[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 116 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3299-S3300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
General Mark A. Milley
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today in the Senate to sound
the alarm about one of America's guiding principles--everybody knows
about this--the constitutional principle of civilian control of our
military, very much a cornerstone of our Republic.
This fundamental principle of self-government may have been in
jeopardy during the final days of the Trump administration, but before
I get to that, I will provide a historical context.
That principle became part of the American fabric on June 14, 1775,
when the Congress of the Continental Congress appointed George
Washington commander of the Continental Army. His commission ordered
him to report to civilian authorities.
It specified:
You--
Meaning the new General Washington--
are punctually to observe such orders and directions, from
time to time, as you shall receive from this, or a future
Congress of these United Colonies.
Well, he followed that. At the war's end, General Washington gave
this
[[Page S3300]]
principle lasting purpose, and he did it with power and grace.
On December 23, 1783, in a solemn ceremony at the statehouse in
Annapolis, George Washington voluntarily surrendered his commission, as
well as his military power, to civilian authority, the President of the
Continental Congress. The scene is memorialized in a dramatic John
Trumbull painting that is displayed in the Rotunda not far from here.
All of my colleagues go through that part of this Capitol every day and
probably don't pay a lot of attention to it, but it is an important
description of our basic constitutional principles.
We know there are other ways of doing these things in other
countries. We know that dictators rule their nations with an iron fist
because they control the sword. Washington selflessly laid down that
sword to ensure America's destiny for generations to come. He chose to
disband the Army and return to private life at Mount Vernon.
One scholar explained it this way:
The Virginian . . . went home to plow.
By this noble act, Washington cemented a crown jewel of self-rule:
civilian control of the military. Five years later, as Washington was
elected President, this bedrock principle was enshrined in our
Constitution.
While this governing rule is essential to the preservation of
democracy, it has been challenged with grave consequences. The Truman-
MacArthur dispute over conducting the Korean war is a case in point.
President Truman wanted to limit the war. General MacArthur disagreed.
General MacArthur defied orders, and General MacArthur criticized his
Commander in Chief's--Truman's--decision, and he did that publicly, so
Truman fired him for insubordination.
Now I want to get to the main purpose of coming to the floor.
Recently, several books, including a book entitled ``Peril'' by Bob
Woodward and Robert Costa, suggest that the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, may have trampled on this principle.
The book ``Peril'' provides an alarming account of his words and deeds.
Milley told the authors he ``was certain'' that the Commander in
Chief was ``in serious mental decline . . . and could go rogue and
order military action or the use of nuclear weapons. Milley felt no
absolute certainty the military could control or trust the President.''
So Milley, in his words, ``took any and all necessary precautions.''
``His job,'' he said, was ``to think the unthinkable'' and, in his
words, ``pull a Schlesinger.'' To ``contain Trump,'' he had to ``inject
a second opinion.'' His opinion was then injected into the command
structure.
In doing so, he may have stepped out of his lane as the President's
principal military adviser and into the statutory chain of command
where law doesn't allow him to go because, by law, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff has no command authority.
When President Nixon faced a crisis over impeachment and resignation,
Secretary of Defense Schlesinger feared that he might order an
unprovoked nuclear strike. So he, Schlesinger, reportedly took extra
legal steps to prevent it. That is the same Schlesinger that Milley
referred to as he was being interviewed for this book.
It happens that ``pulling a Milley'' as opposed to a ``Schlesinger''
is a very different kettle of fish. A four-star general can't ``pull a
Schlesinger.'' Schlesinger was at the top of the chain of command, just
below the President. He kept the President's constitutional command
authority firmly in civilian hands as the Constitution requires. Milley
allegedly placed military hands--his hands--on controls that belong
exclusively to the President.
According to ``Peril,'' the book I am referring to, he summoned
senior operations officers in the Military Command Center to his
office. He had them take ``an oath'' not to ``act'' on the President's
orders without checking with him first.
These brazen words and actions, if accurate, strike at the heart of
our democracy: civilian control of the military. They turn this guiding
rule upside down and show utter contempt for the Commander in Chief.
Coming from the Nation's top general, they are dangerous and contrary
to military code 10 U.S.C. 888.
After describing Milley's actions, the book's authors rightly ask
this question: ``Was he subverting the President?'' Had he
``overstepped his authority and taken extraordinary power for
himself?''
Milley assured this Senator in a letter to this Senator that his
actions were on the up and up. The book, however, seems to imply a
different story. I had a hearing where the general was. Senator
Blackburn asked him about the mismatch. He replied: ``I haven't read
any of the books, so I don't know.''
She said to him: ``Read them and report back to us.''
He said: ``Absolutely,'' he agreed. ``Happy to do that.''
Nine months later, he is still dodging the question with the same
lame excuse.
To crank up the pressure, I joined Senators Paul and Blackburn a few
months ago in a letter pushing for a straight answer. When none came, I
began sending handwritten notes to the general. I soon received a 10-
page letter from General Milley that ignored the question. My second
note sparked an email. It claimed that our letter did not raise ``a
direct question'' and asserted ``General Milley answered the specific
questions.''
I think I can legitimately ask: Is that Pentagon baloney or what is
it?
After my third note, General Milley responded with the same old
smoke-and-mirrors routine: ``I have never read the books.''
Years of oversight have taught me this lesson: Evasive answers
usually offer revealing clues about the truth. I think General Milley
knows better. He knows the score. If those books and all attendant
press coverage of those books contained gross misrepresentations, we
would have heard about it a long time ago. He would have hammered the
authors and corrected the record. However, to date, not a peep from the
general. His silence speaks volumes.
Something doesn't smell right. As the Pentagon watchdog, when I get a
whiff of wrongdoing, I sink in my teeth and don't let go.
So Congressman Jim Banks, a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, and I upped the ante on April 11. With 12 pointed questions,
we gave General Milley a second bite of the apple to clear the air.
Now, 2\1/2\ months later, we still have no response.
General Milley, you said you were going to answer Senator Blackburn's
question. Honor your word. Answer the question. Come clean with the
American people. We are all ears.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.