I was somewhere in the middle of The Death of Yugoslavia1 on Wednesday night when a thought suddenly came to me about the disturbing delay in providing National Guard troops to the Capitol. Watching this outstanding documentary about the bloody mid-90s breakup of that country, and the clear narrative about what had been, at the time, maddeningly convoluted and pointless, i was jolted by a solution — a possible explanation — for the question i’d been considering of who at the Pentagon had been all in with Trump’s Hail Mary attempt at keeping power. I didn’t even realise that i’d been ruminating on it as i watched this fascinating film. But, suddenly, my brain seemed to flip the question, out of nowhere, presenting it on its head and landing with a resounding clang.
I paused the video to consider: Did (acting) Secretary of Defense Miller slow-walk that deployment to foil Trump, rather than to play along in his attempted coup?
Like most of you, i was shocked at how long the Capitol and Metropolitan Police were left twisting in the wind that day. I’ve also read Luttwak, and had no doubt as to whether the rally was a setup — an excuse to get a mob into place and then direct them to lay siege to the Capitol. Yes, it was a fricking coup d’état. An autogolpe. Trump really thought that he could make something — anything — to happen that might keep him as President. Yes, it really did happen here.
I won’t get into the particulars of the Pentagon delay. We know that it happened, and it was abnormal, to say the least. There is enough weirdness there for us to legitimately question the allegiance of those involved. That Michael Flynn’s brother was one of them — and that the Pentagon lied about it — certainly looks very, very bad.
Then, towards the end of January, this piece by Adam Ciralsky was dropped by Vanity Fair.
“The President Threw Us Under the Bus”: Embedding With Pentagon Leadership in Trump’s Chaotic Last Week
On the evening of January 5—the night before a white supremacist mob stormed Capitol Hill in a siege that would leave five dead—the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, was at the White House with his chief of staff, Kash Patel. They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”
wtf?
Why would Trump be encouraging Miller to put troops on the streets? Could this be real? How does this make sense? Why would Trump be suggesting such a thing when the absence of troops is what he should have wanted? But i trust Vanity Fair to be not-stupid and be confident in what they are publishing, so ...
I filed that away for the time being, not being especially convinced, but aware that things probably weren’t as they seemed.
On March 3, “Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security Robert Salesses” was dispatched to the Capitol to answer questions of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs. Given that Salesses had not been personally involved in any of the decision-making that day, his appearance at the hearing was rather less than satisfying. Some of the things that he said were sensible but there was still too much left unanswered. I wanted to hear from Miller himself.
That’s where things stood on Wednesday evening, as i was drawn in to the labyrinthine events of twenty-five years ago, as Serbs, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and others suffered the hell of war — and conducted it, in ruthless and devious fashion. That horrible and confusing conflict had repeatedly turned on contrived events that … wait —
That’s when it struck me: Was Miller worried that sending thousands of troops into the streets might play into whatever the fuck this demented president was planning?
Did the (acting) Secretary of Defense already harbour concerns about what the demented president was getting up to? Had he felt the same deep reservation that so many had, going back to James Comey, that their president might really be a demented criminal scumbag — and was attempting to bribe or bully him into playing along?
I wondered whether Miller thought that the deployment troops into DC might get away from him in an awful way. That his installed chief of staff, Nunes buddy Kash Patel, might …
I don’t know, and maybe Miller didn’t, either.
Once those troops are surrounding the Capitol, what next? Had Miller already been worried about what the demented president might be planning? Had he put two and two together? Why does he want him to put ten thousand soldiers in control of the Capitol? Will the demented president then fire him? Simply take him out of the picture?
Think about that.
Think about how those troops, once deployed, might have been manipulated. Read Luttwak, if it’ll help your imagination. Once that bottle has been uncorked, how might a demented president make use of it?
Is this the reason why they didn’t rush to send armed troops that day, despite the beating that the police were taking? Come to that, was Charles Flynn likewise very much not on board with his loopy brother’s crazy schemes? (Those of you with loopy siblings might appreciate that.) Were they cognizant of the fact that, once they’d given the order to put troops into the streets, they might easily have been swept aside? That trustworthy shitbags like Kash Patel and that Tata fuckwit might then have asserted control?
These are the thoughts that i’ve been pondering the past couple of days. More than ever, i’ve wanted to hear more from Miller.
Then i saw this just now:
The first thing i take away from this teaser is that i really want to see the full, uncut interview. There’s a lot of between-the-lines here.
The second thing is that the jolting hunch that struck me wednesday evening might be worth pursuing.
The third is that Chris Miller — rightly, imho — is very concerned about how this might still go. That this shocking and bizarre event must be peeled apart carefully. Because this isn’t over and done with.
Sometimes, when attempting to make sense of something, it helps to flip it on its head.
There’s still much more to learn about what went down on January sixth. It might come to us in fits and starts. And some of it might run contrary to what we may have believed, though no less disturbing.
1. Rather than go into it in detail, i’ll simply recommend that you set aside a few evenings to take in all 5 hours of it. Neither will i specify which of the many plot twists had jolted me out of the jan. 6 narrative that i’d been struggling with. This documentary, via unbelievable access to the main protagonists, lays out a view of that conflict which could never have been achieved by watching the grim reports on the news. If you’ve ever wondered wth that awful war was all about, it will clear some things up for you.
Sunday, Mar 14, 2021 · 7:35:20 PM +00:00
·
subtropolis
This post has attracted a lot of interesting commentary. I’ve tried to keep up (some might say too much) but I’ve got to split for awhile. I’ll try to read the rest of the comments later.
I do wish to stress that I am aware that this hunch has some holes. Some of you have pointed them out, and I’ve tried to acknowledge those where I’ve seen them. Please keep in mind that I am not asserting that this is what happened that day. Clearly, we need more information.