We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.
– General Mark Milley
Brian M Downing
Outgoing JCS chief Mark Milley delivered one of the most politically-charged speeches an American general has ever made. He didn’t support a political cause, however. He supported the American Constitution. His speech came shortly after former president Trump said the general’s conduct could warrant execution. It also came as Trump is well positioned for re-election next year.
The military has long prided itself on staying out of politics. Those who violate the norm – MacArthur, Walker, Singlaub – are shown the door. Milley delivered a measured warning about dangers to America’s democracy and security. He likely has other concerns related to the Trump movement.
Authoritarianism
Generals pride themselves for respecting orders, laws, codes of honor, and above all the Constitution. Soldiers helped establish it and have defended it in war and peace. With so much history and sacrifice attached to it, the Constitution is sacred. Milley sees evidence of Trump’s repeated and willful disregard for the rule of law and Constitutional processes. He exerted pressure on Georgia voting officials and exhorted angry crowds on January 6. Someone with such disregard cannot be entrusted with a great nation.
Nonetheless, Trump has a large following that doesn’t see or at least minimizes his faults. They too lack respect for rule of law and Constitutional processes and would welcome his use of the executive branch against opponents. Polls show him neck and neck with the incumbent.
Militias
A man dedicated to the army must be dismayed by the proliferation of militias, which may be well-ordered but are anti-Constitutional. Jihadi militias were the bane of our efforts in Iraq and Somalia and these armed bands may be worse. They’re probably more numerous, better trained, and better armed than on January 6.
Win or lose in 2024, the former president could proclaim electoral fraud and call overturning the election and exacting vengeance on those responsible. If victorious, his militias could be called upon to suppress undesirables and drive Democrats out of swing states.
The state, as Max Weber noted, holds a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in a given territory. The rise of militia actions threatens the monopoly and portends a spree of competitive rivals across political and racial lines. Counties, regions, neighborhoods, and a few states might challenge federal governance.
The military wouldn’t be unaffected. Its rank and file comprise personnel on both sides. The same is true of flag officers. Many veterans were arraigned after January 6. The Pentagon’s command and control is strong but not above question. Desertion and disobedience are real threats. As defense expert David Kilcullen warns, militias don’t rise when states collapse; states collapse when militias rise.
Foreign policy
Milley is aware of Trump’s disregard of professional guidance in world affairs. A string of cabinet secretaries and security advisors were ignored, chided, and abruptly fired. This is true of civilians such as Tillerson and generals who served with Milley such as Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster.
Foreign policy was amateurish and erratic. Pulling out of Syria was ordered twice and swiftly countermanded both times. Aircraft were sent to attack Iran, then called back at the last moment. Talks with the Taliban were conducted without Kabul’s participation which led to a scheduled withdrawal and the country’s collapse. The president voiced disconcerting defenses of Vladimir Putin which have continued out of office, even after the Ukraine invasion.
A second administration could undermine support for Kyiv which in turn could cause a jarring geopolitical shift. Congress would be more divided and paralyzed than now. Western states would be dismayed and confused. NATO could be badly and irreversibly weakened. The Ukraine war is the most important conflict since World War Two. Thus far the United States and its military have handled the danger well. An erratic amateur would be disastrous.
©2023 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to fellow Hoya Susan Ganosellis.