Trump was just the latest American president whose sanity the military questioned
link Sept. 15, 2021, 5:44 AM EDT By Marc Ambinder, MSNBC Opinion Columnist
During the turbulent final months of President Donald Trump’s administration, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took it upon himself to serve in loco parentis for a country that was descending into chaos, according to a preview of a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa. Milley reportedly told senior military officers to make sure they had his assent before executing nuclear launch orders. He played parent to the world, too: The preview said he used his personal relationship with the head of China’s military to assure him the U.S. was not about to collapse — and he promised to warn China ahead of time if the U.S. decided to launch some kind of military attack.
That is extraordinary. It’s comforting, in the sense that the two military chiefs can back-channel during moments of uncertainty. But it’s scary as hell because it assumes the elected officials making decisions are not cognitively capable. Milley clearly thought Trump was unhinged.
Here’s a thought: If the United States’ vaunted nuclear control system forces the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to secretly instruct his subordinates to ignore the chain of command to prevent a rogue president from instigating Armageddon, that system is broken.
However, three of the past nine presidents have exhibited behavior so worrying that their own staffs took quasi-legal (or perhaps not at all legal) steps to stop them from starting wars. President Richard Nixon drank heavily, and he missed a nuclear showdown with Russia because he was sleeping. Later, his secretary of defense would ask officers in the chain of command to check with him if Nixon ever called them directly and asked them to do something catastrophic. (Treason in service of patriotism is a fair way to characterize this.)
President Ronald Reagan, toward the end of his second term, had symptoms of what would later be diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease. For my book, "The Brink," I spoke to presidential aides who told me about offline discussions to make sure that every presidential order served a legitimate purpose. Reagan, luckily, viscerally feared nuclear war and was not about to start anything. The corollary is scary, too: His staff felt empowered to make decisions about critical national security matters without giving the president’s input its proper due.
Then there’s Trump, whose term in office was marked by nuclear brinksmanship against North Korea, Russia and Iran and whose post-election attempt at an autogolpe convinced his top aides that he was simply unhinged.
The military’s formal chain of command is operationalized as something called the National Military Command System, of which nuclear control orders are a major part. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the top military adviser to the president. However, the president is not required to check with him before making a decision, and the (highly classified) procedures don’t give the chairman a vote. His staff has to execute and transmit the orders, so he’d know about them, but “command authority” lies with the civilian-elected president or the president’s duly designated successors.
The Air Force has been in charge of a multibillion-dollar nuclear comms modernization project for years. I’ve been following it closely. A lot of money is being spent to upgrade resilience against cyberattack, to harden satellites, to add extra pathways for the president to communicate directly with nuclear fighter bombers. New command and control planes (with new acronyms) are being procured at the moment.
What isn’t being addressed — and what is rarely ever addressed inside the Pentagon — is what scholar Peter Hayes called the "ghost in the machine." Think of it like this: The system is designed to work when the decision-makers act rationally given a set of extraordinary circumstances. If Russia launches 100 intercontinental ballistic missiles at the U.S., the military wants to make sure the president can be confident that the intelligence, the warnings, the sensors are all seeing something real. That way, the thinking is, the president can be confident in making a decision about retaliating — and do so quickly.
So much thought has been put into the supply side of this equation — the intelligence and information that gets to the president — and as an historian of this subject, I find that comforting. But the reverse is also true: Nuclear exercises are designed for “a” president and their staff — not for the president, and certainly not for a president who is not capable of making rational decisions or who is capable but is malevolent, as is the case with Trump, here.
This is the ghost in the machine — the moment-to-moment psychological capacities of one person who can legally order the military to do anything. In the past, the military has responded to questions about presidential authority by noting that no one would execute an illegal order, whatever that is; it’s not defined anywhere. On top of that, they say, the military is bound to follow the laws of war. Here is how Gen. John Hyten, now the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, laid it out the last time Trump’s behavior precipitated this question, per NPR:
The way the process works is — it's simple — I provide advice to the president. He'll tell me what to do. And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen. I'm going to say, Mr. President, that's illegal. And guess what he's going to do. He's going to say, what would be legal? And we'll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated.
