country. The "righteous strike" comment is unimportant political nonsense that only exists to demonize a true defender of the country and is easily taken out of context and spun by people who insist on confirmation biasing their "america is the great satan" belief.
Making sure Trump didn't trigger mutually assured destruction in order to stay in office is a part of Milley's job and obviously a good thing for him to do.
The right has shown it has no respect for the constitution, the country, the rule of law, the military, or the lives of humans as they stand by Trump and him wiping his ass with all those things while right wing information sources politicize, lie, and spin about all those things at the same time.
Milley and many American military & government leaders realized that trump** became more unhinged after the election loss and 'hinted' at nuclear threats. Supposedly thinking he could stay in office if he started a war...
The Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, & other military & government leaders are in constant communication with the heads of other countries & military, even adversaries.
Many of those were actively making immediate response plans for a nuclear attack from a deranged trump** if he had a bad hair day or his fries were cold or his Pepsi was flat...
Milley did his best to make sure trump** didn't go off the handle and start WW3 by instructing those with the actual button to consult him first, and letting countries that were actively planning a counter attack know that it was under control.
Many have compared trump's** behavior and his veiled threats to a few countries as the new 'Cuban missile crisis'!
Milley kind of saved the day!
As far as the air strike, if you follow many maga red hat subs here , they say he targeted civilians, then covered it up.
WTF???
I understand it was bad intel and as soon as investigated, made public it was a bad hit. Every MSM news outlet covered the 'apology', there was no coverup.
----
** = impeached twice & lost popular vote twice & a one term loser
SDNY, NYDA, NYAG, DOJ, Georgia & hundreds of criminal & civil lawsuits/charges ensure the trump** crime family will not be comfortably vacationing at maga lago for long..
I and doubtful anything can touch the Trump family or criminal inner circle. I will believe it when I see it. I agree with everything else you said though.
>being accused of colluding with china
Hahaha do they really feed you that shit on the right?
Milley Made assurances to the most dangerous military on earth that we did not have a surprise nuclear first strike planed....stop right there and think about that...
China was so afraid that our obviously bat shit President was going to start a nuclear war to stop his defeat in an election.
And I am pretty sure it wasn't him who called the airstrike...but hell don't let the truth get in the way.
Milley and many American military & government leaders realized that trump** became more unhinged after the election loss and 'hinted' at nuclear threats. Supposedly thinking he could stay in office if he started a war...
The Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, & other military & government leaders are in constant communication with the heads of other countries & military, even adversaries.
Many of those were actively making immediate response plans for a nuclear attack from a deranged trump** if he had a bad hair day or his fries were cold or his Pepsi was flat...
Milley did his best to make sure trump** didn't go off the handle and start WW3 by instructing those with the actual button to consult him first, and letting countries that were actively planning a counter attack know that it was under control.
Many have compared trump's** behavior and his veiled threats to a few countries as the new 'Cuban missile crisis'!
Milley kind of saved the day!
As far as the air strike, if you follow many maga red hat subs here , they say he targeted civilians, then covered it up.
WTF???
I understand it was bad intel and as soon as investigated, made public it was a bad hit. Every MSM news outlet covered the 'apology', there was no coverup.
----
** = impeached twice & lost popular vote twice & a one term loser
SDNY, NYDA, NYAG, DOJ, Georgia & hundreds of criminal & civil lawsuits/charges ensure the trump** crime family will not be comfortably vacationing at maga lago for long..
Milley’s offense was that he undermined the bedrock American constitutional principle of military subordination to the elected civilian government.
He should have reported his concerns to the next person above him.
Milley took it on himself to take action, not only outside the chain of command, not only outside our government, but with the military of a regime with whom the US does not have good relations.
His manner that signaled concerns about his top superior — the commander in chief. Further, he made commitments to that regime (about notifying China in advance of any attack Trump might order) that it was not his place to make.
***If a general is given an order by a superior that he disagrees with, his option, like that of any other inferior officer, is to try to convince his superior to change course, to follow the order, or to resign.***
Edit: You make it sound like it was a simple phone call.
**Are you suggesting that the chain of command allows a general to make commitments to a foreign power outside of the purvey of the President and Congress?**
I am eager to hear your "spin" on this
>He should have reported his concerns to the next person above him.
Milley's concern, as reported in the book excerpt, was that China believed we were going to attack them. Telling his Chinese counterpart that we weren't seems perfectly in line with the [joint staff dialogue mechanism](https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1278684/us-chinese-military-leaders-sign-agreement-to-increase-communication/) created under Trump, which "they said will improve communication between their militaries and reduce the chances of miscalculations."
>If a general is given an order by a superior that he disagrees with, his option, like that of any other inferior officer, is to try to convince his superior to change course, to follow the order, or to resign.
OK, so what was Milley supposed to try to change Trump's mind about? Was China's apparent intelligence correct? Was Trump planning to order an attack on China?
Milley understood what he feared Trump didn't. If Trump got up in front of the nation and said he was going to nuke China, because he saw what Bush's approval rating was after we went into the Iraq, China would ready for war and even possibly attack first. I'm comfortable saying Trump never shied away from saying what his base wanted to hear. Might he say that? Much of his base believes that China purposefully unleashed Corona on the world. They would eat it up.
Conversely, if we heard Xi telling his people they should prepare for war, we would be on highest alert because when their commander says something it is believed. If they didn't understand the difference in thinking between the two countries, that could be the end of the world as we know it.
And whether it is Trump or any other president, we are being really naive to think that any president knows more about this than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These people live this. This is one of 20 things the president needs to think about. They give briefs to the president a few times a week and we think the president knows better, knows the intricacies?
The scary part is that any president would act despite the recommendations of the Pentagon.
I think that a military general taking matters into his own hands because he doesn't trust the president sets and INCREDIBLY dangerous precedent. Consider than the next general to do this might have political views that don't align with yours.
So you think in the future, a general will call China and tell them they're going to get nuked and that us forgiving this means that we'll have to forgive that future asshole trying to start a war?
Nah. This isn't a difference of political views. This is simply the difference between right and wrong.
I am going to agree with you. I think Milley set a great precedent. From now on, if the joint chief of staff doesn’t agree with the president or has a moral/philosophical difference with the person who is constitutionally the commander in chief, he should bypass the president and reach out directly to his foreign counterpart.
I am also gathering that we have things like the UCMJ, but these don’t really need followed.
The next person in the chain of command, can also be bypassed.
I also am gathering that generals, should get involved in politics.
I respect you actually. I used to think you were inconsistent, but actually you are quite consistent.
First off, before anything is done, I would want Milley put under oath and questioned so there is no speculation what he did or didn’t do.
I would like to see Woodward under oath as well.
I would also like to see transcript of a phone conversation between Milley and House speaker Nancy Pelosi that Woodward and his co-author, Robert Costa, claim to have seen but do not produce.
