No, Gen. Mark Milley didn’t defend the Constitution against Donald Trump.
Protecting Democracy: The Heroic Actions of General Mark Milley
It’s truly remarkable how often the fight to protect “democracy” from Donald Trump involves engaging in anti-democratic activities. In a captivating 6,500-word article in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg pays tribute to General Mark Milley, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, while the article attempts to revise history, its biggest flaw is the lack of evidence to support its claims.
According to Goldberg, General Milley played a crucial role in defending the constitutional order, preventing military deployment against American citizens, and averting conflicts with nuclear-armed adversaries during the chaotic period surrounding the 2020 election. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump attempted to escalate tensions or provoke wars. In fact, it was Milley himself who made unauthorized phone calls to China, undermining civilian authority over the military.
Goldberg tries to justify Milley’s actions by mentioning that other officials were present during the calls and that the then-secretary of defense was informed. However, the reality is that Milley’s behavior was deemed insubordinate and disgraceful by the secretary of defense himself. Rather than de-escalating tensions, Milley promised to inform China of any potential attacks, a clear violation of civilian oversight.
During a House hearing, Milley admitted that Trump had no intention of attacking China. So, what part of the constitutional order did Milley truly protect? None. The Atlantic article fails to provide any evidence of Trump or his administration requesting illegal actions or participating in a coup. In fact, Milley himself promised consequences for anyone attempting to prevent Joe Biden from assuming office.
The article’s premise is that Milley’s actions were justified due to the perceived threat Trump posed to the Constitution. However, if leading generals believe Biden to be an authoritarian liar who undermines the Constitution, should they be allowed to bypass civilian oversight? Milley’s track record suggests that he failed to prevent real threats, such as the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal and a questionable airstrike that resulted in civilian casualties.
It’s clear that Milley’s actions were driven by political motivations rather than a genuine commitment to protecting democracy. While he may have stopped theoretical threats, he proved ineffective when faced with real challenges. The Atlantic article serves as a legacy-saving hagiography, but it falls short in providing substantial evidence to support its claims.
How do General Milley’s unauthorized phone calls to his Chinese counterpart raise questions about his commitment to upholding democratic principles and respecting the chain of command?
2
Protecting Democracy: The Heroic Actions of General Mark Milley
The fight to protect democracy is a noble and essential endeavor. However, it is important to separate fact from fiction when evaluating the actions of individuals involved. In a recent article published in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg lauds General Mark Milley, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his alleged heroic actions in safeguarding democracy. While the article is captivating, it lacks substantial evidence to support its claims.
Goldberg asserts that General Milley played a crucial role in defending the constitutional order, preventing military deployment against American citizens, and averting conflicts with nuclear-armed adversaries during the tumultuous period surrounding the 2020 election. However, there is a notable absence of concrete evidence to substantiate the claim that former President Donald Trump attempted to escalate tensions or provoke wars.
In fact, it was General Milley himself who made unauthorized phone calls to his Chinese counterpart, undermining civilian authority over the military. These actions raise questions about his commitment to upholding democratic principles and respecting the chain of command. While some may argue that his intentions were noble, it is essential to recognize the potential dangers of military leaders overstepping their bounds and interfering in diplomatic affairs.
Protecting democracy involves not only defending its values but also maintaining the integrity of its institutions. The actions of General Milley, as highlighted in Goldberg’s article, raise concerns about the erosion of civilian control over the military. In a democratic society, it is crucial to preserve the balance between military and civilian authority, as outlined in the constitution.
To truly protect democracy, it is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability, even for those in positions of power. The lack of evidence to support the claims made in Goldberg’s article is troubling and undermines the credibility of the assertions put forth. Upholding democratic values demands rigorous scrutiny and a commitment to truth, regardless of one’s political leanings.
While it is important to recognize individuals who genuinely work towards safeguarding democracy, it is equally important to critically evaluate their actions based on objective evidence. General Mark Milley’s tenure as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may have been marked by controversy, but the narrative of his heroic efforts to protect democracy should be met with skepticism until substantial evidence is presented.
Protecting democracy is an ongoing collective effort that requires vigilance and a commitment to truth. By critically assessing claims and demanding evidence, we contribute to the vitality of democratic principles and the preservation of its institutions.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
