"Austin Bay on General Milley" Topic

link

"In Milley's case, we're confronting the abrogation of the constitutional order of the military under civilian control and ultimately the U.S. military's duty to defend America regardless of the party or personality of the president.

Fact for Milley: Senior Chinese military officers are members of the Chinese Communist Party. Tiananmen Square. Hong Kong absorption. Uighur genocide. The Chinese military is a Party tool, Mark, a violent tool.

Milley's short-sighted and, I argue, savvily self-serving action weakened U.S. national security and put the U.S. constitutional system at risk."

I wonder if we now need to start including possibilities like this in our wargaming rules more often.

Of course, back in the Renaissance Era Italian Wars, and in the Wars of the Roses, we've all heard of rogue commanders and/or factions switching sides, but looks like we now need to consider that in the ultra-modern period as well.

Yes, that's a horrible and intriguing thought.

Another game rule might be that a rogue king has gone raging mad and rumors about disastrous orders, dangerous conduct abound. Commanders would have to juggle the potential collapse of any remaining civilian authority, the intent of the mad kings orders, and the collapse of government institutions as they try to defend the nation.

One mistake in judgment on this tightrope could mean an outside enemy attacks or the king reduces morale and cohesion, to be reflected in reduced strength points.

Again, a political screech, not related to miniature gaming.

Then why are you here, Dan? The thread title is clear. Do you not WANT free discussion of such important topics?

Has Bill forced everyone on TMP to read every thread ? 😲 I got a lot of reading to do ! 🤓

Regardless … My take on Milley I posted on another thread …

That being said, it is too bad many don't realize/know what all those tabs, patches, devices, metals, etc., mean on Milley's uniform[not the silly one in the cartoon!]. At one time he was an amazingly qualified, trained, experienced, soldier. Frankly I am in awe. We used to say, when seeing that well of a decorated soldier, "few could shine his boots" … I know I couldn't …

Most here can't even imagine/fathom what it takes to be an Airborne Ranger Green Beret. I served with some of them as well as an Airborne Ranger former SEAL was assigned my Mech Co.

The mental and physical challenges, etc., involved in that training alone. Most would think they died and went to Hell …

I don't care what he once was. What he is now is an abomination and should be tried for treason mediately.

Milley' s service record is of the highest order. There are no laws about protocols for launching nukes, mostly just executive orders handed down. I fully expect a commander of Milley's ability to make use of his experience and high degree of intelligence, and that of his colleagues, along with all those professionals who were in on the phone calls, to assess and act on any situation with the national security interests in mind. It looks quite likely that he did this, but we need to be sure. We need to hear from him and we will.

In the meantime why do we not consider even the possibility that the commander and chief was the problem? Maybe he was not, but going after Milley alone just doesn't sit right. He is too good a soldier to have gone off the rails without being able to back up his actions.

The issue of the subordinate bypassing and undermining the superior (on a matter of supreme importance!) does indeed require an accounting. EITHER Miley is justified because of the president, or Miley is utterly unjustified, and we really need to insist on an accounting to establish which it is. There will not be one if what is really involved is political warfare of the most vicious sort, and no neutral objective judge will be found.

I think, in view of the circumstances, he is heroic. I think he belongs in a Kennedy's "Profiles In Courage" type of book. I used to think there were rules for everything, but I have come to realize, as much as we try to codify everything to be fair or lawful, some things need to be done by people who are courageous enough to take chances and are willing to face the consequences. Sometimes, after the fact, we call them horrible people and sometimes we call them heroes.

Are we talking JFK-style "courage", where the Cuban nationals were abandoned in the Bay of Pigs fiasco by their ally (invoking the 10 Year TMP rule here)?

Stabbed in the back at the drop of a hat, and abandoned.

If so, I can see that for Milley.

But, rusty, would you not agree that the honorable way, if he truly had concerns about the president's stability, would have been a resignation with a public letter explaining why? Doing it secretly looks very cowardly.

Since this thread is totally political and in violation of the "10 year rule", I feel free to violate that rule in reply.
Milley obviously felt that Trump was a deranged sociopath who needed to be reined in lest he get us involved in a war with China.
I agree totally with his actions, but also feel that he should resign.

