Woodward/Costa book: Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took top-secret action to protect nuclear weapons

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,147
4,847
136
I don't disagree with his sentiment, but I do think a full accounting of his actions are necessary esp. to ensure we do continue to have civilian control of the military no matter how righteous the actions. And I'm sure he would agree.
If the civilian reviewers are the batsh!t crazy GOP nothing good would come out of it. They're off the rails and they ain't coming back!
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,201
136
I never said anything about an illegal order....you didn't read what I said. In this case there weren't any orders that were illegal. The accusation (likely unfounded to be fair) is that the General officer expected there to be an illegal order...which is not the same. Second guessing your chain of command can get you and your troops killed with a quickness. I've seen it with my own eyes where missions went sideways because someone tried to second-guess the BC and his battle plan. The commander's Intent does allow some leeway when the LFCOA is on the table, but this was waaaay beyond that.



There is NEVER an excuse for any combat soldier ignoring his duty. Excuses amongst combat branch and combat MOS soldiers are for the weak-willed and weak-bodied. I had no place for those types while I served.
Uhhh yeah. Second guessing the orders of an unhinged president to start a nuclear war for no reason who just tried to overthrow American democracy is exactly how it should go down.
 

maluckey1

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
331
144
86
This is not correct. The definition of treason is very clear and there is no aspect of this that even remotely resembles it. It would be at worst a form of insubordination which could get him fired from his position but that's about it.


That's the rub though, we as a society absolutely want them to decide not to follow some orders. I mean is your argument really that had Trump ordered a launch of our nuclear weapons at China Milley shouldn't have blocked it?


What Milley did was put the country first, and that's what's at the heart of every soldier's oath.

You're right on so many things on this forum.....but not at all on this one. Insubordination generally applies to orders (standing, general or other). Treason is different. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. It would never fly in this case, since the threat by China isn't immediately demonstrable, but it's as simple as that.

Second, the UCMJ allows for disobeying a lawful order. There are protocols for that, and first and foremost it MUST be an overt act, and which this was reported as covert.

Lastly, I expect people to whom are in military leadership roles to act as role models for their troops. We hold them to higher standards (unlike with civilian leaders). Failure to be a higher caliber should lead to dismissal. Soldiers follow their orders from their COC. The military is not a civilian organization, and the very fabric of the military is that....duty, and honor.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
I never said anything about an illegal order....you didn't read what I said. In this case there weren't any orders that were illegal. The accusation (likely unfounded to be fair) is that the General officer expected there to be an illegal order...which is not the same. Second guessing your chain of command can get you and your troops killed with a quickness. I've seen it with my own eyes where missions went sideways because someone tried to second-guess the BC and his battle plan. The commander's Intent does allow some leeway when the LFCOA is on the table, but this was waaaay beyond that.



There is NEVER an excuse for any combat soldier ignoring his duty. Excuses amongst combat branch and combat MOS soldiers are for the weak-willed and weak-bodied. I had no place for those types while I served.

Even better is that the Joint Chiefs are not in the chain of command. They are in a military advisor role to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council and have no authority over combatant troops. For Gen. Milley to state that orders issued by the President are to be approved by him, it is a problem on several fronts. I hope that the story is false and is wildly taken out of context.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
You're right on so many things on this forum.....but not at all on this one. Insubordination generally applies to orders (standing, general or other). Treason is different. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. It would never fly in this case, since the threat by China isn't immediately demonstrable, but it's as simple as that.

Second, the UCMJ allows for disobeying a lawful order. There are protocols for that, and first and foremost it MUST be an overt act, and which this was reported as covert.

Lastly, I expect people to whom are in military leadership roles to act as role models for their troops. We hold them to higher standards (unlike with civilian leaders). Failure to be a higher caliber should lead to dismissal. Soldiers follow their orders from their COC. The military is not a civilian organization, and the very fabric of the military is that....duty, and honor.
There is no evidence that President tried to start any wars. In the United States Armed Forces, the chain of command starts with the President and flows down to a few more civilians before reaching the commanders of each branch of the military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command for combatant troops so Gen. Milley had no legal authority to demand that orders from the President be approved by him.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
There is no evidence that President tried to start any wars. In the United States Armed Forces, the chain of command starts with the President and flows down to a few more civilians before reaching the commanders of each branch of the military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command for combatant troops so Gen. Milley had no legal authority to demand that orders from the President be approved by him.

And the commanders of each branch of the military just happen to be the Joint Chiefs, of which Milley is currently the head. Funny that.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
There is NEVER an excuse for any combat soldier ignoring his duty. Excuses amongst combat branch and combat MOS soldiers are for the weak-willed and weak-bodied. I had no place for those types while I served.
So what you are saying is if you were given a canister of Zyklon B, you would dump it into the chamber without a thought? Scary shit man.

Also, there are always communications between the brass throughout the world, I really have my doubts this is that out of line then normal, especially when put in full context, which we absolutely don't have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brycejones

maluckey1

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
331
144
86
There is no evidence that President tried to start any wars. In the United States Armed Forces, the chain of command starts with the President and flows down to a few more civilians before reaching the commanders of each branch of the military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command for combatant troops so Gen. Milley had no legal authority to demand that orders from the President be approved by him.
What in the hell are you talking about? Nothing in this sentence makes any sense in the least?

Commanders don't "demand" orders. You might want to take some time to understand military structure and COC. Military Orders flow from the CINC down (Declaration of War comes from Congress). The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. ALL military orders exist to support the CINC and his intent. Each commander (within their purview) interprets that, and issues orders, protocols and rules accordingly.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
What in the hell are you talking about? Nothing in this sentence makes any sense in the least?

Commanders don't "demand" orders. You might want to take some time to understand military structure and COC. Military Orders flow from the CINC down (Declaration of War comes from Congress). The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. ALL military orders exist to support the CINC and his intent. Each commander (within their purview) interprets that, and issues orders, protocols and rules accordingly.
Right, and at what point do you realize the CIC is too batshit crazy to follow their orders? There's a place between 'just following orders' and initiating a coup.
 

maluckey1

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
331
144
86
@[DHT]Osiris

The answer is when you can elucidate why am order is illegal to a court of your peers is the standard. It's that simple. What order was illegal? Not one person (ANYWHERE) has presented any order, rule or protocol in this story that was illegal.

It's not what you want/think/desire, or what is politically satisfying to you. It's what you can show that YOU know and can prove at that exact moment that you refuse to obey. It's truly that simple. I've refused an order from someone with no role in my battle-space because the action would be opposite and detrimental to Higher's intent and to my troops. I politely stated my objection and refused to have my team participate. I returned to my COC for debriefing and stood down. My COC reviewed the circumstances and sided with me and my team.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
By his statements, there have long been REAL good reasons to be concerned about Trump’s statements regarding nuclear weapons

What Milley did wasn’t some kind of inadvertent publication of compromising information; it was a deliberate effort to assure another nation that the US would not engage in an unprovoked attack. You could certainly consider this to be some kind of violation of operational security if the US were actually planning on attacking China but in this context it was quite obvious Milley feeling as if he needed to engage in what would normally be department of state-type communications to ensure that misunderstandings did not lead to conflict.

I do recall hearing about the nuclear launch conversation before. Milley was taking that precaution. In almost any situation, I am not in favor of the military making that call. In retrospect, it makes me uncomfortable. Trump should have been removed from power before it ever came to that. The man was diagnosable — by every professional measure we have — with textbook disorders making him unfit to serve. Any number of well-respected professionals could have been empaneled to examine him closely and thoroughly, and that would have been the result.

But - If a president is conscious, it will not matter if he runs through the white house with his underpants on his head screaming about nuking talk show hosts. It will not matter. Unfettered access to our entire nuclear arsenal will still be given to him. If anything has proven that the 25th Amendment will never be invoked on a conscious president, it’s the Trump Presidency.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,201
136
It's pretty amazing watching people parse shit in order to justify condemning a man who didn't want a lame duck insane president that just tried to overthrow democracy to launch a nuke in his insanity.

The man is a fucking hero and America needs more of him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trenchfoot

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
Another thing ...

Milley didn’t act until after the Jan 6 insurrection. It was apparent the situation in the WH and the capital was dangerously out of control. Milley’s concerns were expressed to the Speaker of the House. That office is 3rd in line to succeed power if the President and VP can’t carry out their duties. Ensuring that orders for missile launches were reviewed is a sensible precaution. Reassuring the Chinese military was obviously intended to avoid an international crisis. Does anyone want to risk another Cuban Missile crisis? The President cannot declare war without approval from Congress. There is historical precedent for Milley’s action.

What is most aggravating here is the cynical pretense by several Republicans that they, supposedly, believe Milley was saying to the Chinese official - "I'll let you know ahead of time that we are launching missiles so you can get your misslies here first"

Which of course would be treasonous. But these Republicans are saying that this is what they believe Milley did - They are spouting this ugly accusation for what they hope will be political advantage.