How is that simple? What if the president ignores the advice? An officer in Hyten’s position has no legal authority to interpret the law of war in place of the president.
Congress has asked whether nuclear authority should be dispersed so it does not depend on whim or on generals ignoring single orders. It’s time to explore that more seriously. It’s time to add the cognitive dimension to nuclear exercises. Secrecy doesn’t help, here. It’s time to explain, in clear detail to the public, the way the system works and the way it doesn’t.
The same situation could arise again. Trump could be back in office in a little more than three years.
Quite honestly, this is a non-story because it is what should have been done.
More fallout of the post-election/per-inaguration will come out.
It will be worse than anyone imagined.
Trump was hell bent on staying in office.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
Nuclear control should be a committee of military generals.
No reason any President should have much control in it other than a suggestion.
At least a committee would have more time to spend going over what-ifs and scenarios, so there is less confusion and more controlled thought put in when the time ever comes.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Nuclear control should be a committee of military generals.
No reason any President should have much control in it other than a suggestion.
At least a committee would have more time to spend going over what-ifs and scenarios, so there is less confusion and more controlled thought put in when the time ever comes.
I agree. It takes an act of Congress to declare war, presumably under the assumption that reaching a consensus of many will carry more wisdom than a single person.
Any act that carries such high stakes should not be entrusted to just one person.
Since we're going with opinion articles from MSNBC:
September 15, 2021 Can we believe Bob Woodward's story about General Milley? By Thomas Lifson
Can we believe the shocking allegations of misconduct on the part of General Mark Milley in a new book to come from Bob Woodward? His paper, the Washington Post, has published excerpts. Briefly:
Twice in the final months of the Trump administration, the country's top military officer was so fearful that the president's actions might spark a war with China that he moved urgently to avert armed conflict.
In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People's Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa...
"General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay," Milley told him. "We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you."
In the book's account, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they'd established through a backchannel. "General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise."
Photo credit: U.S. Secretary of Defense.
I already despise Milley for his focus on "white rage" and for his conduct of what became an abject surrender to the Taliban. But I have to express some caution about believing Woodward, who does not name his sources. Peter Hasson of the Daily Caller News Foundation cautioned us two years ago about Woodward, citing
repeated, credible charges — including from well-respected fellow journalists — that in previous books Woodward embellished the truth, made dubious bombshell claims or was otherwise misleading.
Woodward's former editor at the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, though publicly complimentary of Woodward, privately doubted some of the more dramatic elements of Woodward and Carl Bernstein's Watergate-era bestseller, "All The President's Men."
Richard Grenell has a caution for us today, as Katie Pavlich writes:
Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell is pouring cold water on new reporting from Bob Woodward, detailed in the Washington Post Tuesday, that General Mark Milley vowed to give China a heads up if President Donald Trump ordered an attack.
Richard Grenell @RichardGrenell Bob Woodward has become the Michael Wolff of Washington, DC.
It’s hard to believe anything the two of them write.
Trump isn’t a war starter and I don’t believe Milley thought he was. Quote Tweet The Washington Post @washingtonpost · Sep 14 Top general was so fearful Trump might spark war with China that he made secret calls to his counterpart in Beijing, new book says https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/
He's also dismissing calls from Alexander Vindman, the "whistleblower" behind Trump's first impeachment over a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for Milley to resign.
Richard Grenell @RichardGrenell Once again, Vindman shows he acts on gossip and innuendo. Quote Tweet Alexander S. Vindman @AVindman · 23h If this is true GEN Milley must resign. He usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military. It’s an extremely dangerous precedent. You can’t simply walk away from that. #dotherightthingintherightway twitter.com/washingtonpost…
Mark Levin pointed out on his syndicated radio show today that Woodward and the WaPo should not have sat on this story, if it is true, until Woodward had a book to hype. Milley allegedly was, after all, discussing a wartime situation in which the U.S. was going to strike China, which would make his giving aid and comfort to the enemy treason, a capital offense. Since we were not at war at the time he allegedly made these overtures, they probably do not qualify as treason per se, but they do indicate a plot to commit treason.
The sooner Milley is placed under oath before Congress and required to testify and produce documentary evidence of his communications, the better.
