Politics

[steve white]

Oh hell, did I press "send"? That's it, I'm putting myself in timeout.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

Each if there is a big one But for sake of discussion let's presume they happened. In order for that to be the case:

First from I've read China claimed they had intelligence that we were about to attack them. And this led to the interaction between Milley and Zoocheng. I find it quite improbable that Trump was actually going to start a war with China to somehow retain office. And thus I think this supposed "intelligence" was a load of crap. But let's say this was out there and given all of the craziness going on at the time, would an attempt to de-escalate the situation and prevent a war be an act of treason?

But let's say for a moment that Trump was in fact considering a preemptive attack on China. That the intelligence was true. I can only see where that would be a disaster. I'll ask again, would an attempt to de-escalate the situation and prevent a war be an act of treason?

I see the same analysis when it comes to the possibility that Trump would've used nuclear weapons preemptively, only the situation becomes an existential issue for the entire world.

So on the one hand, it seems Red Leg excuses some of Milley’s behavior since he is beholden to civilian politicians, and on the other, you seem to be excusing his behavior when he states that he will ignore the orders of civilian politicians (the president). That seems incongruous.

I don’t have strong opinions on Milley besides my general disdain for his part in overemphasizing the Democrat’s white-nationalist bogeyman, but he should not be immune to criticism, even if he has had an exceptional career. Remember that Philipe Pétain was a hero before he was a traitor. One does not preclude the other.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

So on the one hand, it seems Red Leg excuses some of Milley’s behavior since he is beholden to civilian politicians, and on the other, you seem to be excusing his behavior when he states that he will ignore the orders of civilian politicians (the president). That seems incongruous.

I don’t have strong opinions on Milley besides my general disdain for his part in overemphasizing the Democrat’s white-nationalist bogeyman, but he should not be immune to criticism, even if he has had an exceptional career. Remember that Philipe Pétain was a hero before he was a traitor. One does not preclude the other.

I can't say I entirely disagree with you here. But I'm not so much excusing his behavior near as much as I'm saying that I'm ok with it in respect to this issue on China if he in fact played a role in preventing a disastrous situation. Can you imagine what the situation would've been like if war broke out at that time with China?

We did not excuse German soldiers who claimed they were just following orders for their roles in murdering millions of Jews. By default we were saying the correct path was to not follow orders. It would've taken great courage to not follow those orders and of course opened themselves up to the same accusations of being traitors.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

I can't say I entirely disagree with you here. But I'm not so much excusing his behavior near as much as I'm saying that I'm ok with it in respect to this issue on China if he in fact played a role in preventing a disastrous situation. Can you imagine what the situation would've been like if war broke out at that time with China?

We did not excuse German soldiers who claimed they were just following orders for their roles in murdering millions of Jews. By default we were saying the correct path was to not follow orders. It would've taken great courage to not follow those orders and of course opened themselves up to the same accusations of being traitors.

That’s all true. However I have not seen any evidence that Trump intended to actually attack China or that China actually planned to attack us.

My impression, in the absence of better evidence, is that Milley was attempting to score political points in the waning days of the Trump administration.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

That’s all true. However I have not seen any evidence that Trump intended to actually attack China or that China actually planned to attack us.

My impression, in the absence of better evidence, is that Milley was attempting to score political points in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Totally agree with the first statement and as I mentioned in my first post on Milley, I think this so called intelligence was crap.

As for your impression on Milley scoring points, perhaps so. I wouldn't say one way or the other.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Wathe208]

Each if there is a big one But for sake of discussion let's presume they happened. In order for that to be the case:

First from I've read China claimed they had intelligence that we were about to attack them. And this led to the interaction between Milley and Zoocheng. I find it quite improbable that Trump was actually going to start a war with China to somehow retain office. And thus I think this supposed "intelligence" was a load of crap. But let's say this was out there and given all of the craziness going on at the time, would an attempt to de-escalate the situation and prevent a war be an act of treason?

But let's say for a moment that Trump was in fact considering a preemptive attack on China. That the intelligence was true. I can only see where that would be a disaster. I'll ask again, would an attempt to de-escalate the situation and prevent a war be an act of treason?

I see the same analysis when it comes to the possibility that Trump would've used nuclear weapons preemptively, only the situation becomes an existential issue for the entire world.

To both of your scenarios, yes, I believe they could be. @redleg asked on this post regarding Milley "So, how is he a traitor?" I gave an answer. I didn't say he was, but if his actions were thus, yes, I personally believe he is. Regardless, nothing will be done to him as he's anti-Trump, therefore, a leftist darling protected from on high. Just like the clown that pulled the fire alarm in Congress today. Nothing will happen if you're on the "right" side.

I would ask that you step back and think about the implications of your question. The reasoning that rule of law or chain of command can and should be bypassed by those WE agree with is a dangerous, woke minded, leftist talking point to dispute the finality of our constitution and the laws of the land.

What analysis do you see regarding a very possible nuclear scenario from Biden playing out with Russia and NATO as more and more "support and aid" are sent to Ukraine? Not to mention the current situation with China and Taiwan, or N Korea. Using your reasoning, should all in the chain of command do what THEY feel is right in these scenarios?

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[Brent in Az]

Democrat children.

 

[Red Leg]

I took my post down because I am somewhat conflicted. I do not believe Milley has done nearly enough to defend the institution, history, and culture of the United States Armed Forces from the corrosive influence of the woke community within this administration. But, that has nothing to do with his loyalty to this country - which I hasten to point out is also very different than his loyalty to Donald J Trump - though likely not in Trump's self-indulgent mind or his uncritical followers.

But before we go further, let me simply note that neither Milley nor any other uniformed officer of the United States is "beholden to civilian politicians." Rather, he is required by the constitution to be subordinate to their directives. There is an exception should he be given an illegal order or find himself in a position where he might receive such an order (more about that in a bit).

The first "treasonous" incidents cited here, and also in the right wing opinion sites were the calls SECDEF Mark Esper directed Milley and the deputy assistant defense secretary for China Chad Sbragia to make in mid-October to reassure their Chinese counterparts that the U.S. "had no intention of instigating a military crisis against China." As directed, Milley called his Chinese counterpart on October 30. Therefore, (and to remind, that Esper fellow was appointed by Donald J Trump) Milley carried out a legal order. The call was a video conference with more than a dozen people present including reps from State and Central intelligence. Esper approved the content of the call. We only have General Li Zoucheng's alleged statement with respect to content claiming Milley said, that the US had no intention to initiate a kinetic strike against China and that Milley would call him if an attack was imminent. The later comment raised a lot eyebrows, but the actual verbatim content of the call has never been released (that is usual practice unless one is Donald Trump and being impeached over a call to Ukraine). I personally find it unlikely a senior military leader would disavow our first strike prerogative against one of our two most likely enemies, but no one really knows and nothing with respect to the content of that call was anything but him doing his job.

The second call was two days after the January riot. Milley called a number of counterparts including his Chinese opposite to assure them that the US government was stable. This call was also fully staffed though acting secretary Miller has offered conflicting statements about whether or not he personally was fully informed. Like the first engagement, this call was represented by the joint agency group with numerous attendees. Again whether, he was directed by Miller, informed Miller, or simply acted in his capacity as COS there is nothing unusual about the call.

If I may be so bold, the one truly unusual incident was Donald Trump calling for demonstrations at the capital the day the election would be certified. That led to the third incident which has caused the most discussion. At some point Milley apparently became concerned that it was at least possible that the President might take some military action that would undermine the peaceful transfer of power to the new administration. Milley apparently communicated that concern to the respective service and intelligence agency chiefs to insure that any unilateral US military action would be fully vetted before execution.

The latter action has caused the most criticism.

First of all there is no direct transcription between him and the respective agency and service chiefs. But if I may go back to my second paragraph, no American officer is obligated to follow unquestionably the order of a superior - even the President of the United States - if it is illegal. As this country helped establish at Nuremburg, simply following orders is not a defense. An initiating nuclear Armageddon would be indefensible.

I have no idea if Trump was truly unstable or actually trying to overthrow the results of the election. No one on this site knows the answer to that question either. I am confident he was hoping something would happen that would keep him in power. I am absolutely certain no one on this site, including me, had any insight to his state of mind. But, Milley did.

A number of republicans initially expressed grave concerns with respect to Milley's actions concerning review of preemptive US military strikes. I find it interesting that none, except perhaps Donald Trump, apparently do so now.

 

[Brent in Az]

The Senate swamp votes 88-9 to avert shutdown. Republicans have become a disgrace.
Minority Swamp leader, Mitch McConnell, said funding the Ukraine is the GOP's #1 priority. I really despise that man and his RINO cohort's

 

[LivingTheDream]

Ukraine Aid wasn't included in the CR.

 

[Brent in Az]

No money was included in the CR for additional border control, and the mounting crisis.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Then you should have said that in your previous post rather than discussing Ukraine.

Also not sure what good you think funding will do in this administration. They spent more removing materials from the boarder rather than finishing the wall.

With that being said, I dont care for Mitch either.

 

[Red Leg]

The Senate swamp votes 88-9 to avert shutdown. Republicans have become a disgrace.
Minority Swamp leader, Mitch McConnell, said funding the Ukraine is the GOP's #1 priority. I really despise that man and his RINO cohort's

Sucks being the minority party in the senate doesn’t it. Thank Donald Trump and Georgia for that.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Brent in Az]

These politicians care more about flinging money at the Ukraine ......AKA .. America's proxy war with Russia, then they do about protecting our borders, and the American taxpayer.
If they really want to accomplish something in the Ukraine, they need to join forces, send in the heavy hitters, kick some ass, and send the Russians home with their tail between their legs.

Seems to me, that everyone is afraid of Putin and his threats.

 

[Ray B]

Thank Donald Trump and Georgia for that.

The mainstream media and Socialist/Democratic party also get some of the credit.

 

[Brent in Az]

The $ 7.13 billion dollars in military hardware that commie Joe and the military brain trust left in Afghanistan would come in pretty handy for the Ukrainian war. But hey ....just leave it for the terrorist's.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

To both of your scenarios, yes, I believe they could be. @redleg asked on this post regarding Milley "So, how is he a traitor?" I gave an answer. I didn't say he was, but if his actions were thus, yes, I personally believe he is. Regardless, nothing will be done to him as he's anti-Trump, therefore, a leftist darling protected from on high. Just like the clown that pulled the fire alarm in Congress today. Nothing will happen if you're on the "right" side.

I would ask that you step back and think about the implications of your question. The reasoning that rule of law or chain of command can and should be bypassed by those WE agree with is a dangerous, woke minded, leftist talking point to dispute the finality of our constitution and the laws of the land.

What analysis do you see regarding a very possible nuclear scenario from Biden playing out with Russia and NATO as more and more "support and aid" are sent to Ukraine? Not to mention the current situation with China and Taiwan, or N Korea. Using your reasoning, should all in the chain of command do what THEY feel is right in these scenarios?

Regarding your comments regarding chain of command.....I see you're from Idaho. Not sure what part of the state you're in, but perhaps you're familiar with the INEL. The government nuclear power site some 50 miles west of Idaho Falls. I worked there, quite closely with the navy. I was a civilian but I attended the Naval Nuclear Power School which was at the time in Orlando, Fl. After graduation I then went to the INEL for in plant qualifications at the Naval Reactors Facility. You can Google that if you wish to learn more about it. I mention this only to make you understand that while I was never in the service and won't pretend like I was, I did learn something about giving, taking and executing orders when operating a nuclear power plant. Failure to do so can result in some serious consequences as I'm sure you can imagine. So I take that quite seriously along with the chain of command.

That said, this is the first time I've ever been accused of having a "woke" idea, I must disagree however. @Red Leg touches on this in his last post. But for the sake of discussion presume the so called intelligence that the US was going to attack China preemptively was true. If that is the case, then that certainly comes under the heading of declaring a war.

Now certainly a President needs to have some latitude in the execution of his office and defending the country in the event it is attacked and not have to go to Congress for permission. But this wasn't the case in January of 2021. China had not attacked the US nor do I know of any plans they had in place to do so at that time.

Now the last I looked, only Congress has the ability to declare war. There's a reason for this. We elect a President, not a king or dictator (though some act as if they are). This part of the Constitution was intended in my opinion to hold a President accountable. It's a counterweight to prevent the POTUS from unilaterally engaging in war. A balance to prevent unnecessary loss of life and treasure. I think that was a wise decision by the framers of the constitution.

So any order from Trump to attack China would've been in violation of the Constitution and it would've been an illegal order since Congress had not approved. And you can be certain Trump knew if he had sought Congressional approval at that time for a declaration of war on China he certainly would have not received it.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Those are the two oaths that the POTUS and a military officer take when they're swore in. Both contain the words "defend the Constitution" as you can see. I would argue that if Trump ordered an attack on China without Congressional approval that he was not preserving, protect or defending the Constitution and would've been in violation of it.

Similarly I would argue that if Milley had rejected that order he would've been therefore within his oath of supporting and defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. I don't see following the Constitution as being a "woke" or "leftist" paradigm.

Regarding Biden / Russia / Ukraine / China / N Korea and nuclear weapons, this is certainly a precarious position. A position that requires sober and serious thought prior to taking any actions, free from emotional outbursts. Prior to any preemptive strikes and a tacit declaration of war by the POTUS, the Constitution should be followed. Again the POTUS must have a degree of latitude to do what is necessary to defend the country in the event it is attacked. And no, I don't think anyone in the chain of command should be allowed to simply ignore commands just because they feel something isn't right.

But the scenario of the POTUS acting in defense of the country was not the situation in January, 2021.