Millie, current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, accused of undermining Trump's authority

RestoreTheJoy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/14/peril-woodward-costa-trump-milley-china/

Click to expand...

It's generally advisable to read any links that you post. Please explain (no vague assertions please) how the article supports this statement:

'Contacting the Chinese and informing them about a potential action of the president'

Valletta said:

Orders of the president are to be obeyed, whether advisor Milley is present or not. Milley inserted himself into the chain of command, he had no authority to do so.

Click to expand...

Sure he did, that's his job. The policy of the defence secretary Mark Esper at the time regarding operations in the South China Sea was to reduce tensions and avoid sparking any regional conflict. This is something you can easily find out, it's no secret. Milley's direct superior in the chain of command (president - secretary of defence - principal military advisor), as you can also easily find out. Milley's directive was to act within this policy. That is what he did. Given that the Chinese were spooked by the random behaviour of Trump and some of his supporters, you should be grateful that there were some responsible adults around to manage the situation appropriately.

Valletta said:

The article states"
"Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to President Biden urging him to dismiss the Joint Chiefs chairman, saying he had undermined the commander in chief and “contemplated a treasonous leak of classified information to the Chinese Communist Party in advance of a potential armed conflict ...”

Click to expand...

Of course he did, that is the kind of thing political opportunists do, misrepresent events for their own benefit.

The question remains - what in actual reality, in the actual real world in which we live supports this nonsense?

- What was the 'potential action of the president'?
- What classified information is being referred to?

You could provide some sort of foundation to the argument you seem to favour by providing an explanation of what you think are the similarities and differences between things like acts of provocation, acts of war, invasions and formal declarations of war, how you think nations maintain peace in times of tension and so on. Your basic notions, as expressed here, have no discernible connection with anything real, but perhaps there is more to your thinking.

Valletta said:

The article states"
"Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to President Biden urging him to dismiss the Joint Chiefs chairman, saying he had undermined the commander in chief and “contemplated a treasonous leak of classified information to the Chinese Communist Party in advance of a potential armed conflict ...”

Click to expand...

I just want to check we have the same understanding of what this is: This is a quote of Marco Rubio's highly partisan opinion. This could lead you to say something like 'I agree with what Marco Rubio says'.

What the article is saying however is not that. It compares this opinion with what actually happened, raising the question of whether or not Rubio's opinion is an accurate reflection of events. Can you see that?

This is what could be called a reasonable response to reading someone's opinion - asking the question 'do the facts support this person's opinion', as opposed to the 'well so and so said this so it must be true'. This then leads to a search for what does or doesn't support that opinion. Are we on the same page?

So, the question remains, what in the article SUPPORTS your/Rubio's assertions?

Valletta said:

Agencies and federal organizations, especially those that deal with foreign relations, routinely classify information, even low level information is classified as confidential. I don't know the level of classification of the President's inner circle, whether it is top secret and/or code worded. It is the President who can classify and declassify information, the president can delegate. So as long as the president gives the OK then Milley can reveal previously privileged information. It does not sound like this was the case.

Click to expand...

If you prefer not to answer the questions, why respond? Are these questions unclear? We are not talking about what might or might not be generally the case, but about this specific example. You made these statements about potential actions and classified info in relation to this specific example, so…

- What was the 'potential action of the president'?
- What classified information is being referred to?

variant said:

Milley is basically saying here that he had planned a coup if the President of the United States went off the deep end.

Click to expand...

Blocking the President from using the military in an insane way is hardly a coup. To be a coup, you actually need to take over the government. That would be unconstitutional, and Milley does seem to take his oath to uphold the Constitution very seriously.

Aldebaran said:

Yet none of the things you're talking about happened.

Click to expand...

That's right -- there was no planned attack; Milley said there was no planned attack.

What's the problem?

It was just fear-mongering from the Left, just like the big deal made out of that little gathering at the Capitol today. The fencing went up around the Capitol, the national guard and police were brought out, and it was all out of paranoia based on fear-mongering.

Click to expand...

Are you taking the position that January 6 never happened?

Valletta said:

Agencies and federal organizations, especially those that deal with foreign relations, routinely classify information, even low level information is classified as confidential. I don't know the level of classification of the President's inner circle, whether it is top secret and/or code worded. It is the President who can classify and declassify information, the president can delegate. So as long as the president gives the OK then Milley can reveal previously privileged information. It does not sound like this was the case.

Click to expand...

I think Valletta is making it up as she goes along.

RestoreTheJoy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/14/peril-woodward-costa-trump-milley-china/

Click to expand...

You might want to read it. It's in the first few sentences:

"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.”

Li took the chairman at his word, the authors write in the book, “Peril,” which is set to be released next week.

