If the Chairman as he claims maintains absolute loyalty to the United States, why did he stretch his telephone conversation with China after assuring them that America will not attack them, to include that he will give them a heads-up and tip them off should any such order ever be issued by the president? This further assurance is where his cookie crumbled as such defeats the element of surprise in warfares and will also allow China to lie in wait for American troops and massacre them at sight. Giving China a prior information about an impending attack will have China raise its defenses, land, air and sea, thus exposing incursions by the United States Navy, Air-force and the Army to Chinese destructive measures.
So, he reviewed intelligence that suggested that Chinese officials were worried that the United States was planning an attack because of exercises in the South China Sea. But even if it was not true, was it not better that China was kept worrying and not knowing what was going on in America's president's mind, and that way they would be forced to moderate their hostile maritime actions in the South China Sea, since they don't know how America might react. But he not only deflated that element of an enemy not knowing what its adversary is thinking, but also took further step to inform them that he will tip them off in the event any attack was ordered.
He served the United States for 43 years, but is he still the same person he once was and is he still serving with the same candor as he did the past 42 years? Is he still as loyal and committed to the United States as he then was, and still maintains his lane of authority; or has his high office gotten into his head that he began to think that he can sabotage a sitting United States president? He said that he is trying hard to keep the military out of politics, but celebrated Joe Biden's election win, which made many people wonder if he possibly participated in the shenanigans that led to the election result. Why would apolitical Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staffs, who is trying to keep politics out of the military, care about who is elected the president?
Why was he delighted that President Donald John Trump was not reelected to a second term if he indeed is not political, and did not have a dog in the fight on November 3rd, 2020? If he knew for certain that President Trump did not intend to attack China, why did he initiate the conversation and not let Chinese officials call to make the inquiry or confirm their fears before he can then assure them that everything is under control. Would what he did not be interpreted by the Chinese as America being afraid of them and seeking ways to avoid a conflict with the Peoples Liberation Army? It would have been better had the Chinese called the Chairman regarding their "intelligence" on a possible attack by America and then the assurance. We are not going to attack you, did they say you were going to attack them?
As if that was not enough, he took a call from Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not his Commander in Chief, without referring the acute partisan politician to the chain of command, which should be the Secretary of Defense, for any information which she seeks from the Pentagon. That the speaker has the power of the purse over the Defense Department does not mean that she also has direct power over the military business aspects of the Pentagon. Why did the speaker not broach her fears about President Trump's mental equilibrium with the Secretary of Defense or better still from the White House doctor, instead of thrusting herself directly into the Pentagon and making an inquiry which was not her place to make.
The ability to launch nuclear weapons resides exclusively with the president, which the speaker has no business meddling in and the Chairman should have told her this immediately and ended the conversation. But no, he went on to assure her that nuclear launch is governed by a very specific and deliberate process as if the Nancy Pelosi did not already know these but was merely looking for informations with which to continue her propaganda that President Trump is a whacko doodle. Both of them were busy gossiping about the president and questioning his capacity to, not only continue to function as president but to exercise his inalienable authority as Commander in Chief with powers over nuclear weapons launch.
Various personal references characterizing then President Trump were made by the Speaker, to which the Chairman must have likely concurred and most probably given his own pieces of opinion too. How could there ever be an "illegal, unauthorized or accidental launch" of nuclear weapons with all the protocols put in place safeguarding such? His duty is to execute as commanded, but he inserted himself in the process of command, and discussed his Commander in Chief's mental capacity with a highly charged partisan Speaker of the House of Representatives, who never allowed any day to go by without attacking and disparaging the then president of the United States of America.
Why did the Chairman not figure out that the Speaker's intention was highly partisan and why did he later inform the Secretary of Defense after the fact and not before it, by directing the Speaker to channel her inquiries to the Secretary of Defense, the real supervisory authority at the Pentagon and by constitution, the liaison officer between the political wing and the military. ICHEOKU is emphatic that the Chairman actively attempted to change and influence the process, usurped authority and inserted himself into the chain of command. All he would have done was tell Madam Speaker that telephoning him was out of order, but he gleefully took the call to curry her favor.
Further, if the Afghanistan withdrawal was a logistical success, why did we lose 13 service men and women? Why the chaos witnessed which forever tarnished the image of America as incompetent and incapable of executing a simple task of withdrawing its troops as demanded by the Taliban. Better still, could it be that a military which did not want to withdraw from Afghanistan as commanded by the president, chose to sabotage the mission by making it look ugly and tardy just to make their point and smear the withdrawal. What exactly led to the sore sight witnessed at Kabul, both at the airport and in the city, with difficulties in getting to the airport. Only a commission of inquiry would unravel the answers, but will the Congress summon the courage to so do?
According to him, “My oath is to support the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will never turn my back on the oath. I firmly believe in civilian control of the military as a bedrock principle essential to this republic and I am committed to ensuring the military stays clear of domestic politics.” But it should be qualified as a case of trust but first verify, everything that happened considered. Why did he think he needed to talk to Bob Woodward and Robert Costa over a book aptly titled Peril which is turning out to be very perilous to him; and to spill the much he did or allowed to be spilled. Is he planning a post active duty gig and actively seeking Hollywood embrace?
Although President Joe Biden has said that he has full confidence in the Chairman, which was obviously partisan driven because it was President Donald John Trump that was impacted. But the president should act in the interest of the office of the president in order to safeguard the office from rogue generals who might think that they know better than their political leadership to circumvent a president. President Joe Biden should fire Chairman Mark Milley because what he did was to the office of the president and commander in chief, and it is a disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination. Allowing him to remain is setting a bad precedent and if it is President Trump now, it might be President Biden or some other president in the future with another rogue general. It is even a shame that he has not resigned on his own accord. It is sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment