General Miley

[jj22]

Regardless of party, when our Generals have to protect us from our President, it says more about the President than the Generals.

That's all. That's the point. No politics, no partisanship. God Bless America and those who defend our great nation.

[Goalpost]

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/572330-vindman-calls-for-milleys-resignation-he-usurped-civilian-authority

You're right. It's not about politics.

[NATI BENGALS]

I agree. A lying conman with more power than anyone else in the country was attempting a coup and tried to destroy our democracy and he didn't give a shit who was a casualty in his narcissistic quest for power. I know I haven't forgotten about all the changes he was making at the very top of our defense agencies while lying his ass off to the public about election fraud in his final days. As a man who has given his entire adult life to defend and protect our country he did what he was trained to do, protect his country. There isn't anything political about it.

[*michaelsean*]

Yeah he should be gone. You may not agree with the next guy who pulls this. I mean talk about a coup. This is certainly first cousin to one.

Edit:

I missed part of the article:

“No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley is reported to have said. “

I will add that if that is all he said, and all it meant was he wanted to be notified, and his intention wasn’t to interfere, then that’s different.

[Belsnickel]

(09-15-2021, 06:23 PM)Goalpost Wrote: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/572330-vindman-calls-for-milleys-resignation-he-usurped-civilian-authority

You're right. It's not about politics.

What Vindman said is what I said to my wife. What he did was anti-democratic, and we cannot allow that to occur.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2021, 10:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What Vindman said is what I said to my wife. What he did was anti-democratic, and we cannot allow that to occur.

I have to give Vindman a lot of credit, he's been incredibly consistent.  Miley needs to go, and do so on less than favorable terms.  Unless you're a person who is ok with the military usurping civilian authority.  It will be interesting to see who defends Miley going forward.

[hollodero]

(09-16-2021, 12:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to give Vindman a lot of credit, he's been incredibly consistent.  Miley needs to go, and do so on less than favorable terms.  Unless you're a person who is ok with the military usurping civilian authority.  It will be interesting to see who defends Miley going forward.

I'm torn on this.

Just on principle, never mind Trump - what is the desired outcome if a president really were apparently a madman who orders a nuclear strike against Mexico or Canada or whatever country because he just feels like wreaking havoc. I suppose it's the military's duty to follow through without hesitation. But personally, I'd be real happy if they would not in such a scenario.
Meaning, at some point I'm fine with disobeying orders.

[NATI BENGALS]

Some folks are forgetting the part about enemies foreign and domestic.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2021, 12:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to give Vindman a lot of credit, he's been incredibly consistent.  Miley needs to go, and do so on less than favorable terms.  Unless you're a person who is ok with the military usurping civilian authority.  It will be interesting to see who defends Miley going forward.

I think a lot of people are seeing it like Hollo does. And to be fair, it's a pragmatic approach. The threat of this happening was real, and Miley was taking actions that he saw as necessary to protect the country. However, the majority of laypeople aren't seeing the discrepancy with their typical positions.

(09-16-2021, 05:29 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'm torn on this.

Just on principle, never mind Trump - what is the desired outcome if a president really were apparently a madman who orders a nuclear strike against Mexico or Canada or whatever country because he just feels like wreaking havoc. I suppose it's the military's duty to follow through without hesitation. But personally, I'd be real happy if they would not in such a scenario.
Meaning, at some point I'm fine with disobeying orders.

Most people are going to feel this way, and I get that. I said above that it is pragmatic and, as I am about to get into, it may have been the only option available given the current state of our democracy. Here is what should happen, though. Civilian leadership of our military is a large and important pillar of our government system. It is the role of the legislative and judicial branches to check the executive. If a military leader has concerns, they should turn to the legislative leaders who should then enact oversight by way of legislation. That is how it is supposed to work. But also, and this is key, Miley wasn't talking about just disobeying orders. He was saying that he would be the decision maker, and that is wrong. Had he just reminded his officers that they had a duty to disobey orders they saw as unlawful, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As that is a duty every service member has.

With all of that in mind, and here is what Miley probably thought and why people think the way you do. Our system is undeniably broken. In a system operating the way it was intended, our elected leaders would take the word of the military leader and act in an appropriate way. What we would've seen, though, is one side going too far and the other side refusing to do anything because of this misplaced partisan loyalty.

