General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"The US is not a military junta; it is a republic led by elected civilian leaders..."
Actually, it's neither.
The Guardian: General Milley cannot undermine civilian authority. The US is not a military junta
Milley, who reportedly believed that Trump was unstable and might launch a politically motivated military operation, contacted the Chinese without the knowledge of the White House. He no doubt thought that his decision was for the greater good. But if he did indeed negotiate with a foreign military rival without authorization, he violated the longstanding American political tradition that the military is subordinate to elected civilian leaders.
...
The US is not a military junta; it is a republic led by elected civilian leaders, and it cannot allow the creation of any precedent, large or small, of military insubordination.
The problem with that argument is that because of such undemocratic practices as gerrymandering, over-representation of rural populations, the Electoral College, etc. the US is not "a republic led by elected civilian leaders" and is gradually drifting farther from that ideal due to the rising corruption of the Republican Party.
General Milley faced a dilemma, but to respect a disastrous decision by an obviously insane leader would clearly have been the wrong choice.
ck4829
(35,038 posts)You're not elected by God.
You're not there to "own the libs" or to troll a part of that civilian population
Your ego and personal interests are superseded by the wants and needs of the many.
Trump failed to act AS a civilian leader, therefore resistance to him was not only beneficial, but I would say obligatory.
Ocelot II
(115,587 posts)He's an advisor to the president.
The Wizard
(12,536 posts)is out of control, anyone on the train has the duty to use the emergency brake.
Response to Towlie (Original post)
qzwv8j This message was self-deleted by its author.
fishwax
(29,148 posts)Milley perceived Trump's behavior as potentially injurious to that rule of law. I would argue that he was right to perceive it so.
His behavior is not indicative of a military junta. He wasn't wresting control from the civilian leaders. He was acting in service to his obligation to the constitution, and to protect it from enemies foreign and domestic.