What we all know is that what Milley was actually saying to his Chinese counterpart was:

"You know and I know and the whole world knows that Donald Trump is dangerously irresponsible and might commit ANY act of destruction if he thought it would be to his advantage. But I am assuring you now that there ARE responsible people here, and unless there is so tense a state of affairs between us that I would naturally be talking to you, there will NOT be an out of the blue strike against China"

There are REAL questions to be worked out concerning all these matters. Republicans trying to gum up the works with their fantasies need to go fuck themselves
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
It's pretty amazing watching people parse shit in order to justify condemning a man who didn't want a lame duck insane president that just tried to overthrow democracy to launch a nuke in his insanity.

The man is a fucking hero and America needs more of him.
The only ones trying to overthrow democracy have been the Democrats. Tried several times to impeach and remove a duly elected President over false and manufactured evidence. Conducted surveillance against their political rivals, and if what is being reported is true, conspired with high military leaders to inform a potential enemy of any military actions. It goes back to Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer organizing traitorous actions over the last 5 years.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
You're right on so many things on this forum.....but not at all on this one. Insubordination generally applies to orders (standing, general or other). Treason is different. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. It would never fly in this case, since the threat by China isn't immediately demonstrable, but it's as simple as that.
Well that’s sort of my point, and why it’s not treason.

Second, the UCMJ allows for disobeying a lawful order. There are protocols for that, and first and foremost it MUST be an overt act, and which this was reported as covert.

Lastly, I expect people to whom are in military leadership roles to act as role models for their troops. We hold them to higher standards (unlike with civilian leaders). Failure to be a higher caliber should lead to dismissal. Soldiers follow their orders from their COC. The military is not a civilian organization, and the very fabric of the military is that....duty, and honor.
I don’t agree, I think he was upholding the spirit of the oath. Again, his duty is to the country and he served it well here. I can see why the military would want to dismiss a general for insubordination but sometimes putting country first has a cost. I know that’s how I viewed the oath.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,201
136
The only ones trying to overthrow democracy have been the Democrats. Tried several times to impeach and remove a duly elected President over false and manufactured evidence. Conducted surveillance against their political rivals, and if what is being reported is true, conspired with high military leaders to inform a potential enemy of any military actions. It goes back to Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer organizing traitorous actions over the last 5 years.
I appreciate your continuing to post to expose the utter mental illness it takes to be a GQP'er these days.

It's a mental illness that can only be defined within the context of the most horrific populations in the history of the world. Nazis, fascists, maoists, stalinists. Complete cognitive dissonance from the world around them and justifying the most horrific belief structures.

The cult of Trump. The most obviously horrific narcisstic complete corrupt bullshiter the American presidency has ever seen, making Nixon look like an amateur. And you worship him.

You are literally the worst of the worst. Society wouldd be best if you did not exist. Covid could be 100X more deadly and you people would still be the worse pandemic.
 
Last edited:

VW MAN

Senior member
Jun 27, 2020
677
861
96
The only ones trying to overthrow democracy have been the Democrats. Tried several times to impeach and remove a duly elected President over false and manufactured evidence. Conducted surveillance against their political rivals, and if what is being reported is true, conspired with high military leaders to inform a potential enemy of any military actions. It goes back to Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer organizing traitorous actions over the last 5 years.
This why I call you a little boy!
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
The only ones trying to overthrow democracy have been the Democrats. Tried several times to impeach and remove a duly elected President over false and manufactured evidence. Conducted surveillance against their political rivals, and if what is being reported is true, conspired with high military leaders to inform a potential enemy of any military actions. It goes back to Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer organizing traitorous actions over the last 5 years.

You still sound as mentally ill as you do treasonous.

When a Qunty little magat like you uses words like "evidence," or acts like they give a shit about democracy after trying to kill it. Funny stuff bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,038
2,652
136
Disagree, doing the right thing would have been removing the nazi from office via the 25th amendment the evening of the 6th so Milley wouldn't have had to put the safety of the country ahead of his career. Usually you go in front of a firing squad for leading a failed coup but Pence didn't even have the balls to send the nazi home two weeks early.
Does anyone who keeps throwing around the 25th amendment understand who's signatures are required to do so? Once you figure that out, and determine who would actually go thru with it, how is the 25th amendment the right thing for Miley to do? Not to mention how that would have escalated the situation that Miley was trying to avoid, if Trump got wind of any attempt of using the 25th Amendment on him.
 
