The challenge to the 2020 election result has helped create “an extremely adverse environment,” former defense secretaries and generals said in an open letter.
-
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
Give this article
In summer 2020, General Mark A. Milley, right, was summoned by President Donald J. Trump for a walk across a park where protesters had just been tear-gassed so Mr. Trump could do a photo op holding a Bible.
WASHINGTON — The challenge to a peaceful transfer of power after President Donald J. Trump lost the 2020 election has worsened “an extremely adverse environment” for the U.S. military, according to an open letter signed by several top generals and former defense secretaries.
The letter does not mention Mr. Trump by name. But in 16 points on the principles that are supposed to define civil-military relations, the signatories issued a thinly veiled indictment of Mr. Trump and the legions of his followers who called on the military to support his false claim that the election was stolen from him.
“Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath of fealty to an individual or to an office,” the bipartisan group wrote, adding later, “It is the responsibility of senior military and civilian leaders to ensure that any order they receive from the president is legal.”
Two former defense secretaries who served under Mr. Trump, Jim Mattis and Mark T. Esper, were among those who signed the letter, which was published Tuesday on War on the Rocks, an online platform for analysis of national security and foreign affairs issues.
The letter reads like an American high school civics lesson. But in the six years since Mr. Trump entered the White House, the theme of the military’s duty to obey only legal orders has come up frequently. Mr. Trump’s tenure was a turbulent period for the Pentagon in which the president ordered American troops to the southwest border in a standoff against immigrants, riled up a crowd that stormed the Capitol and asked the military to deploy against protesters seeking racial justice.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Card 1 of 9
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Making a case against Trump. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is laying out a comprehensive narrative of President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Here are the main themes that have emerged so far from eight public hearings:
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
An unsettling narrative. During the first hearing, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol. At the heart of the gripping story were three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Creating election lies. In its second hearing, the panel showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers as he declared victory prematurely and relentlessly pressed claims of fraud he was told were wrong. “He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” William P. Barr, the former attorney general, said of Mr. Trump during a videotaped interview.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Pressuring Pence. Mr. Trump continued pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing. The committee showed how Mr. Trump’s actions led his supporters to storm the Capitol, sending Mr. Pence fleeing for his life.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Fake elector plan. The committee used its fourth hearing to detail how Mr. Trump was personally involved in a scheme to put forward fake electors. The panel also presented fresh details on how the former president leaned on state officials to invalidate his defeat, opening them up to violent threats when they refused.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Strong arming the Justice Dept. During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
The surprise hearing. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, delivered explosive testimony during the panel’s sixth session, saying that the president knew the crowd on Jan. 6 was armed, but wanted to loosen security. She also painted Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, as disengaged and unwilling to act as rioters approached the Capitol.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Planning a march. Mr. Trump planned to lead a march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 but wanted it to look spontaneous, the committee revealed during its seventh hearing. Representative Liz Cheney also said that Mr. Trump had reached out to a witness in the panel’s investigation, and that the committee had informed the Justice Department of the approach.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
A “complete dereliction” of duty. In the final public hearing of the summer, the panel accused the former president of dereliction of duty for failing to act to stop the Capitol assault. The committee documented how, over 187 minutes, Mr. Trump had ignored pleas to call off the mob and then refused to say the election was over even a day after the attack.
Mr. Trump also asked his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, a retired Marine general, why he could not have military leaders who were loyal to him, like the “German generals in World War II,” according to “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021,” by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser. (Mr. Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times; Ms. Glasser is a staff writer for The New Yorker.)
Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, said today’s political discourse was peppered with commentary that showed a lack of understanding of the role of the military.
The letter “is not pointed at Trump, but when you hear him talk about Hitler’s generals, well, that’s not who we are,” Admiral Mullen, one of the signatories, said in an interview.
The letter originated during a discussion between Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor, and retired Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Barack Obama.
In an interview, Mr. Feaver said the continuing fallout included the demands on cable television — including on Fox News shows — for the resignation of Gen. Mark A. Milley, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“Those cable personalities are not using this list as their standard,” Mr. Feaver said, in a reference to civil-military standards the letter sets out. (The letter also includes that “the military has an obligation to assist civilian leaders in both the executive and legislative branches in the development of wise and ethical directives but must implement them provided that the directives are legal,” with emphasis on the last phrase.)
General Milley, Mr. Feaver said, “should be evaluated like an Olympic diver. He was asked to do something extremely difficult — something much harder than anyone on this list was asked to do.”
In the summer of 2020, for instance, Mr. Trump summoned General Milley to join him in a walk across a park near the White House where civilians protesting police brutality and racism had just been tear-gassed, so that the president could pose for a photo while holding a Bible.
The general apologized later, infuriating the president. General Milley also angered Mr. Trump by asking other senior generals to review routine procedures for launching nuclear weapons during the last days of the Trump administration.
“General Milley was navigating civil-military relations at the point when the processes of the Trump administration was breaking down,” Mr. Feaver said. “If he takes a little splash here or there, it’s the best someone can do under those circumstances.”
Source: nytimes.com