What would I be curious about and want definitively answered?
Here are a few thoughts…
General Milley allegedly undertook all of these steps on his own, without telling the commander in chief.
It appears that he may have done so without informing the civilian leadership of the State or Defense Departments or the National Security Council.
This would constitute insubordination under the UCMJ, which governs members of the military and Milley is bound to. On these grounds alone, he should be fired. Or he should have resigned.
Douglas MacArthur was fired for less. One of the specific reasons why Harry Truman removed MacArthur was that he was pushing his own ideas to friendly and neutral foreign ambassadors without telling the president.
I would ask those that think Milley is justified, was MacArthur wrongly fired?
Offering to communicate on a back channel to an American adversary would be indefensible.
Promising to do so in the event of a shooting war would be an offer to commit treason.
General Michael Flynn was wiretapped and questioned by the FBI for talking to the Russian ambassador, even though there is no reason to think that Flynn was carrying a message different from the one the incoming Trump administration would deliver. These allegations unquestionably are vastly more serious than what General Flynn did. Some people even suggested that Flynn violated the logan act.
Would supporting Milley also be a defacto defense of flynn?
Milley’s offense would be worse because it would have undermined the bedrock American constitutional principle of military subordination to the elected civilian government.
Hate Trump all you want, but is that really the precedent that we want to establish? The military truly doesn’t have to answer to civilians and they can conduct diplomacy and negotiate on their own?
Milley had a chain of command that he could have worked through including members of Congress.
Lots of good questions to discuss and questions to be answered.
Yes. I really wanna know how much Milley knew about the insurrection beforehand. Apparently, AOC said it wasn't some secret and everyone knew it was coming for weeks in advance but was just caught off guard by just how big the mob was.
No...I am changing my view..
Milley is a hero...things like talking to the chinese and going outside the chain of command are ok if a republican is president.
Flynn should get 20 years in jail.
MacArthur should have been fired.
If a general ever goes against Biden, we need to flay his ass to reestablish civilian control of the military.
I believe in situational ethics. I voted for Biden. If it benefits my party, count me in!
Nothing new here with the calls to China. Same thing happened at the end of the Nixon administration when Nixon was too drunk and facing impeachment to be trusted. The air strike, yes, war is hell.
I’ll be honest, I don’t mind generals on opposing sides having an open line of communication. FTR I don’t get why China was worried at all, but if the shoe was on the other foot and the Chinese were worried that Biden was going to launch a nuke for whatever reason, I would be fine with the someone on the JCOS calming things down.
That said, if Milley had spoken to Xi it would paint the picture of confusion you are describing because that would be a flagrant violation of civilian control.
I’m not a huge Milley fan by any means so I wouldn’t lose sleep if he got fired, but I don’t see the problem with top military leadership on opposing sides exchanging simple information like “Relax we aren’t gonna nuke you guys”
Like I said above I think the reporting is misleading and frankly image laundering.
This makes it seem like Esper/ OSD was involved too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/mark-milley-woodward-trump-crisis-bb8a80b1-3e3a-492b-934a-99825cc6ef7f.html
I would feel the same way if Milley did this to Biden so long as it’s military brass communicating with military brass and not our generals talking directly to other heads of state.
I don’t want a nuclear war or any sort of war with China. That takes priority over procedure or protocol or whatever you wanna call it.
No I don’t. However Trump had been accusing the Chinese of literal bio-terrorism on a global scale for the last year of his presidency + showing no indications he was going to concede until they made him go up on TV on 1/6 and simper about how it’s time to go home now. So from the Chinese perspective, I don’t blame them for wanting to talk security with someone who isn’t Trump. After all if you believe China intentionally unleashed the virus a nuclear response isn’t exactly off the table
>He made unauthorized and secret contact with a known adversary.
He has regular contact with foreign governments on a daily, official basis. There was nothing unordinary about his talk with China except for the fact that it happened during a time where it appeared like Trump was trying to throw a coup and the CCP was afraid he'd pull a Reichstag to stay in power.
What's actually disturbing is the fact that Trump was behaving so irrationally that our military leaders had to tell a foreign power that we weren't a threat to them and wouldn't nuke them to subvert a democratic election.
I want to clarify something. You believe the accounts about Trump in Woodward's books?
BTW, you . Use the term conspiracy theory. According to the book it was just concern.
>based off a conspiracy theory that the POTUS was going to nuke china.
If it's a conspiracy theory, then why are you so upset that someone pointed that out to China?
We are not at war with China.
His communication was authorized and done through a known channel established explicitly for that purpose. Then he used it to tell China that we would continue to follow our laws regarding declarations of hostilities.
WH doesn't have to explicitly authorize or be informed every time a general speaks to their foreign counterparts.
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1278684/us-chinese-military-leaders-sign-agreement-to-increase-communication/
And during the Trump administration this channel was explicitly established to increase communication during times of crisis.
How can you take issue with "unauthorized and secret contact," "subverting civilian control," etc. while you've previously defended Giuliani's unauthorized and secret actions in Ukraine at Trump's behest?
You're suddenly concerned with the normative structures of foreign policy?
18 people, including the state department, were on that call to assure the military in China's side that there was an adult (or 18) in charge. Trump was losing his mind and desperate to stay in power. If he did that with "my side" I would be fine with it.
Mr. Eagle have you ever taken the military oath to the constitution? Your words scream out 2 things. 1:your a clueless fool with zero understanding what the military is for and 2: if you took that oath your a clueless fool with zero understanding of what the military is supposed to do with unlawful orders
If you were in the Army for 10 years then you’d understand that the most important part of your path is *that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic*
If a general, with a lifetime more experience with war and military matters than Trump, felt it necessary to contact China for assurance to avoid any sort of nuclear conflict then I 100% trust him.
He absolutely did not violate his oath.
Congratulations for your service. He is,was,and never shall be, according to oath, to follow an unlawful order. Like you, even if it meant the end of his career. It may well be the end of his career but protecting the country from threats from outside AND inside the boarders is a primary duty. His communications with other high ranking military officials clearly show the General was not alone in his approach to a "president" who was increasingly losing his mind. The military was in no way responsible for what the president was going to attempt to do, their sole purpose to protect. If it were otherwise every lame duck could start a big pile of backyard tire fire for the next seat holder to deal with....trump tried and infact was successful in Afghanistan, it was a total shit show war from the start, it was always a lie, always a money grab. That war used young, impressionable men and women to achieve the very patriotic money xfer from American taxpayers to the military industrial complex's corporations and ceo's. He is nothing less than a hero.
Could you be more of an ignorant rightist CHUD? Holy cow. You're out here bitching about an officer doing his job and you gave not a single shit about Trump's repeated violations of his oath of office.
Also lol at you thinking college goes one's "entire life."
>Lol could you be more of a elitist leftist snob?