Last edited:

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,038
2,652
136
I never said anything about an illegal order....you didn't read what I said. In this case there weren't any orders that were illegal. The accusation (likely unfounded to be fair) is that the General officer expected there to be an illegal order...which is not the same. Second guessing your chain of command can get you and your troops killed with a quickness. I've seen it with my own eyes where missions went sideways because someone tried to second-guess the BC and his battle plan. The commander's Intent does allow some leeway when the LFCOA is on the table, but this was waaaay beyond that.



There is NEVER an excuse for any combat soldier ignoring his duty. Excuses amongst combat branch and combat MOS soldiers are for the weak-willed and weak-bodied. I had no place for those types while I served.
You are acting like we where already in a war, fighting on the front lines.. this is not the case. it was preventive measures to avoid a war that could happen because we had a deranged lunatic at the helm. Miley also did not ignore his duty, he did his duty! It worries me that you don't see that. Which tells me you never understood the oath you took when you joined the military.
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
So then Milley didn't actually do anything wrong?

Milley felt there was a chance that the current criminal psychopath who just attempted a coup could launch a strike of many different types that could end the US in a war. I'm glad we agree he should have ignored such an order if it came.



The insurrection aside at the time this happened Trump was attempting to get the vice president to illegally throw out the results of a lawful election. That's a coup attempt!


Yeah, it's basically a universal opinion. If you think he's inaccurate, what specifically?

I think Milley was tipping over the line if his phone calls to the Chinese were true. Specifically the comment about I'll warn you in advance ...

There is a set procedure for a nuclear launch that would absolutely prevent one person from launching them.

The vice president cannot overrule an election as far as I understand it.

The 12th Amendment states that:

"The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."

I think the last two books he published were just hit pieces and sensationalism.
 
Last edited:

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Yes, I thought that was implied. The people who want to credit only one thing that Woodward and Vindman have said have offered no explanation as to why they are credible on one thing but not on others. It's OK to trust a source for one thing but not another, but then you need to provide a logical explanation. Otherwise, your motives can fairly be presumed as entirely political and partisan.

Implied yes, but I till think it is useful to make things explicit.

As to your latter point, I disagree. In this case, the presumption is based on an extensive history of posting in such a fashion. This is similar to the presumption that Trump was a risk with regards to the nuclear launch codes near the end of his presidency.

Any time I find myself reaching to set expectations for others, I try to look at myself and see if those expectations are reasonable for me. If I do that with your stated expectations, I don't think it's a standard I meet and not because I'm a partisan hack. It's fair to question motives and ask for logic, but there need not be special circumstances for that to be reasonable.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
7,428
6,157
136
Does anyone who keeps throwing around the 25th amendment understand who's signatures are required to do so? Once you figure that out, and determine who would actually go thru with it, how is the 25th amendment the right thing for Miley to do? Not to mention how that would have escalated the situation that Miley was trying to avoid, if Trump got wind of any attempt of using the 25th Amendment on him.

Was talking about Pence.
 

maluckey1

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
331
144
86
You are acting like we where already in a war, fighting on the front lines.. this is not the case. it was preventive measures to avoid a war that could happen because we had a deranged lunatic at the helm. Miley also did not ignore his duty, he did his duty! It worries me that you don't see that. Which tells me you never understood the oath you took when you joined the military.
I'm not acting like anything. You can be charged with treason without war being declared. In seriousness, Miley wouldn't be charged with treason in this case (from what we know). It's clear you are confused about how the military actually works (you're not alone). A soldier's duty is not to subvert or second guess the intent of the CINC, but enforce his will.

Well that’s sort of my point, and why it’s not treason.


I don’t agree, I think he was upholding the spirit of the oath. Again, his duty is to the country and he served it well here. I can see why the military would want to dismiss a general for insubordination but sometimes putting country first has a cost. I know that’s how I viewed the oath.
Like I've already said, it's unlikely anyone would charge him with treason unless there's something the news outlets don't know about. Now lets talk about the spirit of an oath. Unlike many things in life, the "spirit" of the oath matters not one bit". Soldiers are also bound by the UCMJ.

This isn't politics, or religion where there's leeway. A military commander or sergeant has it easy compared to politicians. They take the will of the commander and make a plan to fulfill it. There are left and right boundaries, and other considerations, but at the end of the day, you comply with the will of his superior. Failure to do so is not only the mark of a poor leader, but a clear dereliction of duty.

The ONLY time that isn't true is if you can clearly call out that the order is unlawful. Even then you aren't free to do what you want. At that point you abstain from doing that particular thing. Nothing here was unlawful, ergo the reason that people are upset. i personally believe this was exaggerated by Woodward, and blown out of proportion by the media
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11