If I get the DH for this, it means that doc is free to post political screeds, and nobody is allowed to disagree.
Best for this thread to be nuked.

I wonder if Congress ever signed off on the protocols for launching nukes.
Please enlighten me on this.
If Congress never did, please enlighten me on why the Executive branch is solely qualified to decide if tens of millions of civilians' lives are purely at the whim of a bitter DEFEATED candidate for re-election.

Please. Enlighten the ignorant.

Good question. Congress does fund the elements that comprise the system, from the elements of the nuclear triad, to the various intelligence agencies etc, plus the military itself. But there are sound reasons, aren't there, that decisions about imminent threats, have to be the responsibility of the executive. And our is unitary. (and the other two branches are not even THERE, part of each year.)

But my undestanding is that there is a process that the president initiates but which requires several other participants.

John, do you know the story of Colonel Lynch of Virginia, Governor Thomas Jefferson, and the Loyalist plot to seize the lead mines in sw Va? The county lieutenant (the governor's personal rep in a county, a civilian position, and CinC of the county's militia). Lynch learned of a plot that seemed very dangerous, and took extra-legal steps against it. THEN after he had dealt with the threat he informed Jefferson, who laid the report on the legislature and said: the executive acted outside the law, due to the imminent threat. If you agree it was justified, authorize it retroactively. And the legislature passed an acr indemnifying Lynch et. al. and prohibiting any lawsuits against him for the extra-legal actions.

"Surviving pension records indicate that Lynch activated the militia from Bedford County and marched its members to present day Concord and Montgomery County, Virginia. Concord was the site of Lynch's own lead manufactory operation. There were reports that British sympathizers, known as Loyalists or "Tories", were planning to capture his gunpowder and lead works. Colonel Lynch mobilized the militia to respond to the threat of the Loyalist uprising or any attempt overthrow the Patriot government in Virginia. A Loyalist seizure of the lead and gunpowder could have spelled disaster for Virginia Patriots. As Lynch and the militia marched to Concord, Cornwallis was concurrently pushing his British Army up through the Carolinas. The imminent threat of a British invasion, was a genuine fear for many Virginians. Fortunately, Lynch was successful in preventing the attack, and the militia captured at least seventy-five prisoners. An account written in 1787 by a Bedford County jailer claimed that Colonel Lynch's deposit overcrowded his gaol and forced him into the hardship that comes with providing food and care for such a large group of prisoners.

So there may well be times when an executive has to act outside the law, but he MUST then submit an account and justification of his actions to the legislature. At least that was te Anglo-American understanding 200 years ago.

What does Lynch have to do with whether Congress approved of the protocols for launching nuclear weapons???

This is not 1969, with unexpected sneaky Soviets waiting to ambush us.
We've had plenty of time since then to get these protocols set in law.

Imagine waiting for Congress with Soviet/Russian missles inbound.

It seems pretty incredibly that Milley has been spoken of here and judged as if people knew exactly what happened.

What Lynch has to do with Miley is that sometimes action may be necessary outside normal procedures, but our tradition requires a public accounting afterwards.

Imagine waiting for Congress with Soviet/Russian missles inbound.

Which is not at all what I am saying.
I am asking if Congress has okayed the procedures and protocols for our launching nukes.
That includes First Strike , which I believe we have never said we would not do.

We've been waiting for inbound Russian missiles for decades, going back into the previous century. Does not Congress deserve any input on policy? After all, the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
Who sets up the whole chain? Has it been approved?

Short answer is yes. The Congressional hearings would be closed.

For example, Congress has to know what the launch philosophy for boomers is. They are a dead mans switch. They launch when nobody is there to tell them to nOT launch. Everyone knows that, including Congress.

Maybe should not contribute to another 'political' argument.. and not MY Country.. but arguers may consider that UK, recently, had a very possible candidate for Prime Minister… who, (According to Press!), stated that he would NEVER USE UK's Nuclear Deterrent. Just think about it and chill a bit… given some words on some threads. (Chill being a good word in circumstance!).
I do agree with many of his other possible policies… but a 'nightmare' politician from the 70s / 80s for Defence. Glad he's out of running, now.