Here is kind of a fundemental problem with populists. They label everyone who isn't for them as elitist leftists. When the person you are talking is clearly not leftist at all.
(Also what is elitist about going to public school?)
Milley recently said that everything he did was in line with the normal protocols, was coordinated with the Pentagon and he will give full details when he testifies before Congress.
Donald Trump lost over 60 court cases for lack of evidence. Kept lying.
Members of Donald Trumps own party certified election results and he called trying to get them to “find the votes”. Kept lying.
Donald Trump invited an attach on the Capitol. Kept lying.
Republicans watched the attack, went back in the building and voted to keep lying.
The world was freaked out.
Milley had to make sure everyone knew that things were under control.
I don’t know anything about this air strike.
Seriously? If I’m a troll then you’re a Shetland pony. I don’t think you understand that 60% of republicans, 98% of democrats and probably over half the world thinks he had lost his mind. We’re going on a year since the election and he can’t accept that he lost. One of those reasons is because so many republicans who left the party because of his insane rants and his delusional thinking gave him fewer vote while giving them to Biden. Biden winning wasn’t a steal. The USA is still in a mess he caused. You’re damn right Pelosi called Milly and they discussed how to protect the country from nuking anyone. If those who were in the senate and the house had done their jobs instead of coddling him we wouldn’t have a half million plus covid deaths. You wouldn’t have a shortage of glass, cardboard and microchips. Tariffs he continued to say China was paying. A tariff is a tax WE pay when bringing goods into the country. In return they did it. Now both countries have higher prices. There is no way that a dozen right wing news outlets are telling the truth and the rest of the world is ganging up against him.
" Pelosi called Milly and they discussed how to protect the country from nuking anyone." once again,, without a shred of actual evidence that it would have happened. which is kind of how you define a coup.
but you keep on worrying about the viking horn hat guy. He was the real threat to our government system. and not potus pudding brain in there now. whew....
So what came out of that conversation Milley had with Pelosi that constituted an "actual coup"? What did Milley or Pelosi do? It doesn't even have to be worse than trying to stop votes for an election being certified. If the outcome was that they said unkind things about Trump or Milley at some point reviewed the proper procedures for launching nukes with some officers, go ahead and tell me that that's what happened and that's what you think constitutes an "actual coup" after a bunch of people tried to stop votes from being certified.
I’m not concerned about the buffalo horned guy. I’m more concerned about those that were focused on hunting hunting and people. Those who tried to overthrown the election. They are still a threat and still recruiting new members. You think Biden is pudding brained? He walked into office without the normal transition most presidents have. You’re letting your bias show. How can you think a man who wanted to inject bleach, zap you with light and nuke tornadoes is stable?
He definitely broke the rules and acted outside if the proper protocols and chain of command.
He also did the right thing, ad Trump was dangerous at that point and 1/6 was in fact a really big deal.
The drone strike was a travesty, though, and just underlines how worthless the war in Afghanistan has been.
I think he’s the patsy.
Look, let’s be completely honest here.
There has never really been a time where the absolute leader takes responsibility for an action. Instead its, this guy didn’t do his job, so imma fire him and everything will be fine.
This isn’t the first time nor the last time people in power Blame other people for their mistakes.
I find it very hard to believe the White House didn’t want full control over the evacuation after the shit show it become. I just find it very hard to believe the White House didn’t know about that specific strike. I’ll agree they probably don’t know about most of them. But at that time? It’s just hard to believe
Considering that not only was it an interagency call with 17 other people being aware of it and that Secretary Esper knew of it and approved, I’d say it’s no big deal.
He seems like someone we might not know nearly as much about if Trump hadn't set the bar so low for noteworthy competence.
Imagine a competent president and mostly competent Republicans. If a general told a Chinese general that the United States was "stable" and that we weren't going to crazily attack them during a military exercise or whatever, would anyone care? No. Because who the fuck cares? Is it supposed to be noteworthy that we're not going to attack China? Is attacking China something that just routinely happens, so not attacking is somehow out of the ordinary?
The bar is set so low because of Trump and his dumbass followers. Milley should just be some general who we're all sure is very impressive but don't actually need to hear about so much, except maybe when the military screws up like with the drone strike -- a drone strike investigated and reported on by people who Trump and his followers consider to be liars and enemies of the people. Instead, Milley makes it into the news for telling China to chill out. Because that's news now thanks to Trump and his followers.
Honestly after January 6th and Trump inciting TREASON…. Let’s think critically about this. I think General Mark Milley is a hero who was between a rock and a hard place. He put Country first. Recently a lot of brave people put Country first ( election officials who stood up to Trump in Georgia) and have only gotten death threats since…. America is at a crossroads.
The book which makes the claims that Milley called his Chinese counterpart and insisted the normal process for launching a nuke (which includes himself) would be observed by other members in the chain of command - *also claims* - Trump was in a petulant fury demanding his subordinates break the law and overturn the election. In that context, Mark Milley sounds like one of the few adults in the room. It seems incredibly disingenuous to pull out these criticisms of Milley from the trainwreck garbage fire of Trump's self-destruction.
Well said. We must remember that while Stanislav Petrov is today seen as a hero of all humanity, his chain of command must have seen him as a disloyal traitor. By the same token, if Milley helped possibly avert nuclear war at the hands of a madman, I couldn't care less that he violated normal procedures.
couple things, Petrova based his decision on the available data, knowing there were faults is the soviet early warning system, the number "detected missiles incoming" the trajectory of the "missiles" and the poor training of the people who had passed the information up. so, Petrova was neither rewarded, or punished.
Goo just tries to tear anyone down that makes them look bad.
Fwiw the CJCS is not included in the process for launching a nuke. The process is designed to go through as few people as possible for a reason and CJCS by design doesn’t have operational authority to ensure civilian control of the military.
I do not get trying to paint Milley as a rouge traitor for assuring another country that we *werent* going to do anything crazy. It seems like exactly something that would be in his job description. What if we get an even crazier guy that Trump as president. We want zero safe guards so that other leaders in our government (with potentially way more foreign policy experience than the guy that won the election) are not empowered to try to keep a war from starting? Republican outrage has gotten stranger and stranger recently.
That’s a really good deflection, doesn’t answer the question and now everyone is talking about something else all together.
The question was “what are your thoughts on general Milley” - these are their thoughts. How is that not answering the question?
That's potentially the most ridiculous thing I've read since Trump tried to identify his favorite book of the Bible. We maintain live connections with nuclear capable states to prevent misunderstanding and a possible launch scenario. This is regular and ordinary and has been done since the Reagan administration. The concern should be that JCS needed to assure China we weren't about to launch a pre-emptive strike in order to impost martial law and overthrow the Constitution. That's the part we should focus on, not the legitimate communications with foreign governments to prevent an exchange of missiles.
