General Miley

[Dill]

(09-18-2021, 08:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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. 

Not sure what a "utopic scenario" is in this context. 

According to Milley, the concern was that Chinese intel itself put a misleading product before the Chinese command. Likely that C intel was not based upon Trump's "ignorance" but upon 1) US Naval manuvres, 2) signals intel (SIGINT) and some Human intel, 3) interpreted through knowledge of how autocrats typically behave when faced with loss of power and Trump's behavior match to that (which was also driving "traitorous" JC and Defense behavior). So it was the assessment of our INTEL regarding Chinese intel, not a "utopic" guess by Milley, which prompted his reach out to his Chinese counterpart.

The US intel on Chinese intel would have included at least two levels--those who collected it (possibly SIGINT), and those who interpreted it and turned it into a "product" to be read by Defense, the Brass, and the NSC. That product would also have a paragraph assessing its own "confidence" as high, medium, or low. If it exists, then it is the institutional product of many people, read by at least a dozen, and will be accessible to Congressional supoena. Mark Esper apparently wanted to address the problem with open communication. He put in place a policy to address the problem at lower levels. If this reporting is correct, then Milley's calls were of a "follow up" nature to overtures already made. https://www.axios.com/mark-milley-woodward-trump-crisis-bb8a80b1-3e3a-492b-934a-99825cc6ef7f.html?utm_campaign=organic&utm_medium=socialshare&utm_source=twitter

(09-18-2021, 08:44 PM)hollodero Wrote:  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 my view, Trump went "completely rogue" when he trashed the Iran Deal. You are inserting odd qualifiers here, like "on his own." That Trump was not "acting alone" in some of his descisions is not comforting, when we consider who was acting with him, and whom he replaced with whom.  I must remind you of what you already know--

You understand that he brought us to the brink of war with Iran--three times that we know of. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-real-backstory-of-why-trump-ordered-the-killing-of-suleimani-is-becoming-more-clear

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/i-cant-even-look-at-the-atrocities-us-troops-say-trumps-syria-withdrawal-betrayed-an-ally/2019/10/15/4e79b600-eeca-11e9-b648-76bcf86eb67e_story.html

He fired or forced out all who tried to check him, right? Even Neo cons. Who was left in November, 2020, as he began to "pack" the Pentagon with his own yes men?  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gen-hr-mcmaster-resigning-national-security-adviser/story?id=53948256
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-led-up-to-trumps-firing-of-john-bolton
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/09/mark-esper-fired-defence-pentagon-donald-trump

(09-18-2021, 08:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Trump may seem weak and easily outplayed by foreign dictators, but in his own cabinet, he fired people right and left for not endorsing crazy.

Final points here: 

1. So far as I can tell, the assumption was not that Trump might actually carry out a nuclear strike (though who knows how the Chinese might assess that), but that he might deliver a crisis-producing ultimatum, order aggressive US actions (as he did in the Gulf) which risk/provoke kinetic reaction from the Chinese. Were the Chinese to respond to a perceived buildup or unplanned move--like moving an exercise ahead two weeks because of a COVID calculation--by a corresponding build up, it could create a high risk situation in which each side may feel forced to attack the other in self defense. Just as Trump needed a statement on Biden by the Ukraininan president, not an actual investigation, so in this case Trump would need to produce the appearance of crisis, not an "actual" one. A person with normal risk assessment capacity can see what is wrong with this scenario, but not the guy who ordered the drone strike on Suleiman. 

2. So far, Milley's calls to a Chinese general appear a separate issue, legally, from Milley's apparent efforts to require that he be notified in case Trump went for the football. Critics rightly point out he is not in the chain of command.  

Our understanding of 1 and 2 now awaits Milley's testimony before a Congressional Hearing.  If it is confirmed he broke the chain of command, crossed the lines between civilian and military control, then he will perhaps have to be punished--as Trump was not when he sought to deploy the military illegally on US soil against US citizens.  

Nati is quite right to keep reminding us that Milley's actions, right or wrong, are response to a much larger problem--an unhinged Commander in Chief. All discussion/resoultion of the Milley affair need to keep that in mind, and oppose the Fox "deep state" version now stridently peddled on the Right.