Remember, everyone and especially John, that Reagan CULTIVATED a "cowboy" image while president -- and, not entirely coincidentally, he brought down the Soviet Union. I taught World Politics at the local university for about a decade, roughly the 1980s, and the department used several texts, all of which had a chapter on nuclear deterrence, the triad, command control, etc. The textbooks agreed that some degree of uncertainty adds to deterrence. The US has never, I believe, stated that it would never strike first, although the submarine force is very much a second-strike, because the missiles are only accurate enough to hit a large target like a city. That may not be true now, I don't know.

Thresher01, The figures in the book, not JFK himself, is what I was referring to.
John, I believe Gen. Milley should suffer the consequences of his action, whatever that needs to be. Resignation, IMHO, is not a necessary consequence but could be if enough people feel it is necessary. We have become quite a resign-for-what-you-did society and I feel it is overdone always demanding it.
All, I understand it is questionable if he violated anything at all and I do not know how to judge that. Many of us are judgemental without considering whether we know all the facts. Facts could come out that would change my mind. I am open to that.

doc, I would suggest that you look at some of the post 1980s political analysis. It wasn't Reagan's "cowboy" attitude (an actor's affect designed to make him look more palatable to average Americans) who brought down the SU and Reagan policies included support for the Marcos regime in the Philippines, the Contras, and apartheid South Africa (as well as the Muj in Afghanistan…). It was SU military overspending leading to Gorbachev and the subsequent liberalizing of economic policies. Even Reagan recognized the change at the time and broke with many of his contemporaries who were skeptical of the Soviet leader. In reality it was the hardliners on both sides who were the impediments to progress, which is hardly shocking.

Instability (real or perceived) has been actively avoided since the US has been a nuclear power. Erratic behavior undermines ally support, negotiations with rivals, etc. and can have unforeseen consequences. When you have potential MAD, it can be catastrophic, which is why Reagan's rapidly degenerating mental faculties were kept under wraps. Even the "madman theory" used to describe Nixonian strategy was premised more on strength and unwillingness to be constrained rather than actual erratic behavior (and Nixon was an intelligent strategist who had adopted this as a gambit in regards to Vietnam).

Tortorella is absolutely correct that trying to rush to judgment an scraps of information generally kept shrouded to all but the highest levels and filtered through whoever is sharing them seems a fool's errand. We still know only limited amounts from previous administrations and I doubt anything short of a dedicated Congressional inquiry would get much of substance. Even then, it would be highly politicized.

The questions about Congressional approval are interesting. The president, as commander in chief, is authorized sole authority to approve a nuclear strike. In February of this year, 31 Congressional members signed a letter requesting Biden relinquish sole authority to use nuclear launch codes. That is extraordinarily unlikely, and the small number seems to indicate Congress is okay with even potentially unfit presidents retaining the authority, which is consistent with the empowerment of the executive over the last few decades.

The Soviet Union did not fall; it was pushed. By Reagan, though Maggie Thatcher and Pope John Paul II had a lot to do with it as well. Reagan constructed a grand strategy that used his rhetoric to de-legitimize the "evil empire". He pushed missile defense ("Star Wars") and got the Soviets into an arms race they could not afford yet could not quit. He acted decisively in Grenada and in Afghanistan. The CIA worked with the Church to keep Solidarity alive and ultimately collapsed the Polish Communist regime. He spoke, and the Wall came a-tumbling down. All over the former Soviet satellite countries one sees "Ronald Reagan Strasse"; they know who saved them.

Trigger alert! It is VDH at his most outspoken.
link

"There is only one bright spot for the moment: perhaps the Chinese, Russians, North Koreas, and Iranians see us as so crazy, weird, and self-loathing that they have no idea what our best and brightest nihilists might do. And for now, they all are trying to determine the relative deterrence of a nuclear-armed, wacky social-justice nation led by a president who, by any past measure of what is required daily of the commander-in-chief, is not really president at all."

There ya go! We are safer at the moment because our president hasn't a clue.

Milley' s service record is of the highest order. There are no laws about protocols for launching nukes, mostly just executive orders handed down. I fully expect a commander of Milley's ability to make use of his experience and high degree of intelligence, and that of his colleagues, along with all those professionals who were in on the phone calls, to assess and act on any situation with the national security interests in mind. It looks quite likely that he did this, but we need to be sure. We need to hear from him and we will.

Oh stop ! Trying to be logical, reasonable, stating facts about Nuclear Release, etc.