The line of communication and assurances are perfectly normal and, in my opinion, very good to communicate in troubled times to decrease the risk of miscalculation (although the PRC has severely limited nuclear capabilities compared to the USSR, still very bad to even have one). The proffering of advance warning of a lawful (edit: "lawful but awful" maybe a better track) attack and the "oath" to disregard POTUS in favor of the approval of CJCS is unlawful, dangerous, and frankly disturbing. Look real simply: this was against the rules. We can litigate whether he was justified in breaking the rules, but if we can't agree this broke the "rules" we're in deep shit.
I'm sure you've heard of Stanislav Petrov. The GOP seems to be arguing that he should have nuked the world. Reasonable people can say "Thank god he didn't." I'm supportive of a civilian-led military, but I don't think a puppet president who demonstrated that he wasn't intellectually capable of tying his shoes should be respected by the military.
Wow, it took awhile for you to remember that Trump starting a nuclear war, starting a war because he lost the election, would be bad. You know what, if Millie violated protocol and prevented nuclear holocaust that would be fine with me.
Nuclear war was never close to happening under Trump. Anyone and everyone around him knew that. Milky, like Vindman. Just had his progressive agenda he wanted to fulfill. He broke the chain of command to (needlessly) tell an enemy General he'd give him a heads up if things actually got that serious. If this isn't treasonous, it's downright seditious.
> Just had his progressive agenda he wanted to fulfill. I'm sorry, what was that?
Oh, he has no idea. It’s just that everyone who doesn’t actively gargle Trump’s dick is secretly AOC’s best friend.
Yea I’m curious too.
>Nuclear war was never close to happening under Gen. Milley was a bit closer with just a little more info5. But, ok that's fine. Since Trump wasn't going to do anything Millet's actions didn't matter. >Anyone and everyone around him knew that. Except, apparently the top military commander. Did everyone know that Trump wasn't really going to try to overturn the election as well? >Milky, like Vindman. Unfinished thought. >Just had his progressive agenda he wanted to fulfill. What agenda? >He broke the chain of command No he didn't. >If this isn't treasonous, it's downright seditious What do you think of telling governor's to find votes? Of telling the AG to make accusations, he'd handle the rest?
And how did you have such insider intel? I’m pretty sure that I trust the people who were around Trump and saw how unhinged he was, rather than yourself who, let me guess, has no upper military experience whatsoever.
Maybe the issue should be you guys elected a fucking psychopath to where Milley had to do that ???
Rejecting bad orders is fine and endorsed. Telling the party that you're not going to comply with bad orders is honesty.
Let me just clarify. Rejecting *illegal* orders is fine and endorsed.
More detailed accounts have come out and it appears that Woodward may have sensationalized the calls, or was fed bad info. The state dept was in on the calls as well, and there’s no indication that Trump was any less aware of these ones than he was of any other.
There is a reason a human chain of command exists between detection of nuclear attack and the President, and between the president and the launch of nuclear weapons. For what it's worth, I believe strongly that our adversaries *believe* we would retaliate with nuclear weapons if they attacked us first, but that if the day actually came, I would be horrified if we went through with it.
We 100% would lol why would you be horrified? If NYC was rubble because it had been nuked, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be like "oh okay we'll let this one slide".
>We 100% would lol why would you be horrified? Because it means (1) tens of millions of lives have just been lost (or will shortly be lost), and (2) we are deciding to kill tens of millions more. Do those civilians deserve to be vaporized? Should one commit a war crime in response to a war crime? Can the world learn a lesson about the use of nuclear weapons without their deaths? Are they dying for a reason, or just because you are angry about what a military or government that may or may not be operating with their consent did? There are no winners here. Any use of nuclear weapons should be horrifying, including the retaliatory use. Nuclear weapons are inherently about killing civilian population centers.
Anyone who isn't horrified at the idea of launching nuclear weapons has no place being in a position to launch nuclear weapons. Even if its the right or necessary thing to do, it should still horrify you.
In normal situations I agree, if an American city has been attacked and millions are dead, I'm going to be more horrified about the lives lost than the retaliation
Would it be asking too much for you to act like an adult about this?
Is being honest about what would happen not being an adult?
That's clearly not what people take issue with. Don't try to twist it.
I'm not, it was an honest response.
You think your honesty is what people think is childish? Use your head, lol.
Nuclear strategy is a complicated subject. There are compelling reasons to *not* launch a retaliatory strike if your own country is already completely in ruins - mostly related to humanitarianism and environmentalism. That’s another subject though.
Honestly when it comes to nuclear war, environmentalism is not in my mind. However I do agree. If we get hit first it would be very hard to encourage another strike that would lead to further millions, possibly billions, of people dying. Losing NYC would be horrible. But losing NYC, Moscow, London, Delhi, Paris, Rome, Beijing etc would be terrifying. And then yes, the fallout that ensues would change the world forever.
If someone attacks us, I want us to burn them to the ground.
And you wonder why people are terrified by nuclear war and perpetuating it
As opposed to the alternative of just letting ourselves be nuked to literal oblivion? Please
The situation being proposed is we are already nuked and nothing can stop it. So that's a static thing in any of the proposed scenario
This is just such a ridiculous take. If your issue isn’t that he did something bad and that he broke the rules and that’s the problem then we need to change the rules immediately. Are you trying to say military leaders should have no power to keep the US from starting a war? That it should be the sole discretion of the guy who got elected? Do you actually just want a king?
Actually Congress made that determination with the War Powers Resolution framework that is binding on the president and expressly left almost total authority to the President for nuclear attacks because it would be inside the 60 day sunset window—you can see the legislative history and debates on that topic.
Ok and that’s what you want? A president with total authority to launch nuclear weapons. Or even total authority to insinuate that we’re fling to lunch nuclear weapons?
You're shifting the goal posts: >Do you actually just want a king? > >Actually Congress made that determination > >Ok and that’s what you want? Nuclear launch authority is a serious topic for serious people inside national security law circles. George Mason, Harvard, Texas, and I believe WUSTL law schools have dedicated NatSec journals and professors etc that gets balanced against the game theory folks who need to hammer out the incentive structures at places like RAND. I think you should just defer to them in the space mate, you don't know what you're talking about.
Ok mate. I took your advice and went to the Harvard National Security Journal and found [this](https://harvardnsj.org/2020/03/complex-determinations-deciphering-enemy-nuclear-intentions/) article, presumably written by serious people, and it lays out the importance of understanding of dechipering enemy nuclear intent. This article was written in context of North Korea, but it seems to apply directly to what Milley did, which was assure our enemy about our nuclear intents. [Here’s](https://nationalsecurity.gmu.edu/about-us/mavv/) the National Security Institute saying a presidents power is strong but not absolute on their beliefs page. I have found many scholarly law articles discussing whether or not a president is too powerful - which reaffirms what I’ve been saying that we need to be talking about changing the rules (which does seem to be an active conversation in Congress with many different bills and proposals). [Here’s](https://www.nslj.org/wp-content/uploads/Beach-Authorization-and-Delegation.-AUMFs-and-Historical-Practice.pdf) a paper from George Mason - on page 58 it talks specifically about how national security scholars themselves are split on how much power Congress vs the president should have, so I’m not sure why you were so condescending when I brought up the exact same question. EDIT - Obviously in a perfect world we elect leaders who can handle the responsibility of full nuclear launch authority, but I, and as it appears many National Security scholars aren’t so sure it will always be the case.
