MILESFORTIS

General Milley’s Attack on the Constitution

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, recently called Donald Trump a “fascist to the core” and “a wannabe dictator.” That such a senior military leader would feel comfortable saying this about his former boss is remarkable given that similar statements by officers have, in the past, resulted in severe punishment. The U.S. Constitution makes the president—the only democratically elected leader in the chain of command—commander in chief. Military leaders serving under the president owe him both deference and respect, regardless of whether their policy preferences differ.

General Milley is challenging this foundational principle of American government. Although General Milley’s recent statements are not subject to Article 88 because President Trump was no longer in office at the time the general made them, his previous attempts to undermine Trump’s authority could be. Indeed, General Milley has recognized as much, expressing concern that he may yet face court-martial for his conduct during the Trump administration. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has revealed that General Milley discussed with her ways in which the military could ignore a hypothetical order from President Trump to deploy nuclear weapons, and that he agreed with the speaker’s suggestion that President Trump was “crazy.”

Others have alleged that General Milley worked behind the scenes to frustrate the Trump administration’s plan to pull troops out of Afghanistan, ultimately succeeding in delaying withdrawal until President Biden was in office. Most egregiously, a 2021 book by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa details how General Milley—without knowledge or authorization from the president—offered to warn a senior Chinese military official “ahead of time” in the event that President Trump ordered an attack against the communist state. This latter conduct, if true, goes beyond even insubordination—it borders on outright treason, which can be prosecuted through court-martial or by the Department of Justice under Title 18, Section 2381 of the U.S. Code.

Presidents have traditionally taken swift and decisive action against military officers who challenge their authority as commander in chief. President Truman famously sacked General Douglas MacArthur—who was wildly popular at the time—for questioning Truman’s approach to the Korean War, explaining later that he “fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the President.” President Obama similarly accepted General Stanley McCrystal’s resignation as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan after the general publicly criticized high-ranking civilian officials within the Obama administration.

These men dedicated years of their lives to serving their country, and, in at least some respects, their criticisms had merit. General MacArthur understood the perils of communist aggression and sincerely believed that Truman’s approach discounted that threat. General McCrystal undoubtedly had some valid concerns about American policy in Afghanistan. The substance of the concerns voiced by these men, however, was beside the point. Public disparagement of the civilian leaders appointed over them, as a matter of principle, could not be permitted. Yet, as allegations concerning General Milley’s conduct have come to light, civilian leadership has responded with seeming indifference—and even support.

For a republic to survive, civilian control of the armed forces is crucial. Allowing those serving in uniform to undermine the policies of the civilian officials under which they serve would risk praetorianism—where military commanders feel empowered to seize control when they disfavor a nation’s political leadership. Indeed, the citizens of states that accept such an arrangement almost always suffer as a result. From this nation’s founding, Americans have rejected military rule. George Washington deferred to the Continental Congress throughout the Revolutionary War and resigned his commission at its conclusion. When civilian leaders depart from the tradition established by Washington and allow those in uniform to challenge their authority without consequences, they risk undermining a bedrock principle upon which this nation was founded.

While Americans are right to revere the dedication and sacrifice of those in uniform—including the lengthy service of men like General Milley—that respect should never license insubordination of a sitting president or his advisors, regardless of the perceived wisdom of a particular administration’s policies. General Milley has noted that officers “take an oath to a country . . . . We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator.” True enough, but soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines must remember that, regardless of their personal views on policy, the Constitution vests ultimate authority as commander in chief of the Armed Forces in the president alone.

Officers who disregard the president’s prerogative, therefore, necessarily violate their oaths of office—their duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” When President Trump is back in office, he should send a clear and unequivocal message to his officer corps that insubordination will not be tolerated. Unless there are consequences for men like General Milley, the Republic will suffer.