Milley made secret calls to top military official in Beijing, and held surreptitious Pentagon meeting asserting his own authority, according to new book.
________________________________________________________________________________
The military community erupted Tuesday in response to reports that Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held secret phone calls and meetings in a surreptitious effort to sidestep the authority of his then-commander-in-chief, President Donald Trump.
"If this is true GEN Milley must resign," tweeted Alexander Vindman, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who in 2019 was a key witness against Trump in impeachment hearings.
Milley's actions include making secret calls to the chief military officer in Beijing, and summoning top American military officers to a clandestine gathering to demand that they only obey command orders that came through Milley, according to the authors of a forthcoming book.
The actions are reportedly described in a forthcoming book, "Peril," by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. Milley took the unprecedented actions because he was afraid Trump might launch a nuclear strike, the authors wrote.
Vindman expressed outrage that Milley directly and independently contacted the foreign military official.
"He usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military," Vindman wrote. "It's an extremely dangerous precedent. You can't simply walk away from that."
If the account in the book is accurate, Milley should be brought up on charges, according to one Pentagon official who spoke to Just the News.
"He isn't a military dictator, and this isn't his decision to make, to unilaterally contact a foreign government," said the official, who is not authorized to speak to the press. "I would expect him to be brought up on charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
In addition to personally calling the communist Chinese official, Milley on Jan. 8 elicited oaths from senior officers inside the National Military Command Center inside the Pentagon, according to the book's authors. The four-star general aimed to solidify his authority over military decisions that belong to the commander in chief.
"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure," Milley said, according to the authors. "You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure." He looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally agree.
The meeting took place around the time Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Democrats that she had been assured that safeguards were in place to prevent Trump from launching a nuclear weapon.
Trump was not on record as having said he planned to order a nuclear strike.
Milley could not immediately be reached for comment.
The headline stories today are large, and so is the background as these issues surface. Context becomes increasingly important as each aspect is reviewed. As you look at the stories, remember this context (emphasized as a reminder):
- TEAM One – The Department of State is aligned with the CIA. Their media PR firms are CNN, CNNi and the Washington Post. Their ideology is favorable to the United Nations. Their internal corruption is generally driven by relationship with foreign actors.
References: Hillary Clinton, Clinton Global Initiative, John McCain, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, Cass Sunstein, Brookings Institute, Lawfare, China-centric, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Council on Foreign Relations.
- TEAM Two – The White House is aligned with the Pentagon (DoD) and National Security Council (NSC). Their media PR firms are domestic in nature. New York Times, Politico, etc. Their internal corruption is generally driven by domestic influence.
References: Barack Obama, George Bush, Wall St, Big Banks, Multinational Corporations, Defense Contractors, FBI (state police), Judicial Branch, and community activists writ large.
[Presidential elections only affect Team Two (nationalism -v- globalism). In the modern era Team One is independent.]
Today CNN, via Bob Woodward [Article Here] and The Washingon Post, via Robert Costa [Article Here] collaborate on a designed hit against one of the key corrupt actors on Team Two, Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley. CTH previously said this was coming: “Look for Joint Chief’s Chairman Mark Milley to be the guy who gets canned to protect Joe Biden. Mark Milley knows this is likely.”
The framework of the CNN article is that General Milley:
…”called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon’s war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
“No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
“Got it?” Milley asked, according to the book.
“Yes, sir.” ‘Milley considered it an oath,’ the authors write. (read more)
The framework of the Washington Post article paints Milley as even more rogue. A power hungry operator of the industrial military complex, defying civilian oversight:
(WaPo) […] In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa.
One call took place on Oct. 30, 2020, four days before the election that unseated President Trump, and the other on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol siege carried out by his supporters in a quest to cancel the vote.
The first call was prompted by Milley’s review of intelligence suggesting the Chinese believed the United States was preparing to attack. That belief, the authors write, was based on tensions over military exercises in the South China Sea, and deepened by Trump’s belligerent rhetoric toward China.
“General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley told him. “We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”
In the book’s account, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they’d established through a backchannel. “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.” (read more)
Yes, General Mark Milley is a power-hungry political manipulator and collaborator with the Deep State, in the effort to undermine President Donald J Trump. We already knew this…. {Go Deep} So, why is The WaPo and CNN hitting him now?
The answer is in the problematic sunlight facing the Fourth Branch of Government in the aftermath of the Afghanistan mess. CTH has been writing about this, because we knew a time would come when the coordinating participants were going to fracture in order to protect themselves.
