Seven Days in May 2020: The Puzzle of Thoroughly Modern Milley and The Call

by Syme Antipathic
Posted on September 16, 2021October 2, 2021

The Playbill

I began to title this section “The Actors,” but “actors” seemed presuppositional since we, the hoi poloi, do not have much data. “Playbill” seemed more appropriate as it allows the inclusion of minor figures who may simply have been “extras” in the unfolding drama.

General “Thoroughly Modern” Mark Milley

Nancy Pelosi

Mark Esper

Bob Woodward

Robert Costa

National Military Command Center senior leadership

President Donald Trump

Washington Post

Acting Secretary of Defense for President Trump, Christopher Miller

Secretary of State for President Trump, Mike Pompeo

People’s Liberation Army General Li Zuocheng

The Book

A central issue of this drama is the data center from which it emanates. Bob Woodward and Robert Costa penned a book, entitled Peril, in which they allege General Milley personally called China’s General Li to assure Li that he, General Milley, would inform General Li if President Trump ordered a surprise nuclear strike against China. They further allege that General Milley assembled the senior leadership of the National Military Command Center to secure from them assurances no military decisions would be made with regard to nuclear strikes against China without his personal approval.

This drama reminds me of a book I read some decades ago, which was later produced for the screen: Seven Days in May. Although the plot lines are reversed (this book’s antagonist was vehemently anti-Communist, and considered the President indecisive and weak), the personal assurances between senior military leadership figures ring eerily parallel.

The Timeline

October 30, 2020: From most reports, the drama began just days before the November 2020 elections. U. S. intelligence reports suggested the Chinese believed an attack from the U. S. was imminent based on President Trump’s rhetoric, and the presence of U. S. naval exercises in the South China Sea. According to Woodward and Costa, General Milley used his personal rapport with General Li to assure him no surprise attack would occur. It is unclear if then Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, granted Milley permission assure the Chinese no attack was imminent.

January 8, 2021: Apparently, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, expressed concern to General Milley about President Trump’s mental state over his allegations that the 2020 election was stolen. Milley then seems to have assured her safeguards were in place to forestall any untoward preemptive strike against China. According to then Secretary of Defense, Christopher Miller, General Milley had no authority to open a back-channel with China.

Constitutional Issues

Caution: Here, I must reiterate, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. However, there are some common sense issues that come into play. Another assumption under which all this must be considered is that everything in this article is alleged. There have been no adjudications whether these allegations are true, or not true.

That said, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is NOT in the Department of Defense operational command structure. By law, he has NO command authority-period. He is an advisor to the President on military affairs, only. Further, international relationships are the purview of the State Department, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I’m curious how a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can personally assure a foreign contemporary he will be warned of any imminent military action be considered OK, but a prospective Director of National Intelligence be criminally charged with collusion for merely speaking with a foreign national.

Constitutionally, the President is the commander-in-chief. If there were to be a concern over the legality of an order issued by anyone in the chain-of-command, every member of the military has a legal, and moral, obligation not to obey it. Every order must be lawful. Consequently, if an unhinged President ordered an unwarranted, preemptive nuclear strike, the option is to not obey his order.

Also, constitutionally, the 25th Amendment provides for the removal of Presidential authority from a sitting President. If such a condition were to happen, the Vice President “shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress, alone, the power to declare war. That power is collective. It does not devolve down to the Speaker of the House as an individual. The Speaker has no constitutional authority to seek assurances from Presidential advisors that back-channel safeguards are in place to preclude “an unstable” President from issuing illegal military action.

If Woodward and Costa’s allegations are true, then General Milley illegally inserted himself into the military chain-of-command, usurped the authority of the Secretary of State, and ignored the provisions of the 25th Amendment, and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

(Addendum 9/23/2021) The typical Democrat response to conservative criticism of Modern Milley’s phone call is to claim generals of differing nations often communicate among one another about military exercises. True. Generals do often communicate with one another about military exercises-joint exercises! As far as I know the U. S. has no upcoming joint exercise with China. So, again, why the phone call if not to circumvent the operational command authority of a sitting commander-in-chief?

Tin-foil Hat Concerns

I do have several questions that have yet to be answered (and may never be).

Why did Woodward and Costa wait until their book had a publication date to raise what are constitutional-crisis issues?

Why are the left-stream media picking up this narrative and running with it? The Washington Post, for which Woodward and Costa work, is notably left of center. Why attack an advisor who is demonstrably left of center? Is it for intimidation, to remind the Chairman (and future Chairmen), and the senior leadership of the National Military Command that they, too, can be non-personed?

Is the left-stream media attack an effort to discredit the entire national military command structure, and render them suspect in the eyes of the public?

Is the left-stream media working as the propaganda arm of the DNC in their effort to remind senior military leadership that they, too, can be cancelled, and have their futures nullified (like General Flynn’s), so that they, therefor, had better toe the party line?

Is this Milley news cycle a diversionary tactic to obscure other action by the left-controlled Congress (or, perhaps to move the news off pervasive Afghanistan issues)? (Updated 9/1/2021) See https://zerothink.us/the-milley-narrative-and-diversionary-optics/

Where Do We Go From Here?

I hope this brouhaha results in some investigatory process to determine if the data presented by Woodward and Costa are true, or not. If substantively true, then General Milley, the senior leadership of the National Military Command Center, Mark Esper, and Christopher Miller must be placed under oath, and testify before Congress about the details of the incidents. If others were present during alleged calls, then they also must testify under oath. (Granted, oaths do not prevent someone from lying, but they do grant warrant for criminal prosecution if lies are discovered.)

Only after substantiating the alleged incidents can any other action be contemplated.

One thing is fairly clear. General Milley’s credibility to serve the President as the chief military advisor is questionable. A reasonable step would be to resign as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and return to other duties.

Bottom Line

The Constitution of the United States is our guardrail. Individuals, whether Speakers of the House, or Chairs of the Joint Chiefs cannot assume power to themselves in contradiction of the Constitution to circumvent sitting, elected authorities.