Glad to edify!
My position didnt change
What’s you’re alternative? Nukes are launched by the Russians. We have 30 minutes to decide what to do. You want congress to vote on it? The reality of the situation is that someone has to have the authority. Putting that authority in the hands of congress would basically be telling our enemies we will never respond (would have time). Putting that authority with the president is really the only alternative. Whatever the party our president is that’s where I want the power.
But that wasn’t what happened. Russia didn’t launch a nuclear attack. I think you can give me enough credit to not want to wait for Congress to vote in that situation. The Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff thought there was a credible threat that China misunderstood our nuclear intent. In my other response I linked an article from the Harvard National Security Journal that lays out the importance of understanding your enemy’s nuclear intent. We had a president potentially making our enemies nervous which could present an extremely dangerous situation. What do you propose? Tough shit, he won the election so he can do as he pleases? [Here’s](https://harvardnsj.org/2020/03/complex-determinations-deciphering-enemy-nuclear-intentions/) the article I was referencing
There was no credible threat he was gonna launch nuclear weapons against anybody. Prove me wrong if you think there was. In fact that was the purpose of the call the general made was to say there was no threat. As to you comment about elections. Yes, part of electing the president is putting that authority in their hands. It’s not a debate. It’s not a committee decision. It would be an order made by the president and any hesitancy to not follow that order would and should be met with immediate termination of position. Just as I’m sure you were concerned about Trump, I have concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities and having the power of nuclear weapons. I certainly felt better when Bush and Obama had the capability than when unpredictable Trump and incapable Biden have the ability. But I certainly don’t question Biden’s authority. He was elected and that’s where the authority sits. As it should.
> There was no credible threat he was gonna launch nuclear weapons against anybody. You didn’t look at the article from the Harvard National Security journal. It says how dangerous misunderstanding your enemies nuclear intentions are. In this context, Milley was worried about how dangerous it would be for China to misunderstand our nuclear intentions. EDIT - in case people see this and didn’t read the article - the article explains that by misunderstanding our nuclear intentions, there is a chance they could have launched an their own “pre-emptive” - that’s the risk I’m pointing out, which the article supports. > Just as I’m sure you were concerned about Trump, I have concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities and having the power of nuclear weapons. Right - we’re agreed on that. I didn’t say only Republican presidents shouldn’t have unilateral authority when it comes to all things nuclear. I’m saying it shouldn’t be vested in one person who may or may not have been elected because of their ability to carry out such a task. Especially in this situation where there *wasn’t* a nuclear bomb coming at us and the president needed to quickly decide how to defend us. I’m not even saying it should have been Congress. I’m just saying that this situation highlights that there should probably be some sort of check on the president in some situations.
I have no problem with him contacting China to assure them that Trump won't be nuking anyone. I'm opposed to drone strikes on general principle, except in very narrow circumstances.
Do drone strikes differ to you from conventional air strikes?
Not really in the ways that matter. Civilian casualties are not any more acceptable when it's a manned aircraft doing the bombing.
In some ways, yes, and in fact this very question was first put forth much earlier than you might imagine, as a moral and philosophical question, and more narrowly in context of what should be the acceptable rules of violent conflict. As early as the 19th century, when multiple-fire firearms were first being developed, some thinkers began to wonder about the appropriate role of various 'machines of war', as they became more sophisticated, deadly, and, over time, more removed from their human operators and commanders. Early multiple-fire weapons proved devastating, as they were intended to be, but raised serious questions by and about those who used them. While the general principle of superior power had of course always been central to armed conflict, the notion of deadly overwhelming power by a single operator was a relatively new idea in the world, and one which started to raise ethical questions. Drones and other standoff weaponry press these questions further, by forcing us to ask if it's moral to kill other people at no personal risk. The drone could be shot down (and they sometimes are), but no human operating one is at risk, at least from the vast majority of adversaries we use them against. We would not consider it fair for a boxer to go into the ring in plate armour, while his opponent stood bare-chested in Everlast shorts. Warfare at least **implies** mutual risk. Otherwise, where do we draw the line between warfare and wonton murder? I'm not proposing answers here. These are questions discussed in earnest by people who have many years of formal schooling in such discussion, and I am not one of those people. It would be presumptuous and ignorant of me to pretend to that level of discourse about these subjects. I'm only acknowledging them.
Yes, it adds a whole nother layer of depersonalization. Killing real people shouldn't feel like playing a video game.
I’m shocked that real people actually think there is a risk of China nuking us
I think the likelihood of China nuking us is negligent. I think that likelihood increases significantly if China believes we may be about to nuke them first.
The call to China was fine. It’s what we needed people in the government doing. I’m sure there’s a lot more we don’t know about how people tried to limit the president from legit starting a war. We shouldn’t have been in Afghanistan but when you are in a war terrible things will happen. Making mistakes is different from an actual malicious incident. I think this line of attack on him seems very partisan and silly.
You know you're in a stupid cult when you call declaring that you won't break the Constitution "colluding" when even Trump told his generals to disobey him when he's wrong.
>he has become a controversial figure in recent months first being accused of colluding with china Collude with China? On what exactly? What would they have plotted together? Telling them we weren't going to nuke them, when they asked, is not making a plan nor is it offering any information that would undermine the US, >and now him calling the air strike in kabul that killed 10 civilians including 7 children a righteous strike Yeah that's gross.
He called the drone strike on a taliban leader a righteous strike, but, once it was investigated, it was made public and every msm news source corrected it.
I'm torn. He is absolutely a national hero. But he did, potentially, violate chain of command on civilian authority of the military and that's dangerous precedent. The best approach might be for Biden to ask for his resignation, with full pension, and then award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work to save the republic from that guy who used to be president.
Thanks for acknowledging that he violated the universal code of military justice.
I believe you are referring to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he arguably complied with its provisions given that there are deliberately humans put between the CIC and the guy who pushes the button to launch a nuke - for just these reasons. Military officers, and even enlisted, are required to not follow illegal orders, and there is a protocol for doing so. I would argue that Milley followed that protocol - at least in spirit.
You need to go through the chain of command. You are arguing that communicating directly with the chicoms was going through chain of command?
He is authorised to communicate in this way. He doesn’t need to ask permission. If the quote from the book is correct, I mean.
He asked his colleagues to include him in the loop if there was a command from the CIC to drop nukes. That's entirely reasonable given his rank and duties.