“The deepest, swampiest part of the Deep State is protecting its interests against the outcome of a crisis in Afghanistan they collectively created. The picture has now emerged of their plan to blame the White House, and by extension Joe Biden along with the Pentagon.” {LINK}
“Modify the focus of your prism as you review all new events in/around Afghanistan to see the connective tissue between CNN, the State Department and CIA [strongest institution within the Intelligence Branch]. Then keep in mind, the Senate is in alignment with, and a facilitator for, the Intelligence Branch. As a consequence, the institution of the senate will align with the interests of the State Department; and, by default align with the CIA, intelligence community and CNN reporting.”
You think CNN and the Washington Post only recently came to the understanding that General Mark Milley was a corrupt, politically motivated actor, working on behalf of the interests of the Deep State [4th Branch]? Of course not. They are using the opportunity of this book by Woodward and Costa to hit Milley, place the blame for Afghanistan in his lap, and make him the scapegoat so that Joe Biden and the other participants can avoid further scrutiny. Their play is transparent.
*****
Here’s the previous reminder about Mark Milley’s operations against Trump when CNN, WaPo and The Fourth Branch was supporting him:
JUNE 2021 – Statements made by Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley about his belief that President Trump was contemplating a post-election coup should not be viewed in a vacuum. Last month this same General Milley was defending the teaching of Critical Race Theory to West Point cadets. However, the comments Milley made last month, and more attributed today, only solidify several years of CTH watching Milley operate, and now we have answers to previous puzzling questions.
Remember, General Milley did some really odd things as Joint Chiefs Chairman under President Trump:
- Milley never removed Lt. Col Alexander Vindman from his White House post after the underling compromised his leadership position. The pentagon left Vindman on assignment to the NSC even after Vindman attempted to take-down President Trump.
- Milley was then slow to react to Navy Secretary Richard Spencer threatening President Trump; attempting to extort him into inaction over the disciplinary plans against the SEAL commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher. And perhaps worst of all…
- Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and SoS Mike Pompeo traveled to Mar-a-Lago in December 2019, where they informed President Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq *after* they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here]. President Trump made Esper, Milley and Pompeo hold a press conference without Trump supporting them; then President Trump remained silent on the issue for days.
It seemed like CTH was alone in noticing the issues with the Pentagon and suspicions of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley. However, a few days after the Mar-a-Lago incident, Col Douglas Macgregor expressed his own suspicions about the U.S. military attack in Iraq and Syria that paralleled our gut reaction. Macgregor stated he believed President Trump was being intentionally and “skillfully, misinformed”.
There were valid reasons for the suspicion around General Milley and the entire Pentagon apparatus.
Factually, President Trump’s strategic approach toward foreign threats and foreign intervention (through the use of geopolitical economic pressure) was a major paradigm shift that removed the Defense Department from a primary role, and placed them back into a more appropriate ‘contingency’ role when it came to foreign policy and national security.
It was obvious from the outset of the Trump administration that the Pentagon did not like that position.
Before explaining more, let us remember General Milley in May 2021 outlining his worldview on internal domestic politics.
Note how Milley connected the teaching of Critical Race Theory to his view that people attempted to “assault” the DC Capitol and “overturn the Constitution of the United States“. Watch this carefully, because in many ways he is saying the quiet thing out loud:
♦ In the big picture, it was not difficult to figure out why the Pentagon would be opposed to Trump.
During the 2016 Trump campaign and early administration, President Trump’s expressed foreign policy was viewed by NATO alliance members as a threat. President Trump dared to tell them their “cold war mentality” was outdated. Heck, the NATO members were simultaneously purchasing energy from Russia at the same time they were demanding the U.S. military protect them from any Russian aggression.
The same type of common sense perspective that startled the NATO alliance members applied internally to the U.S. military.
President Trump’s preferred use of economic warfare made the Pentagon’s role diminished. Instead of punching North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, President Trump hit the checkbook of Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping (tariffs etc.), and then opened diplomatic discussions with the DPRK Chairman. Toward the threat from North Korea, the primary military response became the contingency plan; President Trump engaged in economic leverage, not military…. and it worked.
As a consequence, the value of James Mattis was replaced by the effectiveness of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Joint Chief’s Milley was not in the primary planning room; Milley was replaced by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (until he’s needed).
In the Trump era, the President was telling the Pentagon where and when to position; and then he asked them for ‘contingency’ preparation. Decades of Pentagon-centric foreign policy was lessened by an entirely new geopolitical approach based on an economic strategy. This was, in essence, the Trump Doctrine.
President Trump was executing a foreign policy, a clear doctrine of sorts, where national security was achieved by leveraging U.S. economic power. It was a fundamental shift toward allies and adversaries; summarized within the oft repeated phrase: “Economic security is national security.”