Republicans call Gen. Mark Milley 'traitor,' and say he should be fired or court-martialed for a report that he secretly intervened to avoid war with China
General Milley is a damn HERO and should be treated with absolute dignity, respect, and admiration for doing what he had to do to preserve and protect our democracy. The likes of your ilk will obviously disagree because this new book makes your messiah Donnie look like the unhinged fascist authoritarian tyrant he endeavored to be. Shame on you for your part in this un-American assault on yet another military hero by the shameless white supremacist and chief and his fascist propaganda machine. Fox News, Breitbart, Q, and whoever else you get your news from can kiss my progressive American ass; their constant malicious lying and twisting of truths in their so-called reporting is going to be the downfall of our democracy. And you and yours will be complicit.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 09/15/2104:23 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Republicans call Gen. Mark Milley 'traitor,' and say he should be fired or court-martialed for a report that he secretly intervened to avoid war with China
Republicans call Gen. Mark Milley 'traitor,' and say he should be fired or court-martialed for a report that he secretly intervened to avoid war with China
Republicans call Gen. Mark Milley 'traitor,' and say he should be fired or court-martialed for a report that he secretly intervened to avoid war with China
Seriously - proof positive for anyone that wants to acknowledge it: Many have a love of Trump over a love of country.
I never heard of Trump when I showed "love of country" by serving in the U.S. military.
When have you shown a love of country? What personal sacrifice have you made for this U.S. of A?
I'm not the one calling a distinguished General a traitor. I'm not the one supporting a would be insurrectionist over country.... that'd be you. Your service - for which you deserved praise and recognition - doesn't exonerate you for supporting and loving a wannabe King Trump over your country now.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Seriously - proof positive for anyone that wants to acknowledge it: Many have a love of Trump over a love of country.
I never heard of Trump when I showed "love of country" by serving in the U.S. military.
When have you shown a love of country? What personal sacrifice have you made for this U.S. of A?
I'll flip this back to you. The people calling for Milley's removal (Trump, Rand Paul, MTG, Gaetz, and Rubio), in addition to being the standard-bearers for the idiocy within our govt, also did not serve in the military (and in Trump's case is a known draft-dodger). So if board members are not allowed to criticize a posted political cartoon, then what right do service-less politicians have to call for a general's dismissal and/or court martial?
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Seriously - proof positive for anyone that wants to acknowledge it: Many have a love of Trump over a love of country.
I never heard of Trump when I showed "love of country" by serving in the U.S. military.
When have you shown a love of country? What personal sacrifice have you made for this U.S. of A?
I have served. Swish has. Several others here have as well that think like us and feel you are ridiculous. There is nothing and I MEAN NOTHING Patriotic about your politics. You want to act like it is not about Trump, but HE IS THE Republican party now. Truth is, you support the fascists trying to overthrow the country. You are a borderline enemy of democracy and domestic terrorist just for showing that support post January 6th. Before that I would have given you a break as just another lost soul snookered by the conman-in-chief. So before you go bashing 888 for anything, dust off that mirror and have a good look.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Seriously - proof positive for anyone that wants to acknowledge it: Many have a love of Trump over a love of country.
I never heard of Trump when I showed "love of country" by serving in the U.S. military.
When have you shown a love of country? What personal sacrifice have you made for this U.S. of A?
Yet now you show complete disregard the country you love by shoving a US General under a bus... Just like your feckless leader Trump. That fool tells you somebody is a traitor and you believe him even though all evidence proves otherwise...
Just so you know,, Many of those that are under indictment in Jan 6th insurrection attempt led by Trump and his cronies were former military.. They served...
Thank you for your service, but what the hell happened to you since?
Last edited by Damanshot; 09/16/2105:45 PM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Oddly enough, you throw a U.S. President under the bus whenever it fits your agenda. Or, when that president has a different initial behind his name. Remember, trump was once a democrat. Might want to learn history.
Oddly enough, you throw a U.S. President under the bus whenever it fits your agenda. Or, when that president has a different initial behind his name. Remember, trump was once a democrat. Might want to learn history.
Trump is the only president I ever throw under a bus. And he clearly deserves it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