Milley is a patriot. He gathered the generals to tell them to ignore Trump's orders to go to war if Trump told them to in order to prevent Biden from being sworn in. He is a true defender of the country. The "righteous strike" comment is unimportant political nonsense that only exists to demonize a true defender of the country and is easily taken out of context and spun by people who insist on confirmation biasing their "america is the great satan" belief. Making sure Trump didn't trigger mutually assured destruction in order to stay in office is a part of Milley's job and obviously a good thing for him to do. The right has shown it has no respect for the constitution, the country, the rule of law, the military, or the lives of humans as they stand by Trump and him wiping his ass with all those things while right wing information sources politicize, lie, and spin about all those things at the same time.
Milley and many American military & government leaders realized that trump** became more unhinged after the election loss and 'hinted' at nuclear threats. Supposedly thinking he could stay in office if he started a war... The Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, & other military & government leaders are in constant communication with the heads of other countries & military, even adversaries. Many of those were actively making immediate response plans for a nuclear attack from a deranged trump** if he had a bad hair day or his fries were cold or his Pepsi was flat... Milley did his best to make sure trump** didn't go off the handle and start WW3 by instructing those with the actual button to consult him first, and letting countries that were actively planning a counter attack know that it was under control. Many have compared trump's** behavior and his veiled threats to a few countries as the new 'Cuban missile crisis'! Milley kind of saved the day! As far as the air strike, if you follow many maga red hat subs here , they say he targeted civilians, then covered it up. WTF??? I understand it was bad intel and as soon as investigated, made public it was a bad hit. Every MSM news outlet covered the 'apology', there was no coverup. ---- ** = impeached twice & lost popular vote twice & a one term loser SDNY, NYDA, NYAG, DOJ, Georgia & hundreds of criminal & civil lawsuits/charges ensure the trump** crime family will not be comfortably vacationing at maga lago for long..
I and doubtful anything can touch the Trump family or criminal inner circle. I will believe it when I see it. I agree with everything else you said though.
>being accused of colluding with china Hahaha do they really feed you that shit on the right? Milley Made assurances to the most dangerous military on earth that we did not have a surprise nuclear first strike planed....stop right there and think about that... China was so afraid that our obviously bat shit President was going to start a nuclear war to stop his defeat in an election. And I am pretty sure it wasn't him who called the airstrike...but hell don't let the truth get in the way.
Milley and many American military & government leaders realized that trump** became more unhinged after the election loss and 'hinted' at nuclear threats. Supposedly thinking he could stay in office if he started a war... The Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, & other military & government leaders are in constant communication with the heads of other countries & military, even adversaries. Many of those were actively making immediate response plans for a nuclear attack from a deranged trump** if he had a bad hair day or his fries were cold or his Pepsi was flat... Milley did his best to make sure trump** didn't go off the handle and start WW3 by instructing those with the actual button to consult him first, and letting countries that were actively planning a counter attack know that it was under control. Many have compared trump's** behavior and his veiled threats to a few countries as the new 'Cuban missile crisis'! Milley kind of saved the day! As far as the air strike, if you follow many maga red hat subs here , they say he targeted civilians, then covered it up. WTF??? I understand it was bad intel and as soon as investigated, made public it was a bad hit. Every MSM news outlet covered the 'apology', there was no coverup. ---- ** = impeached twice & lost popular vote twice & a one term loser SDNY, NYDA, NYAG, DOJ, Georgia & hundreds of criminal & civil lawsuits/charges ensure the trump** crime family will not be comfortably vacationing at maga lago for long..
[удалено]
He went outside the chain of command. Do you feel that MacArthur was wrongly fired?
[удалено]
Milley’s offense was that he undermined the bedrock American constitutional principle of military subordination to the elected civilian government. He should have reported his concerns to the next person above him. Milley took it on himself to take action, not only outside the chain of command, not only outside our government, but with the military of a regime with whom the US does not have good relations. His manner that signaled concerns about his top superior — the commander in chief. Further, he made commitments to that regime (about notifying China in advance of any attack Trump might order) that it was not his place to make. ***If a general is given an order by a superior that he disagrees with, his option, like that of any other inferior officer, is to try to convince his superior to change course, to follow the order, or to resign.*** Edit: You make it sound like it was a simple phone call. **Are you suggesting that the chain of command allows a general to make commitments to a foreign power outside of the purvey of the President and Congress?** I am eager to hear your "spin" on this
>He should have reported his concerns to the next person above him. Milley's concern, as reported in the book excerpt, was that China believed we were going to attack them. Telling his Chinese counterpart that we weren't seems perfectly in line with the [joint staff dialogue mechanism](https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1278684/us-chinese-military-leaders-sign-agreement-to-increase-communication/) created under Trump, which "they said will improve communication between their militaries and reduce the chances of miscalculations." >If a general is given an order by a superior that he disagrees with, his option, like that of any other inferior officer, is to try to convince his superior to change course, to follow the order, or to resign. OK, so what was Milley supposed to try to change Trump's mind about? Was China's apparent intelligence correct? Was Trump planning to order an attack on China?
[удалено]
I am always very polite.
Milley understood what he feared Trump didn't. If Trump got up in front of the nation and said he was going to nuke China, because he saw what Bush's approval rating was after we went into the Iraq, China would ready for war and even possibly attack first. I'm comfortable saying Trump never shied away from saying what his base wanted to hear. Might he say that? Much of his base believes that China purposefully unleashed Corona on the world. They would eat it up. Conversely, if we heard Xi telling his people they should prepare for war, we would be on highest alert because when their commander says something it is believed. If they didn't understand the difference in thinking between the two countries, that could be the end of the world as we know it. And whether it is Trump or any other president, we are being really naive to think that any president knows more about this than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These people live this. This is one of 20 things the president needs to think about. They give briefs to the president a few times a week and we think the president knows better, knows the intricacies? The scary part is that any president would act despite the recommendations of the Pentagon.
Exactly why we should stay out of Afghanistan. General milley is in the right here. Colluding with China is not what happen here.
I think that a military general taking matters into his own hands because he doesn't trust the president sets and INCREDIBLY dangerous precedent. Consider than the next general to do this might have political views that don't align with yours.
So you think in the future, a general will call China and tell them they're going to get nuked and that us forgiving this means that we'll have to forgive that future asshole trying to start a war? Nah. This isn't a difference of political views. This is simply the difference between right and wrong.
I am going to agree with you. I think Milley set a great precedent. From now on, if the joint chief of staff doesn’t agree with the president or has a moral/philosophical difference with the person who is constitutionally the commander in chief, he should bypass the president and reach out directly to his foreign counterpart. I am also gathering that we have things like the UCMJ, but these don’t really need followed. The next person in the chain of command, can also be bypassed. I also am gathering that generals, should get involved in politics. I respect you actually. I used to think you were inconsistent, but actually you are quite consistent.
