Managing a mentally unbalanced president

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley participates in a news briefing at the Pentagon May 6, 2021 in Arlington, Virginia. (Alex Wong/Getty Images/TNS)

What do you do when a president is crazy?

That’s essentially the question Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced in the twilight days of the Trump administration. His answer, as reported by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in their forthcoming book, “Peril,” has some people up in arms.

It seems that Milley, according to published accounts from those who have read the book, became convinced his tantrum-throwing, spittle-spewing, reality-denying commander-in-chief was in a state of mental collapse and as such, was an immediate threat to world peace. So the general went around him, twice reaching out via back channel to his Chinese counterpart, General Li Zuocheng.

The first call was last October. Milley had reportedly seen intelligence suggesting that China, rattled by U.S. military exercises in the South China Sea and by President Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, believed an American attack was imminent. He assured Zuocheng that this was not the case and went so far as to issue an extraordinary promise: “If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time.”

Milley’s second call is said to have come in the wake of the Jan. 6th insurrection at the Capitol. He reportedly felt it necessary to assure China the U.S. government was stable, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Milley also warned military officers against obeying any presidential orders to launch nuclear weapons unless he, Milley, was involved.

The propriety of Milley’s actions has come under heavy scrutiny. Trump-era national security adviser John Bolton defended him and vouched for his patriotism. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said that reassuring a nervous adversary is “not only common, it’s expected.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, expressed “grave concern” and demanded that President Biden fire Milley “immediately.” Nor was the condemnation limited to morally limber political actors. Former Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who famously testified against Trump in his first impeachment and paid for his temerity with his career, said Milley must resign, having “violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military,” which he saw as “an extremely dangerous precedent.”

But the Trump years set extremely dangerous precedents on a daily basis. It is at least conceivable that this one averted war. And none of this Sturm und Drang addresses what would seem to be the obvious issue. Namely, that the question of how to manage a mentally unbalanced president should never have devolved to Milley to begin with, should never have become his responsibility.

That it did speaks to the unadulterated cowardice of the political party that protected Trump, made excuses for him, lied for him, at every step of the way. As his precarious mental state became ever more obvious, the GOP’s pusillanimous refusal to do its patriotic duty became ever more glaring.

Impeach him? Invoke the 25th Amendment? Simply stand up on hind legs and object?

Nope, nope and nope. Instead, the Gutless Old Party behaved like Mikey’s brothers in the old Life cereal commercial: “I’m not gonna try it. You try it.”

Now we’re supposed to dump opprobrium upon a soldier who was required to answer a question that never should’ve come to his desk and never would’ve, had these people exhibited a molecule of courage? No. The most troubling thing here is not what Milley chose to do.

It’s that he had to make a choice at all.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 3511 NW 91st Ave., Miami, Fla., 33172. Readers may contact him via email at lpitts@miamiherald.com.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Johnson Newspapers 7.1

Recommended for you

(2) comments

KRobbins

It may be that Milley should be fired or forced to resign for his actions. But, is Trump crazy or a threat to democracy? He sent this to Raffensberger on Friday, 10 and a half months after the election. Abnormal times call for abnormal actions maybe.

That brings up another point. Sometime between now and next November, Elise Stefanik owes the public an answer as to whether she feels Biden and Harris won in a free and fair election. A straight-up yes or no answer. Nothing along the lines of “congratulations on being sworn in.”

Large scale Voter Fraud continues to be reported in Georgia. Enclosed is a repot of 43,000 Absentee Ballot Votes Counted in DeKalb County that violated the Chain of Custody rules, making them invalid. I would respectfully request that your department check this and, if true, along with many other claims of voter fraud and voter irregularities, start the process of decertifying the Election, or whatever the correct legal remedy is, and announce the true winner. As state to you previously, the number of false and/or irregular votes is far greater than needed to change the Georgia election result. People do not understand why you and Governor Brian Kemp adamantly refuse to acknowledge the now proven facts, and fight so hard that the election truth not be told. You and Governor Kemp are doing a tremendous disservice to the Great State of Georgia, and to our Nation- which is systematically being destroyed by an illegitimate president and his administration. The truth must be allowed to come out.

rdsouth

I read a piece in "Newsweek" (the online vestige of the once great magazine) by a right winger who suggested this general's actions were treasonous. The constitution gives the president authority over the military, but that is conditional on orders being legal. Just as a warrant officer can over ride the commands of a lieutenant if the latter is illegally committing a massacre, it may be that a general can order subordinates to check with him before obeying the president. Maybe the president could give an illegal order, in which case the check is justified and the order countermandable. Maybe the president can give a legal order, in which case the check is still justified, but the order has to go through. The judiciary would have to look at ALL the laws and make a decision after the fact. For all we know there are laws in place that allow a president to launch a nuclear counterstrike without much consulting, but not to launch a first strike without going through some additional checks. I'll bet those aren't something you can look up in any law library.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.