As someone committed to the experiment that is our American democratic society, I see what Miley did as a threat to that experiment. My hope would be that his dismissal, and the explanation of such dismissal, would cause our people to take stock of the current political climate and adjust. That it would it cause a reckoning within the system that people would realize that this threat to our democracy was because of the legislators being useless in their constitutional role.

(09-16-2021, 06:55 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Some folks are forgetting the part about enemies foreign and domestic.

Miley usurped authority in an unconstitutional way. He became an enemy at that point, as well.

[hollodero]

(09-16-2021, 07:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think a lot of people are seeing it like Hollo does. And to be fair, it's a pragmatic approach. The threat of this happening was real, and Miley was taking actions that he saw as necessary to protect the country. However, the majority of laypeople aren't seeing the discrepancy with their typical positions.


Most people are going to feel this way, and I get that. I said above that it is pragmatic and, as I am about to get into, it may have been the only option available given the current state of our democracy. Here is what should happen, though. Civilian leadership of our military is a large and important pillar of our government system. It is the role of the legislative and judicial branches to check the executive. If a military leader has concerns, they should turn to the legislative leaders who should then enact oversight by way of legislation. That is how it is supposed to work. But also, and this is key, Miley wasn't talking about just disobeying orders. He was saying that he would be the decision maker, and that is wrong. Had he just reminded his officers that they had a duty to disobey orders they saw as unlawful, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I get why it is wrong. But one could also argue that he maybe wanted to take on the disobeying part upon himself instead of delegating it, eg. instead of letting someone else take the possible fall or being out of the loop. He makes clear it's his decision and he would have to take responsibility.

In certain theoretical circumstances (certainly including an overall broken system), I would certainly applaud that kind of behaviour, and then I could not possibly say it was wrong or the act of an enemy to the nation. If said circumstances actually were present, that I can not know.

[GMDino]

(09-16-2021, 08:10 AM)hollodero Wrote: I get why it is wrong. But one could also argue that he maybe wanted to take on the disobeying part upon himself instead of delegating it, eg. instead of letting someone else take the possible fall or being out of the loop. He makes clear it's his decision and he would have to take responsibility.

In certain theoretical circumstances (certainly including an overall broken system), I would certainly applaud that kind of behaviour, and then I could not possibly say it was wrong or the act of an enemy to the nation. If said circumstances actually were present, that I can not know.

I find this reasonable.  Sometime people do things that are "wrong" in the system they are in and need punished for it even if they are doing the "right" thing.  

We protect most whistle blowers for that reason.

And I agree with you that I could see a situation where he takes all the responsibility KNOWING that he will suffer the consequences.

He just has to suffer the consequences now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2021, 05:29 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'm torn on this.

Just on principle, never mind Trump - what is the desired outcome if a president really were apparently a madman who orders a nuclear strike against Mexico or Canada or whatever country because he just feels like wreaking havoc. I suppose it's the military's duty to follow through without hesitation. But personally, I'd be real happy if they would not in such a scenario.
Meaning, at some point I'm fine with disobeying orders.

(09-16-2021, 07:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think a lot of people are seeing it like Hollo does. And to be fair, it's a pragmatic approach. The threat of this happening was real, and Miley was taking actions that he saw as necessary to protect the country. However, the majority of laypeople aren't seeing the discrepancy with their typical positions.


Most people are going to feel this way, and I get that. I said above that it is pragmatic and, as I am about to get into, it may have been the only option available given the current state of our democracy. Here is what should happen, though. Civilian leadership of our military is a large and important pillar of our government system. It is the role of the legislative and judicial branches to check the executive. If a military leader has concerns, they should turn to the legislative leaders who should then enact oversight by way of legislation. That is how it is supposed to work. But also, and this is key, Miley wasn't talking about just disobeying orders. He was saying that he would be the decision maker, and that is wrong. Had he just reminded his officers that they had a duty to disobey orders they saw as unlawful, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As that is a duty every service member has.

With all of that in mind, and here is what Miley probably thought and why people think the way you do. Our system is undeniably broken. In a system operating the way it was intended, our elected leaders would take the word of the military leader and act in an appropriate way. What we would've seen, though, is one side going too far and the other side refusing to do anything because of this misplaced partisan loyalty.

As someone committed to the experiment that is our American democratic society, I see what Miley did as a threat to that experiment. My hope would be that his dismissal, and the explanation of such dismissal, would cause our people to take stock of the current political climate and adjust. That it would it cause a reckoning within the system that people would realize that this threat to our democracy was because of the legislators being useless in their constitutional role.


