It probably happened a lot during the cold war, or similar principles were likely followed. The typical example would be to just silently ignore direct engagements that happened during proxy wars or along hot borders.

These days I suspect it is rarer. Not that the current strategic climate isn't complicated, in many ways it is more complicated. But there are less engagements with opponents of the type that can eradicate you or near eradicate you, so the cost is less for carrying out a bad order.

It is not the duty of an officer or a soldier to blindly follow orders, militaries of modern democracies since the Nurnberg trials has generally codified the law of war. Ignoring the hyperbolic debate of how well that works, it certainly does allow you to refuse illegal orders. On the higher level of the command chain, it should surprise no-one that there is likely available protocol for making such determinations.

What can confuse debates on the issue is the authority to issue certain orders. What you generally can't do is question certain authorities. For example a general couldn't just blindly determine that the US president has no authority to give him an order. But that the authority can not be questioned does not mean the order can not be questioned. And yes, this is hazy area that gets complicated fast with so many slippery slopes it is hard to keep track. Which is why you generally want good people around in these positions, because no rulebook is going to save you from the bad ones.

That said, I'm not expert on US command and control protocol, and the US presidential power over military matters is extremely broad. Technically war powers belongs to congress, but the president can certainly engage in armed conflict in a manner that makes those war powers more a matter of book-keeping than checks and balances.

Which reports (see my prior post) now suggest was definitely not the case.

That is not how things should work. You don't act first and then look for a crime after.


it appears he was following policy.

No, it is not. Most attacks... most wars... are preceded with several warnings they will be attacked 'if they do not comply with X.''

Nope, see the prior post.

Most attacks come with the declaration of War first, which is preceded by a series of demands that give the other party a way to avoid the attack with compliance.

You are simply wrong in pretty much everything you say.

I love the fact you compare a nuclear attacks like any drone attacks .
Us are so proud of 1945 for the drop on Japan …

And you end up wanting to court martial the guy because he said he would but didn’t do it right ?

Imagine what Trump could be prosecute for for everything he said but did not actually do ….

Jfc .

First you’re ^ completely conflating a) reviewing nuclear launch protocol and b) calling China wrapping them together when I only addressed a subset of b), one thing said on one call with China. I never said anything about nuclear anything.

Let’s say a different close friend of mike pompeo was the general trump appointed chairman. let’s say Putin didn’t reign in those hackers and Russians kept freezing major American companies. Then Biden puts together a cyber attack against Russia to deter them from ****ing up our ****. But oops general Maga likes Russia so he calls up comrade Vsily and warns him which networks will be targeted and btw I’ll give you 12 hours notice.

Cuz that’s what you’ve got here folks. slippery slope arguments are usually bullshit but God save us if generals start getting in rooms when things get dicey in this country.

I’ll address other posts but let’s not even do a hypothetical. It’s the exact same scenario but instead of Miley it’s the commander of US forces in the pacific. The actual commander called China and said I’ll warn you. What then is that fine

This is a good post. Milley is not a hero. At best he's a shitty antihero.

You’re right and Miley could gathered the chain of command (it sounds like he did) and hatch a plan to refuse insane orders. And prep the resignation letter because that is all I want from a general ever. Say you won’t follow the order, announce why, go on tv whatever and then resign.

It’s worth pointing out that if Mikey is in the chain of command for a nuke strike that is the only chain of command he is in. The chairman is the top military adviser to the president not someone who gives orders to soldiers.

At this point I’m pretty sure the law is the president can start any war and they have to file a report to congress within 60 days, that’s how neutered congress is from the power to declare war.

What the general did is a military coup and is treason if true. He was useless anyway after worrying more about the military being "woke" instead of planning a withdrawal of his own citizens in afghanistan who are now being taken away and executed. That's what happens when a traitor bends over backwards after getting bought out by a communist country, or whoevers controlling him but our current president saying "he's doing a great job" only proves that they don't care at all about the people they're supposed to represent.

Yes they do it all the time.

You seem to be wrongly conflating two different things. Discussions that happen ALL THE TIME to try and de-escalate and prevent conflicts before they start and talks during an Active War.

You are treating Milley statements as if in an active War theatre, when you would not signal anything to an enemy, as opposed to communications for clarity and de-escalation to avoid conflicts and wars.

False.

It appears he followed all proper procedure and NORMAL precedent for the last 50 years or so as I showed up thread.

Trumpsters just don't like that it went against Trump.

So nobody likes this guy except Cuepee? Is that the cliffs here?

I've come round tentatively to: sounds not criminal and not heroic. Not misguided

No opinion on liking him or not.

What does "like" have to do with it?

That is a serious question.

This seems to be falling along solely partisan lines where people 'like' or 'dislike' him based on partisanship only and then attach 'guilt' or 'innocence' on his actions solely on that.

I happen to think that is always a wrong way to look at things.

If the facts are what is now being reported that he absolutely followed normal procedure and precedent and protocol, there was about a dozen people in these rooms from all the required departments to observe and participate in the discussions then I will say 'he did not do anything wrong', procedurally anyway for this attack on him to be done.

I am not saying I like him. I am not vouching for him as human being. I am not even saying I condone the procedure.

That said, I understand that people who tend to lead with their emotions and not logic do not think that way. They simply react, think 'I don't like him', and therefore he is guilty of this crime facts be damned, or 'facts, who cares', because he is a 'bad' person otherwise.

(not surprised by this from you Lucky as you have a history of being an emotional poster, not logical, so my reply is mainly to others)

The OP is titled "hero" or "criminal" and you wonder what "like" has to do with it?

Do you like heros and dislike criminals usually?

And just from skimming this thread (I care literally zero about this)-- it would seem that the dislike for Milley is bipartisan with you as his only defender-- that's why I asked the question I asked.

Poll shows otherwise, LB..... but not a big enuf sample to matter imo.

I would not call Milley a Hero.... but I am happy to hear SOMEONE was watching the ball at the time Trump was the most unstable (after the 2020 election).

Sure but my point is context matters and once again with this post you prove you prove that you got 'caught' by click bait headlines without being able to discern the point.

Exactly the problem you had in another debate.


Yes the MEDIA was circulating that narrative and polarization.

Does that mean "I like him" when i also explained i see this, with the INFO we had AT THAT TIME, more as a Snowden type scenario where he may have broken the law but for good cause?

I am not offering my personal view of the person with that type of statement. I could think they are great or scum and still hold that view.

I could hold the view Milley has a history of horrible things and is a terrible person but in THIS instance he did the right thing. Yes a person who is scum can still do a heroic act.


I shouldn't have to explain this to you but i have now accepted we ALL must as you just can't see it without it be explained to you. Usually a few times before you do get it and finally admit it.

That last is a compliment btw as you do usually admit you were wrong (a lot) but only after multiple people pile on pointing it out.

What am I wrong about here though exactly? I don't recall offering up an opinion on anything to do with this other than saying that it's all likely bullshit designed to prop up the narrative that Trump was an outsider.

he would have went along with Trump. this was all for show.

Like it's a surprise to anyone that Trump was so batshit that people thought he'd do something rash? Like this was a guy who prompted a literal insurrection against his own country and people on the right are still calling the people who PREVENTED him from destroying the country traitors.

There was only one traitor in the US government between 2016 and 2020, and it was the POS who occupied the White House.

Your suggestive comment, and conclusion jumping, that I "liked the guy"

This is not a good post.