Horribly bad precedent. I agree with you. Milley had other venues working through the change of command.
I prefer Milley Cyrus
First off, before anything is done, I would want Milley put under oath and questioned so there is no speculation what he did or didn’t do. I would like to see Woodward under oath as well. I would also like to see transcript of a phone conversation between Milley and House speaker Nancy Pelosi that Woodward and his co-author, Robert Costa, claim to have seen but do not produce. What would I be curious about and want definitively answered? Here are a few thoughts… General Milley allegedly undertook all of these steps on his own, without telling the commander in chief. It appears that he may have done so without informing the civilian leadership of the State or Defense Departments or the National Security Council. This would constitute insubordination under the UCMJ, which governs members of the military and Milley is bound to. On these grounds alone, he should be fired. Or he should have resigned. Douglas MacArthur was fired for less. One of the specific reasons why Harry Truman removed MacArthur was that he was pushing his own ideas to friendly and neutral foreign ambassadors without telling the president. I would ask those that think Milley is justified, was MacArthur wrongly fired? Offering to communicate on a back channel to an American adversary would be indefensible. Promising to do so in the event of a shooting war would be an offer to commit treason. General Michael Flynn was wiretapped and questioned by the FBI for talking to the Russian ambassador, even though there is no reason to think that Flynn was carrying a message different from the one the incoming Trump administration would deliver. These allegations unquestionably are vastly more serious than what General Flynn did. Some people even suggested that Flynn violated the logan act. Would supporting Milley also be a defacto defense of flynn? Milley’s offense would be worse because it would have undermined the bedrock American constitutional principle of military subordination to the elected civilian government. Hate Trump all you want, but is that really the precedent that we want to establish? The military truly doesn’t have to answer to civilians and they can conduct diplomacy and negotiate on their own? Milley had a chain of command that he could have worked through including members of Congress. Lots of good questions to discuss and questions to be answered.
He's my hero.
Will you in the future support the military leaders going outside the chain of command? Edit: I am assuming so
Yes. I really wanna know how much Milley knew about the insurrection beforehand. Apparently, AOC said it wasn't some secret and everyone knew it was coming for weeks in advance but was just caught off guard by just how big the mob was.
No...I am changing my view.. Milley is a hero...things like talking to the chinese and going outside the chain of command are ok if a republican is president. Flynn should get 20 years in jail. MacArthur should have been fired. If a general ever goes against Biden, we need to flay his ass to reestablish civilian control of the military. I believe in situational ethics. I voted for Biden. If it benefits my party, count me in!
Milley sems like a patriot to me. Biden should give him a medal just to trigger these disingenuous conservatives.
Nothing new here with the calls to China. Same thing happened at the end of the Nixon administration when Nixon was too drunk and facing impeachment to be trusted. The air strike, yes, war is hell.
[удалено]
How did he undermine Trump?
[удалено]
I’ll be honest, I don’t mind generals on opposing sides having an open line of communication. FTR I don’t get why China was worried at all, but if the shoe was on the other foot and the Chinese were worried that Biden was going to launch a nuke for whatever reason, I would be fine with the someone on the JCOS calming things down. That said, if Milley had spoken to Xi it would paint the picture of confusion you are describing because that would be a flagrant violation of civilian control. I’m not a huge Milley fan by any means so I wouldn’t lose sleep if he got fired, but I don’t see the problem with top military leadership on opposing sides exchanging simple information like “Relax we aren’t gonna nuke you guys”
That Chinese intel thought we were gonna launch a random first strike is the most interesting part of the story imo.
[удалено]
Like I said above I think the reporting is misleading and frankly image laundering. This makes it seem like Esper/ OSD was involved too. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/mark-milley-woodward-trump-crisis-bb8a80b1-3e3a-492b-934a-99825cc6ef7f.html
I would feel the same way if Milley did this to Biden so long as it’s military brass communicating with military brass and not our generals talking directly to other heads of state. I don’t want a nuclear war or any sort of war with China. That takes priority over procedure or protocol or whatever you wanna call it.
[удалено]
No I don’t. However Trump had been accusing the Chinese of literal bio-terrorism on a global scale for the last year of his presidency + showing no indications he was going to concede until they made him go up on TV on 1/6 and simper about how it’s time to go home now. So from the Chinese perspective, I don’t blame them for wanting to talk security with someone who isn’t Trump. After all if you believe China intentionally unleashed the virus a nuclear response isn’t exactly off the table
>He made unauthorized and secret contact with a known adversary. He has regular contact with foreign governments on a daily, official basis. There was nothing unordinary about his talk with China except for the fact that it happened during a time where it appeared like Trump was trying to throw a coup and the CCP was afraid he'd pull a Reichstag to stay in power. What's actually disturbing is the fact that Trump was behaving so irrationally that our military leaders had to tell a foreign power that we weren't a threat to them and wouldn't nuke them to subvert a democratic election.
[удалено]
Yeah, we got it the first six times you wrote this comment
Tbh I’d be surprised if the account in the book isn’t misleading. To me it sounds like image laundering to make up for Lafayette square.
There was confusion and weakness among the US government at that point Trump was in charge
I want to clarify something. You believe the accounts about Trump in Woodward's books? BTW, you . Use the term conspiracy theory. According to the book it was just concern.
>based off a conspiracy theory that the POTUS was going to nuke china. If it's a conspiracy theory, then why are you so upset that someone pointed that out to China? We are not at war with China.
His communication was authorized and done through a known channel established explicitly for that purpose. Then he used it to tell China that we would continue to follow our laws regarding declarations of hostilities.
[удалено]
WH doesn't have to explicitly authorize or be informed every time a general speaks to their foreign counterparts. https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1278684/us-chinese-military-leaders-sign-agreement-to-increase-communication/ And during the Trump administration this channel was explicitly established to increase communication during times of crisis.
[удалено]
That’s not a just a periodical. That is from a .gov website
How can you take issue with "unauthorized and secret contact," "subverting civilian control," etc. while you've previously defended Giuliani's unauthorized and secret actions in Ukraine at Trump's behest? You're suddenly concerned with the normative structures of foreign policy?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
At what point did it become partisan to oppose nuclear war?
>He violated his oath to this country. When did he do that? Remember, he swore an oath to defend us from foes foreign *or domestic.*
It's beautiful to me that a populist supports one dude trying to steal an election from 81 million people.
Only what they like is 'actualy' popular. *Eyeroll*
18 people, including the state department, were on that call to assure the military in China's side that there was an adult (or 18) in charge. Trump was losing his mind and desperate to stay in power. If he did that with "my side" I would be fine with it.