The torches & pitchforks are already out …

"There is only one bright spot for the moment: perhaps the Chinese, Russians, North Koreas, and Iranians see us as so crazy, weird, and self-loathing that they have no idea what our best and brightest nihilists might do. And for now, they all are trying to determine the relative deterrence of a nuclear-armed, wacky social-justice nation led by a president who, by any past measure of what is required daily of the commander-in-chief, is not really president at all."

Bingo !!!!

Why don't we just apply the same criteria we used with regard to previous administrations conversations with Russia? Or have we two sets of criteria depending? (Hint: yes.)

We have become quite a resign-for-what-you-did society and I feel it is overdone always demanding it.

I disagree. In fact I think it's quite the opposite.
How many times have we seen a politician pass the book, or even say "I take full responsibility for this"…. and nothing happens. Everything is then swept under the rug.

Let me clarify. Those who hate The Former Guy applaud his actions 100%, and want to name battleships after him. He disrespected Orange Guy! Yay!
Those who love The Former Guy believe that Milley betrayed Orange Guy and should be shot, after being hanged, his head mounted on a spike outside the Red Keep…

I believe that Milley did the right thing, but not the proper thing. He defused a potentially catastrophic situation, while at the same time turning his office political.
He must resign and say he did it for love of his country. His pension certainly isn't an issue. Speaking fees and tours will certainly make up for it. A nice contrite but defiant book will also make a fortune.
He did what was right, but his career now is a liability. He must resign.

but a 'nightmare' politician from the 70s / 80s for Defence.

Yes, I think even the UK's electorate, not noted for its political sharpness of late, went 'hang on a minute' with the 'we won't use it' bit. And I'm fairly certain they belonged to a class of left-wing politician utterly oblivious to the fact that if the Soviet's had ever rolled into town they probably would have been up against the wall just as quick as the Tory party or any other right-wing politician.

I suppose eventually some historian will look at Milley's conversations in the context of Cold War conversations if and when they are declassified – assuming they were written down in the first place. The one thing I will bet on is those conversations will have happened – though granted situationally somewhat different.

MacArthur and Miley:
link

I believe that Milley did the right thing, but not the proper thing. He defused a potentially catastrophic situation, while at the same time turning his office political.

I have a tendency to agree with that …

If Miley had any moral courage he would have resigned.

"It wasn't Reagan's "cowboy" attitude (an actor's affect designed to make him look more palatable to average Americans) who brought down the SU".

You are correct, it wasn't Reagan's "cowboy" attitude that broke the Soviet Union, it was his economics degree in college.

He saw an opportunity to break the Soviet Union, knowing that they could NOT keep up with American capitalism, and our ability to outproduce them with state of the art weapons in large quantities, and he seized it. The Soviet Union collapsed shortly thereafter, due to that inability to compete with the USA economicially and militarily.

Thresher, yes, that was the biggest part of it, but the rhetoric counted also. Calling evil what it is, in such a way that milliions HEAR and understand, was so important. The Pope and Maggie helped with that.

Yep, we need to get back to that, but it will be a few years before that is possible again, sadly.

Spot on Thresher! The difference in funding from the Carter to Reagan era, was immense. The larger funding for new equipment and systems was the most visible.

Speaking from experience. At the Company/Battalion levels in the Army, it was the most tangible. Money for Class IX (Repair parts) skyrocketed, and brought almost all units back up to their CAT I, II or III status. Also significant were POL and ammunition funding which allowed almost twice the previous amount of field exercises. In the 80's US Tank Crews were firing 120+ tank main gun rounds annually. In Russia, GSFG units may get a dozen and the others usually only 4 (for boresighting)

Thresher +1

"A real Buckaroo !" … 🤠🐎

Milley obviously felt that Trump was a deranged sociopath who needed to be reined in lest he get us involved in a war with China.
I agree totally with his actions, but also feel that he should resign.

That's an incomprehensibly bad judgement and assessment. Trump was the most de-escalatory president in 20 years. Despite whatever public bluster, little different from many other presidents, Trump's actions were rooted in reality and were firmly aimed at asserting US national security.