In the second call, placed to address Chinese fears about the events of Jan. 6, Li wasn’t as easily assuaged, even after Milley promised him, “We are 100 percent steady. Everything’s fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes.”

I'm not sure what is unclear to you. If the book account is correct, Milley told a Chinese counterpart that he would alert him ahead of time in the event of a U.S. military attack.

RestoreTheJoy said:

You might want to read it. It's in the first few sentences:

"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.”

Li took the chairman at his word, the authors write in the book, “Peril,” which is set to be released next week.

In the second call, placed to address Chinese fears about the events of Jan. 6, Li wasn’t as easily assuaged, even after Milley promised him, “We are 100 percent steady. Everything’s fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes.”

I'm not sure what is unclear to you. If the book account is correct, Milley told a Chinese counterpart that he would alert him ahead of time in the event of a U.S. military attack.

Click to expand...

Are you genuinely unaware that a declaration of war is a formal, legal act, that comes at the end of a period of attempting to avoid war? If this is news to you, you could try studying the process by which nations have gone to war. Beginning a war by subterfuge, as in the bombing of Cambodia in the lead up to the Vietnam war, are illegal acts, acts of terrorism. That was something the US govt could get away with then, not anymore, and certainly not against another superpower.

If the tensions in the South China Sea do eventually lead to actual war, it will not be a surprise to either side. Do you honestly think that highly-placed military officials don't talk to each other about this kind of thing? That the US would just suddenly decide to launch an all-out attack on China out of the blue?

Yttrium said:

Blocking the President from using the military in an insane way is hardly a coup. To be a coup, you actually need to take over the government.

Click to expand...

So, an attempted coup.

Or maybe an "insurrection."

That would be unconstitutional, and Milley does seem to take his oath to uphold the Constitution very seriously.

Click to expand...

Obviously not, if he orders his underlings to disregard and defy the instructions of his (and the nation's) Commander-in-Chief.

Tom 1 said:

Are you genuinely unaware that a declaration of war is a formal, legal act, that comes at the end of a period of attempting to avoid war? If this is news to you, you could try studying the process by which nations have gone to war. Beginning a war by subterfuge, as in the bombing of Cambodia in the lead up to the Vietnam war, are illegal acts, acts of terrorism. That was something the US govt could get away with then, not anymore, and certainly not against another superpower.

If the tensions in the South China Sea do eventually lead to actual war, it will not be a surprise to either side. Do you honestly think that highly-placed military officials don't talk to each other about this kind of thing? That the US would just suddenly decide to launch an all-out attack on China out of the blue?

Click to expand...

Um, no....I'm not unaware of how a declaration of war actually occurs, unrelated as this non-sequitur you pose is to the topic at hand.

These secret military actions we -and others - usually take are NOT declared in advance.

Like Bin Laden, remember?

Aldebaran said:

Yet none of the things you're talking about happened. It was just fear-mongering from the Left, just like the big deal made out of that little gathering at the Capitol today. The fencing went up around the Capitol, the national guard and police were brought out, and it was all out of paranoia based on fear-mongering. It would be nice if these Leftists would stick with facts instead of fear, but fear is an easy way to control people, so they'll continue using it.

Click to expand...

You may not take the events of January 6th seriously but that doesn't mean that the world didn't.

Yeah nothing ultimately happened on the military front, and the general sufficiently convinced the Chinese to not worry.

The general simply set up a contingency plan, so if it was a contingency for something that didn't happen then no harm done.

If you think that generals aren't going to do this when they have lost faith in their commanders you are simply wrong.

Yttrium said:

Blocking the President from using the military in an insane way is hardly a coup. To be a coup, you actually need to take over the government. That would be unconstitutional, and Milley does seem to take his oath to uphold the Constitution very seriously.

Click to expand...

A coup is when the power of the government changes hands, this would be a limited one centered around removing the power to order a nuclear strike.

Valletta said:

The article states"
"Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to President Biden urging him to dismiss the Joint Chiefs chairman, saying he had undermined the commander in chief and “contemplated a treasonous leak of classified information to the Chinese Communist Party in advance of a potential armed conflict ...”

Click to expand...

Let him complain all he likes.

Why should we care about protecting the commander and chiefs ability to wage a armed conflict over literally nothing?

Albion said:

Obviously not, if he orders his underlings to disregard and defy the instructions of his (and the nation's) Commander-in-Chief.

Click to expand...

Did he do so?

Did the Commander in Chief give any orders directly to said underlings, thereby undermining the chain of command?

RestoreTheJoy said:

These secret military actions we

Click to expand...

What secret military actions have any relevance to the topic of this thread?