The Trump Doctrine of using economics to achieve national security objectives was a fundamental paradigm shift. Modern U.S. history provided no easy reference.
“Peace is the prize” ~ President Donald Trump
The nature of the Trump foreign policy doctrine, as it was visible, was to hold manipulative influence agents accountable for regional impact(s); and simultaneously work to stop any corrupted influence from oppressing free expression of national values held by the subservient, dis-empowered, people within the nation being influenced.
There were clear examples of this doctrine at work. When President Trump first visited the Middle-East, he confronted the international audience with a message about dealing with extremist influence agents. President Trump simply said: “Drive them out.”
Toward that end, as Qatar was identified as a financier of extremist ideology, President Trump placed the goal of confrontation upon the Gulf Cooperation Council, not the U.S.
The U.S. role was clearly outlined as supporting the confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates needed to confront the toxic regional influence; the U.S. would support their objective. That’s what happened.
Another example: To confront the extremism creating the turmoil in Afghanistan, President Trump placed the burden of bringing the Taliban to the table of governance upon primary influence agent Pakistan. Here again, with U.S. support, Pakistan is the leading influence agent over the Taliban in Afghanistan; the Trump administration correctly established the responsibility and gives clear expectations for U.S. support.
If Pakistan doesn’t change their influence objective toward a more constructive alignment with a nationally representative Afghanistan government, it is Pakistan who will be held accountable. Again, the correct and effective appropriation of responsibility upon the influence agent who can initiate the solution, Pakistan.
The process of accurate regional assignment of influence comes with disconcerting sunlight. Often, these influences are not discussed openly. However, for President Trump the lack of honesty is only a crutch to continue enabling poor actors. This is a consistent theme throughout all of President Trump’s foreign policy engagements.
The European Union is a collective co-dependent enabler to the corrupt influences of Iran. Therefore, the assignment of responsibility to change the status is placed upon the EU.
The U.S. will fully support the EU effort, but as seen in the withdrawal from the Iran Deal, the U.S. will not enable growth of toxic behavior. The U.S. stands with the people of Iran, but the U.S. will not support the enabling of Iranian oppression, terrorism and/or dangerous military expansion that will ultimately destabilize the region. Trump holds the EU accountable for influencing change. Again, we see the Trump Doctrine at work.
Perhaps the most obvious application of the Trump Doctrine was found in how the U.S. administration approached the challenging behavior of North Korea. Rather than continuing a decades-long policy of ignoring the influence of China, President Trump directly assigned primary responsibility for a reset to Beijing.
China held, and holds, all influence upon North Korea and has long-treated the DPRK as a proxy province to do the bidding of Beijing’s communist old guard. By directly confronting the influence agent, and admitting openly for the world to see (albeit with jaw-dropping tactical sanction diplomacy), President Trump positioned the U.S. to support a peace objective on the entire Korean peninsula and simultaneously forced China to openly display their closely-guarded influence.
While the Red Dragon -vs- Panda influence dynamic is still ongoing, the benefit of this new and strategic approach brought the possibility of peace closer than ever in recent history.
No longer is it outlandish to think of North Korea joining with the rest of the world in achieving a better quality of life for its people.
Not only did President Trump openly share a willingness to engage in a new and dynamic future for North Korea, but his approach removed the toxic international and domestic influences that held down the possibility for generations. By leveraging China (through economics) to stop manipulating North Korea, President Trump opened up a door of possibilities for the North Korean people.
This is what I mean when I say President Trump provided North Korea with an opportunity to create an authentic version of itself.
However, take away U.S. military power and influence, or worse yet, stop using U.S. military power, and the leaders within the military industrial complex start to sense their institution becoming functionally obsolescent. Overlay this U.S. military fear with pre-existing ideological differences and the situation gets worse. This is what President Trump was facing in the background as the Pentagon viewed the Trump economic strategy as a threat to their previous geopolitical mission under all previous administrations.
Unfortunately, like all other issues in the era of hyper-polarization, normally liberal Democrats would be alarmed about military leadership going rogue with their own agenda. However, as long as that agenda was anti-Trump, the political-left with a totalitarian outlook are now okay with it.
In 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was openly asking the U.S. military to initiate a coup against President Trump. The corporate media didn’t bat an eyelash. The traditional checks-and-balances, things that normally keep us stable, started getting very sketchy within the military; this has only gotten worse in the past year.
Remember, the impeachment effort was only a “soft-coup” until the uniformed military showed up. Yet, these same Pentagon leaders have the nerve now to call a protest in DC, likely manipulated by the FBI, an insurrection … “intended to overturn the constitution of the United States of America.” The one thing these ideologues are good at is projection.