Miley usurped authority in an unconstitutional way. He became an enemy at that point, as well.

Here's the issue I have, and I don't think any of us are that far apart on this.  If Miley had stymied an actual attempt by Trump to do something crazy I'd have zero issue with that.  But what he did was act preemptively in an unacceptable way.  The actions he took prior to Trump actually doing anything are unacceptable, and, it turns out, completely unnecessary as Trump did not attempt to do anything close to what Miley and Pelosi feared.

In other words, it's perfectly acceptable to refuse to obey an unlawful order.  It's completely unacceptable to usurp civilian authority because you're worried you will receive an unlawful order.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2021, 06:55 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Some folks are forgetting the part about enemies foreign and domestic.

I don't see a single response in this thread that would indicate that.

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-16-2021, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the issue I have, and I don't think any of us are that far apart on this.  If Miley had stymied an actual attempt by Trump to do something crazy I'd have zero issue with that.  But what he did was act preemptively in an unacceptable way.  The actions he took prior to Trump actually doing anything are unacceptable, and, it turns out, completely unnecessary as Trump did not attempt to do anything close to what Miley and Pelosi feared.

In other words, it's perfectly acceptable to obey an unlawful order.  It's completely unacceptable to usurp civilian authority because you're worried you will receive an unlawful order.

Did you ever think Trumps dereliction of duty when our capital was under attack by the crowd he had just given a speech to was probably all the person with a front row seat had to see?

I don’t know the timeline of any of this but if he did this before the sitting pres attempted to throw out our democratic election results and stay in power like a 3rd world dictator and then proceed to sit on his ass gleefully watching the TV as his supporters assaulted our capital I would agree with y’all. If it was after… well then it’s a career military man taking action protecting the country he serves from someone he deems a threat.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2021, 12:38 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Did you ever think Trumps dereliction of duty when our capital was under attack by the crowd he had just given a speech to was probably all the person with a front row seat had to see?

No.  Again, if Trump had tried to do something and Miley stopped it or refused to carry out an immoral order then I have zero issue with that.  I have zero issue with his making contingency plans in his head in case things went south.  I do not approve of his preemptive actions to prevent something that was never attempted.

Quote:I don’t know the timeline of any of this but if he did this before the sitting pres attempted to throw out our democratic election results and stay in power like a 3rd world dictator and then proceed to sit on his ass gleefully watching the TV as his supporters assaulted our capital I would agree with y’all. If it was after… well then it’s a career military man taking action protecting the country he serves from someone he deems a threat.

See above.  You're approving of something that sets a very dangerous precedent.

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-16-2021, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No.  Again, if Trump had tried to do something and Miley stopped it or refused to carry out an immoral order then I have zero issue with that.  I have zero issue with his making contingency plans in his head in case things went south.  I do not approve of his preemptive actions to prevent something that was never attempted.


See above.  You're approving of something that sets a very dangerous precedent.

Oh I understand it sets a dangerous precedent. And if it were a normal president who was a decent human being I would be upset and on your side.

What’s that saying? Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures or something like that.

What were the consequences or results of his actions? Did anyone get hurt?

Sometimes rules must be broken. And protecting the country from a desperate rogue president tearing the country apart and flushing our democracy down the drain is a pretty good reason to break the rules.

From what I have read (not much) his actions were 100% morally and ethically responsible.

Punishing him would be like giving a lady in labor on the way to the hospital a speeding ticket for driving 6 mph over the speed limit.

[*Nately120*]

China won't see it coming when Trump wins in 2024 and Miley isn't around to sound off the "Everything's OK" alarm.

[BmorePat87]

There's a procedure for removing a mentally unfit POTUS that doesn't involve him taking authority does he does not have or making promises to foreign agents that he cannot make. He should step down.

While his actions may have been rooted in a desire to preserve our democracy, he undermined the law in his actions.

[Dill]

(09-16-2021, 12:38 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Did you ever think Trumps dereliction of duty when our capital was under attack by the crowd he had just given a speech to was probably all the person with a front row seat had to see?

I don’t know the timeline of any of this but if he did this before the sitting pres attempted to throw out our democratic election results and stay in power like a 3rd world dictator and then proceed to sit on his ass gleefully watching the TV as his supporters assaulted our capital I would agree with y’all. If it was after… well then it’s a career military man taking action protecting the country he serves from someone he deems a threat.

