I have written here and in other venues about my correspondence with my friend Terry, a man with significant first hand experience with things political, military, and legal. (See below).
Once again Terry has grasped onto a recent event and provide his usual thought provoking comment, This time it concerns the role of the nations military specifically in regards to the January 6th up rising by Mark Milley Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff under Donald Trump. He writes:
This is an important article about a new book coming out. Exactly what I thought and expected. The Military high command was determined to do whatever it took to insure a peaceful transfer of power, as they put it “to land the plane even if both engines were out and the landing gear was stuck”. Their oath was to the constitution, not any particular individual President.
It’s interesting to speculate what would have happened had the mob succeeded in killing Pence and Pelosi and possibly other members of Congress on Jan 6. The regular military would have been forced to intervene with force and Re establish a functioning Congress and protect it from Tump’s militia . I’m sure they would have done their duty and the book makes clear that they would have done so, irrespective of Trumps orders not to do so. Thank God that did not happen. But the precedent the Chiefs of Staff have now set will reverberate into the future. The Military will protect and defend democracy. They are, as they were at the beginning of the Civil War, when they stood guard over Lincoln’s first Inaugural, the last bulwark defending the democratic Republic.
Trump Asked Aide Why His Generals Couldn’t Be Like Hitler’s, Book Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/us/politics/trump-book-mark-milley.html?referringSource=articleShare
While I do not disagree with Terry’s view that the general military command in America are mostly trustworthy and loyal to American democracy, I believe a certain level of caution is advisable in our generalizations about the military. Here are some reasons why:
1. We are fortunate that the president the recently sought to abolish our democracy was an ignorant oaf. Still, in spite of his general incompetence, he was able, throughout his presidency, to suborn a significant portion of the nation.s Federal bureaucracy, most of whom have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution. Should a more astute but equally mendacious president be elected, the results may very well differ from the narrow escape we witnessed this time.
2. Not all generals are models of loyalty to the Constitution and some I would argue may know nothing about or care about it. Trump had his own set of Generals surrounding him, such as General Flynn. We should consider ourselves blessed with good fortune, Flynn was not appointed Chairman of the JCS.
3. Someone once pointed out that many if not most military coups are carried out by the colonels and not the general staff. While the General Staff may have loyalty to the existing institutions or leadership, the colonels have duties to and relations with those combat military personnel he or she directly commands.
There probably are other cautions and perhaps better arguments that can be made, but one thing is certain the current laws should be looked at, revised and strengthened in order to reduce the danger of military involvement in future insurrections. Remember, in situations of public turmoil and insurrection, everyone wants the military involved on their side.
Terry having read my comments responded:
Regarding your caveats to my hypothesis that the American military will always defend our Democratic republic against would be dictators, I have a couple of observations :
1. General Michael Flynn was the exception that prices the rule. He graduated from Rhode Island University, not West Point, where I taught for three years. He was never exposed to the rigorous academic and deep psychological training West Pointers are epitomized by the Corps motto of “Duty, Honor, County “ .
His rise to three star rank is an outlier. He rose through the “spook” side of the Army: intelligence and reconnaissance, not the combat arms of Infantry, Armor and Artillery where almost all three stars and all four stars originate. My point: He’s not really a combat veteran who risked his life for the Republic. He was never
embraced by his colleagues as one of “the few band of brothers”. Why? He never embraced their values of Duty Honor Country before all others .
2. A more knowledgeable and intelligent “Trump” would have the same difficulty Trip experienced in attempting a coup. Had he appointed a Michael Flynn type, assuming the Senate confirmed him ( a major and difficult hurdles, the rest of the military would, I believe, strongly resist.)
3. The fear that “colonels would lead a coup” is, indeed a phenomenon of developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. But not sophisticated economically developed countries. There a coup, to the extent that it has taken place, has been led or allowed by Generals. Hitler rose to power by cutting a deal with the German General Staff. Napoleon, a very successful general, seized power by storming the French First Republic’s Senate. In no case has it occurred where a nation’s military had a strong allegiance to a democratic republic.
As a Judge told me a long time ago: “anything is possible, so don’t ask about it in cross! “ His point: there are so many possibilities in life that worrying about them is a waste of time. I, for one, believe a successful coup in the UNITED STATES is a far fetched “possibility “. An extreme right wing Congressional Majority is another matter. That’s something to really
worry about!
Well, this is an effective and convincing response to my concerns as one would expect from someone who taught debate at the Military Academy. I certainly lack arguments or information to refute him, but still I do not believe there has any institution ever created that could not be subverted. Newsweek reported that Paul Eaton, a former two-star U.S. Army major general, told NPR about his concerns that the U.S. military might be "compromised" by competing claims of who won the election and who it should take orders from (Here). But, like the judge Terry mentions advises, speculation without evidence is mostly a futile and at times dangerous diversion. The first thing that should concern us today is who controls Congress.
See also:
trenzpruca.wordpress.com/…
www.dailykos.com/…
trenzpruca.wordpress.com/…
www.dailykos.com/…
www.dailykos.com/…
www.dailykos.com/...