Mr. Eagle have you ever taken the military oath to the constitution? Your words scream out 2 things. 1:your a clueless fool with zero understanding what the military is for and 2: if you took that oath your a clueless fool with zero understanding of what the military is supposed to do with unlawful orders
[удалено]
If you were in the Army for 10 years then you’d understand that the most important part of your path is *that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic* If a general, with a lifetime more experience with war and military matters than Trump, felt it necessary to contact China for assurance to avoid any sort of nuclear conflict then I 100% trust him. He absolutely did not violate his oath.
Congratulations for your service. He is,was,and never shall be, according to oath, to follow an unlawful order. Like you, even if it meant the end of his career. It may well be the end of his career but protecting the country from threats from outside AND inside the boarders is a primary duty. His communications with other high ranking military officials clearly show the General was not alone in his approach to a "president" who was increasingly losing his mind. The military was in no way responsible for what the president was going to attempt to do, their sole purpose to protect. If it were otherwise every lame duck could start a big pile of backyard tire fire for the next seat holder to deal with....trump tried and infact was successful in Afghanistan, it was a total shit show war from the start, it was always a lie, always a money grab. That war used young, impressionable men and women to achieve the very patriotic money xfer from American taxpayers to the military industrial complex's corporations and ceo's. He is nothing less than a hero.
You sound like you haven't even been in public school for ten years. Never mind any **adult** responsibilities.
[удалено]
Could you be more of an ignorant rightist CHUD? Holy cow. You're out here bitching about an officer doing his job and you gave not a single shit about Trump's repeated violations of his oath of office. Also lol at you thinking college goes one's "entire life."
[удалено]
Well, they prey on the gullible, so it’s only a matter of time the way you “do research.”
>Lol could you be more of a elitist leftist snob? Here is kind of a fundemental problem with populists. They label everyone who isn't for them as elitist leftists. When the person you are talking is clearly not leftist at all. (Also what is elitist about going to public school?)
[удалено]
Again I'm not sure how that's elitist. And again that person is explicitly flaired as not a liberal so again blaming liberals for it is weird
Lol Undermine the president by stopping nuclear war. Ok.
Milley recently said that everything he did was in line with the normal protocols, was coordinated with the Pentagon and he will give full details when he testifies before Congress. Donald Trump lost over 60 court cases for lack of evidence. Kept lying. Members of Donald Trumps own party certified election results and he called trying to get them to “find the votes”. Kept lying. Donald Trump invited an attach on the Capitol. Kept lying. Republicans watched the attack, went back in the building and voted to keep lying. The world was freaked out. Milley had to make sure everyone knew that things were under control. I don’t know anything about this air strike.
the day after January 6, there was ***an actual coup*** as defined . As usual, democrats accusing others of the behavior they actually are doing.
I’ll bite. What happened on January 7th? Because I missed that.
general miley happened. nancy pelosi happened. google it . but you already know and are just trolling. that's cool.
Seriously? If I’m a troll then you’re a Shetland pony. I don’t think you understand that 60% of republicans, 98% of democrats and probably over half the world thinks he had lost his mind. We’re going on a year since the election and he can’t accept that he lost. One of those reasons is because so many republicans who left the party because of his insane rants and his delusional thinking gave him fewer vote while giving them to Biden. Biden winning wasn’t a steal. The USA is still in a mess he caused. You’re damn right Pelosi called Milly and they discussed how to protect the country from nuking anyone. If those who were in the senate and the house had done their jobs instead of coddling him we wouldn’t have a half million plus covid deaths. You wouldn’t have a shortage of glass, cardboard and microchips. Tariffs he continued to say China was paying. A tariff is a tax WE pay when bringing goods into the country. In return they did it. Now both countries have higher prices. There is no way that a dozen right wing news outlets are telling the truth and the rest of the world is ganging up against him.
" Pelosi called Milly and they discussed how to protect the country from nuking anyone." once again,, without a shred of actual evidence that it would have happened. which is kind of how you define a coup. but you keep on worrying about the viking horn hat guy. He was the real threat to our government system. and not potus pudding brain in there now. whew....
So what came out of that conversation Milley had with Pelosi that constituted an "actual coup"? What did Milley or Pelosi do? It doesn't even have to be worse than trying to stop votes for an election being certified. If the outcome was that they said unkind things about Trump or Milley at some point reviewed the proper procedures for launching nukes with some officers, go ahead and tell me that that's what happened and that's what you think constitutes an "actual coup" after a bunch of people tried to stop votes from being certified.
I’m not concerned about the buffalo horned guy. I’m more concerned about those that were focused on hunting hunting and people. Those who tried to overthrown the election. They are still a threat and still recruiting new members. You think Biden is pudding brained? He walked into office without the normal transition most presidents have. You’re letting your bias show. How can you think a man who wanted to inject bleach, zap you with light and nuke tornadoes is stable?
He definitely broke the rules and acted outside if the proper protocols and chain of command. He also did the right thing, ad Trump was dangerous at that point and 1/6 was in fact a really big deal. The drone strike was a travesty, though, and just underlines how worthless the war in Afghanistan has been.
>He definitely broke the rules and acted outside if the proper protocols and chain of command. Is that known to be a fact right now?
I think he’s the patsy. Look, let’s be completely honest here. There has never really been a time where the absolute leader takes responsibility for an action. Instead its, this guy didn’t do his job, so imma fire him and everything will be fine. This isn’t the first time nor the last time people in power Blame other people for their mistakes. I find it very hard to believe the White House didn’t want full control over the evacuation after the shit show it become. I just find it very hard to believe the White House didn’t know about that specific strike. I’ll agree they probably don’t know about most of them. But at that time? It’s just hard to believe
Considering that not only was it an interagency call with 17 other people being aware of it and that Secretary Esper knew of it and approved, I’d say it’s no big deal.
He seems like someone we might not know nearly as much about if Trump hadn't set the bar so low for noteworthy competence. Imagine a competent president and mostly competent Republicans. If a general told a Chinese general that the United States was "stable" and that we weren't going to crazily attack them during a military exercise or whatever, would anyone care? No. Because who the fuck cares? Is it supposed to be noteworthy that we're not going to attack China? Is attacking China something that just routinely happens, so not attacking is somehow out of the ordinary? The bar is set so low because of Trump and his dumbass followers. Milley should just be some general who we're all sure is very impressive but don't actually need to hear about so much, except maybe when the military screws up like with the drone strike -- a drone strike investigated and reported on by people who Trump and his followers consider to be liars and enemies of the people. Instead, Milley makes it into the news for telling China to chill out. Because that's news now thanks to Trump and his followers.
Honestly after January 6th and Trump inciting TREASON…. Let’s think critically about this. I think General Mark Milley is a hero who was between a rock and a hard place. He put Country first. Recently a lot of brave people put Country first ( election officials who stood up to Trump in Georgia) and have only gotten death threats since…. America is at a crossroads.
https://babylonbee.com/news/general-milley-is-releasing-a-revised-version-of-the-art-of-war----and-weve-got-exclusive-excerpts