On Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley's Brief Remarks at the Armed Forces Farewell Tribute

 

Pix Credit here

The press in liberal democracy never fails to disappoint.  Perhaps it is the fault of my own social class--we appear to have failed to teach our students an appropriate approach to analysis, or in this case, reporting. Or perhaps we were wildly successful in training them to be public intellectuals with agendas -- what most of the academy (facilitated by the perverse incentives of oversight bureaucracies and their short-termism masquerading as impacts assessment) has been aspiring toward since the heady days of revolution and the "Spring" of 1968.  Well, long term cultural movements must be endured; and they will play out until the next great thing appears on the horizon (likely in this instance managed through forms of silicon based intelligence).

All of this, sadly, was on display in the coverage of an important address by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley to mark his retirement  Friday 29 September. Most headlines and much of the coverage amounted to a reduction of the remarks to what was (unidimensionally) characterized as a side jab aimed at former President Trump--a cat fight among elites for the entertainment of the masses. For example: (1) Milley takes swipe at ‘wannabe dictator’ Trump in retirement speech; (2) Milley in farewell speech: ‘We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator’; (3) ‘Wannabe dictator’: US army chief swipes at Trump in farewell speech; (4) Gen. Milley delivers defense of democracy and swipes at Trump in farewell address; (5) Top US general Milley takes apparent jab at Trump as he retires; (6) Milley defends democracy in farewell speech as Joint Chiefs chairman, says oath wasn’t to a ‘wannabe dictator’; (7) Gen. Mark Milley Warns of Fealty to Dictators, in Exit Speech Aimed at Trump. And so on.

First, the obsession with Mr. Trump by his enemies and friends has begun to exhibit signs of a cultural pathology that will, in its own way, significantly debilitate the body politic.  It is not Mr. Trump that is the problem.  His time has come and gone, and his policies, character, tweeting, and behaviors are well known.  It is the obsession either with regicide (by his enemies--a far higher compliment to Mr. Trump's long term importance than might be deserved) which always ends badly for the state; or an obsession with his beatification (by his friends--again a far higher compliment to Mr. Trump than might be deserved) that poses a far greater danger to the stability of the Republic than the ritual sacrifice/beatification of that person. This was the larger point that the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff was attempting to convey--and one that was lost in this unhealthy incarnation of the former president as some sort of larger than life mythic figure of good/evil. In liberal democracies such incarnations never end well. 

Second, it is to the state of the Republic (what is mischaracterized as "democracy" but in reality a system of popular representation through election and of civilian oversight of the military and administrative apparatus of state)  that is and ought to be of significant concern.  That, certainly was the principal point. Duty, honor, respect--the first virtues--contribute to the functioning of a healthy Republic.  Self-serving pathological behaviors serving faction, or individual, or ideology do not. That was a point that was directed to all actors--perhaps to recall them to duty and responsibility even when that message is enveloped in praise--one equally applicable to Democratic and Republic Party factions, as it is to the current Presidential office holder and his apparatus and the elected officials who should know better but who insist on playing a role better suited for reality television than the holders of popular trust. 

Third, hints of first principles that framed part of the speech might well have been formed from out of the relationship between the 45th President and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Katie Couric Media has published what is said to be a never sent letter of resignation written by Gen. Milley in June 2020: Read General Mark Milley’s Scathing, Never-Sent Resignation Letter to Trump. 

I regret to inform you that I intend to resign as your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. . . . I believe that you have made a concerted effort over time to politicize the United States military. I thought that I could change that. I’ve come to the realization that I cannot, and I need to step aside and let someone else try to do that. . . .Second, you are using the military to create fear in the minds of the people—and we are trying to protect the American people. . . Third, I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and embodied within that Constitution is the idea that says that all men and women are created equal. And lastly it is my deeply held belief that you’re ruining the international order, and causing significant damage to our country overseas, that was fought for so hard by the Greatest Generation that they instituted in 1945. (Mark Milley’s Scathing, Never-Sent Resignation Letter to Trump)

Whether or not the letter is a faithful memorialization of intent, it does suggest the foundations for the short remarks and the core principles around which it was framed.  And the first principle--of course--is that the military serves the constitution first, the state second, and leaders third.  And while chain of command requires a presumption of authority and legitimacy, those presumptions can be overcome--first respecting leaders, then respecting the state,but not respecting the constitution of the Republic's political order. We are all, it seems, each other's keepers. 

Mr. Biden remarks may be accessed here; those of Secretary Austin may be accessed here. For the video of the remarks see here.