*Destroyed ISIS
*Formed historic peace deals between Israel and multiple Arab states
*Historic peace deal between two Balkan states
*Rapproachment attempt with nuke-armed North Korea
*Urged, cajoled and pushed NATO members to meet defense commitments
*Increase US defense commitment to Poland and Balkan States
*Increased defense commitments to APAC
*The first president to stand up to China and assert US interests
*Negotiated a phased, conditional withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan
*Held Iran accountable for terror attacks and took moves ot block its nuclear program

None of these actions are those of a madman ready to push the button on a whim. Many of his de-escalation actions, and attempt to end the Forever War, earned Trump the enmity of the Military-Industrial complex and generals who saw peace as a career ender.

If you read some of the insider storied coming out now, you see there was a clash between Trump's priorities (ending the Forever War on Terrorism) and the DOD/MIC.

In Spring 2017, Trump had demanded of his generals -- why is Afghanistan still such a mess after almost 20 years?!? He worried we'd lose it if we stayed on the same old path. Give us more resources!! was the response. As his one-time advisor Steve Bannon has said "They literally would not give you any information. And the information they gave you was . In every presentation, they say you're 18 months away from turning the war around. Always. You're always 18 months away."

So one of Trump's failings was his inability to slash and burn the DOD/MIC to put people in place who would carry out his policy vision and his *orders.*

So if Milley bought into the feverish Russia! Russia! Crazy Hitler Trump! media and political spin he has lost his sense of reality and context. No, Milley's actions are purely political and selfish. They are dangerous, they undermine our nuclear deterrence and civilian control of the military, compounded by revelations that people inside State and DOD lied to the last president about troop deployments and disobeyed orders to remove troops from Syria. for instance.

No, we have a crop of top military leaders who, despite their past history of good service, are now thoroughly political and self-interested DOD/MIC grifters, and are harmful to the well-being of the nation they profess to serve.

Watching the Congressional hearings, currently happening on the TV. With GEN. Milley, the Sec Def Austin, and GEN Mckinsy. It was made clear … that the civilian leadership did not take the Militaries' advice to not abandon Bagram, pulling out the military before the civilians and starting the withdrawal too late, and not telling our NATO or Afghan Allies of our withdrawal from Bagram. That was my assessment as well, as the withdrawal continued. And I was not the only one. You didn't have to be to see this, either. My finger points only in one direction … 👈

They didn't say this, but I will, ignoring the Militaries' and intel advice happened with other elected civilians leadership before. And that happened recently with the Kabul debacle.

I watched it, it was also clear that they were all being very careful to accept zero responsibility for anything. Then Milley got all faux outraged when asked if the debacle on his watch warranted a resignation, "The boys at Iwo Jima didn't resign, so I in good conscience cannot resign!"

Milley also demurred many times on statement made by Biden, "Look, I'm not going to comment on a statement made by the President of the United States" -- but recall that he had NO such qualms when it can to criticizing Trump. Whatever he was in the past, past accolades and awards, today he is little more than a self-interested political hack with no moral spine left.

SB that is exactly right.

After reading the congressional testimony, I withdraw the "hero" statement. It appears he was a soldier doing his duty. Nothing more. Nothing less. As far as the withdrawal, it reminded me of the picture of the US helicopter hovering over the American embassy in Saigon. The US needs to learn. All of us and future us's.

After reading the congressional testimony, I withdraw the "hero" statement. It appears he was a soldier doing his duty. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Just following orders, eh? And to date not one single officer involved in the greatest US foreign policy and military debacle since the Fall of Saigon has gone down -- not one officer resigned, retired or fired. Oh, they did bring the Lt Col who criticized them on social media up on charges and throw him in the brig, though. Nothing signals confidence and honesty like jailing your critics…

Miley now claims he was in cahoots with Defence Secretary and Secretary of State.

link

Many GENs thought we should have kept at least about 2500 or more Troops at Bagram. As the ANA/ANP were holding their own in many cases. With US support[advisors and CAS, just like Vietnam] and the CAS, Drones, etc., were flying out of Bagram.

The Taliban were being careful not to be too aggressive as they knew US CAS was close & available. They were going to wait us out, like the VC/NVA did. Once the US say they were planning on leaving, the ANA/ANP & Gov't's moral was effected. And the Afghan Gov't was corrupt too … so …

Again I know who I'm pointing my figure at … 👉