Thanks for keeping this in context. Trump was a twice impeached president who was doing his best to defeat democratic process--even BEFORE 6/1--which must have been tremendously disconcerting to US allies. He regularly broke laws and diplomatic precedent, surprised his own staff with announcements like the Syria pullout, etc. "Owning the libs" wins votes, but it also sends a big message to the world--unhinged command. CiC INSTABILITY was the BASE PROBLEM facing the nation from Nov-Jan*--not to mention the world which could suffer its fallout.

Add to this that, as outside observers must have recognized, Congressional oversight was broken. That is WHY Trump was able to break laws with impunity. Vindman now faults Milley, but Congress was little help to V, or to his brother, whom Trump also vindictively fired. In the face of party control of the exec and Senate, Vindman--and all who "did the right thing"--were rendered impotent. Even their families punished.

The primary motivation for Milley's calls to China was not Milley's fear that Trump was going to attack China, but that intelligence indicated China thought the US unstable CiC might attack China under cover of a naval exercise, declaring a national emergency.

The worry, then, was that China might "preempt" Trump's strike with a strike of it's own. To Milley's mind, something had to be done.

If the generals in the Pentagon were uncertain enough and worried about Trump's behavior to discuss collective counter-measures, then we should not be surprised the Chinese might be even more concerned. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics/donald-trump-election-coup-new-book-excerpt/index.html

As far as Milley promising to "warn" China in case of an attack, Milley has not yet copped to that, has he? It is a claim from Woodward-Costa book. My interest right now is whether further details show that Milley stuck his neck out, took risks upon himself (thereby protecting colleagues), to avert a possible tragedy.

*Still is, if you consider the impending disruption in 2022, as the effects of new election laws, gerrymandering, and now-professionalized election challenging kick in--all based on the Big Lie.

[hollodero]

(09-18-2021, 06:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for keeping this in context. Trump was a twice impeached president who was doing his best to defeat democratic process--even BEFORE 6/1--which must have been tremendously disconcerting to US allies. He regularly broke laws and diplomatic precedent, surprised his own staff with announcements like the Syria pullout, etc. "Owning the libs" wins votes, but it also sends a big message to the world--unhinged command. CiC INSTABILITY was the BASE PROBLEM facing the nation from Nov-Jan*--not to mention the world which could suffer its fallout.

Add to this that, as outside observers must have recognized, Congressional oversight was broken. That is WHY Trump was able to break laws with impunity. Vindman now faults Milley, but Congress was little help to V, or to his brother, whom Trump also vindictively fired. In the face of party control of the exec and Senate, Vindman--and all who "did the right thing"--were rendered impotent. Even their families punished.

The primary motivation for Milley's calls to China was not Milley's fear that Trump was going to attack China, but that intelligence indicated China thought the US unstable CiC might attack China under cover of a naval exercise, declaring a national emergency.

The worry, then, was that China might "preempt" Trump's strike with a strike of it's own. To Milley's mind, something had to be done.

If the generals in the Pentagon were uncertain enough and worried about Trump's behavior to discuss collective counter-measures, then we should not be surprised the Chinese might be even more concerned.

Well... there might be a counter-point to that. For one, the pentagon discusses all kinds of utopic scenarios, that's part of the job. China will not act based on an utopic scenario though. I have my doubts that there was danger China might do a preemtive strike against the US because Trump is a dumb, ignorant person with a grossly overblown sense of self-importance. That's what they could factually base their fear on. There's not really an example of Trump going completely rogue and do something crazy totally on his own. He did not command any strikes or other aggressive actions nilly-willy and against everone's advice. I'm not trying to be devil's advocate, I just see this danger of China panicking and striking preemptively as a bit thin. Or I guess a reach.

In general (damn), I can clearly understand why people might see Milley's action as an overreach. Trump, after all, appears weak and easily outplayed to many people. I can see a man in Milley's position, and with certainly everyone else totally agreeing that Trump is a moron, being seduced to usurp powers he should not usurp. And I can see how he did that here. Stating what he would do or what he would disobey etc. in a certain scenario is one thing, one I could get behind. But actively contacting China and doing back channel diplomacy, that is something else. I want to defend the man, for sure I can understand a possibly understandable sense of moral obligation and all that. But he overstepped in a serious matter and has to face the consequences, and probably sacrifice his job. After what I'd see as careful consideration, I for myself can hardly see a way around this conclusion. I more than gladly take one if I'm shown one.