Pentagon reform now
/
Balloon Payment Comes Due
Last year, China sent a surveillance balloon over most of the continental United States, including Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, where nuclear weapons are stored. China’s craft surveilled Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, home of U.S. Strategic Command, in charge of the nation’s nuclear forces. China’s balloon also got a close look at Whiteman Air Force Base, home to the B-2 stealth bomber, capable of delivering nuclear and conventional payloads.
China’s craft was first sighted by a private photographer, picked up by national media, and only then acknowledged by the Biden-Harris administration. The Communist regime claimed the balloon was for “mainly meteorological purposes,” that the craft had “limited self-steering capability,” and that “westerlies” blew it off course. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed China’s claims.
“Those winds are very high,” Milley told CBS News, “the particular motor on that aircraft can’t go against those winds at that altitude.” Pressed as to whether the aircraft was on a Chinese intelligence mission, Milley said, “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn’t transmit any intelligence back to China.” For a different perspective consider Dr. Marina Miron, a researcher in the War Studies Department at Kings College London.
Dr. Miron earned her PhD at the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy. She has advised NATO on counterinsurgency and serves at the Kings College Centre for Military Ethics. As Dr. Miron told the BBC:
The balloon could be controlled by operators on the ground, who could raise or lower the craft to pick up different wind currents. You would want to be able to make it linger over a spot to collect data. This is something you can do with a balloon which you cannot do with a satellite.
The ground operators could be any of the nearly 300,000 Chinese students now in the USA.*
Nobody leaves China without approval of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which sends “students” on a mission. For example, Juan Tang, supposedly a cancer researcher at UC Davis, was a member of the CCP and the Liberation Army (PLA) the force that slaughtered peaceful demonstrators at Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Gen. Milley doubtless knew that stateside ground operators could easily download the intel. So in the style of Maj. Kong (Slim Pickens) in Dr. Strangelove, Milley was taking evasive action. That might be expected from the man who compared President Donald Trump to Hitler and Trump’s supporters to brownshirts.
Milley also hinted that he would tip off China in the event of an American attack he thought Trump might be planning. The general actually called Chinese Gen. Li Zuocheng and defended the call as conducting the duties of his office. In effect, Milley appointed himself commander-in-chief, a move not exactly authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice or consistent with common sense and basic morality. As Sir Bedevire (Terry Jones) might say, who is this who is so wise in the ways of history and warfare?
Mark Milley received his commission from the Army ROTC at Princeton, where he majored in political science, and his master’s from Columbia was in international relations. Milley never attended West Point, unlike Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, who as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe played a major role in taking down Hitler’s National Socialist regime. In 2021, Gen. Milley presided over a humiliating surrender in Afghanistan that made the Taliban the best-armed terrorist force in the world. Yet Gen. Milley boasts more U.S. military medals than Gen. Eisenhower. See here and here, and another comparison comes to mind.
* According to the Department of Homeland Security, as of April, 24,376 Chinese nationals were apprehended at the border and March saw a 50 percent increase from 2023 and a 2,000 percent increase from 2021. In addition, “more than 1,000 Chinese nationals have crossed the northern border every month for the past five months.”
Yesterday, word came out that Trump is considering a drastic cleansing of the stables:
Trump Preparing Executive Order to Cull the Military of Woke Generals and Admirals
The Trump transition team is considering an executive order that would send into retirement any three- or four-star general deemed "lacking in requisite leadership qualities." If fairly applied, that standard would force a super-majority of the 44 four-star and 162 three-star officers off active duty.
If Donald Trump approves the order, it could fast-track the removal of generals and admirals found to be “lacking in requisite leadership qualities,” according to a draft of the order reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. But it could also create a chilling effect on top military officers, given the president-elect’s past vow to fire “woke generals,” referring to officers seen as promoting diversity in the ranks at the expense of military readiness.
As commander in chief, Trump can fire any officer at will, but an outside board whose members he appoints would bypass the Pentagon’s regular promotion system, signaling across the military that he intends to purge a number of generals and admirals.
The draft order says it aims to establish a review that focuses “on leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence.” The draft doesn’t specify what officers need to do or present to show if they meet those standards. The draft order originated with one of several outside policy groups collaborating with the transition team, and is one of numerous executive orders under review by Trump’s team, a transition official said.
The warrior board would be made up of retired generals and noncommissioned officers, who would send their recommendations to the president. Those identified for removal would be retired at their current rank within 30 days.
BACKGROUND:
The upper echelons of the US military are broken. There is no visible interest in readiness or warfighting. The focus is on whatever social justice idea that is coming down the pike. This rot has spread deep into the rank and file where sexual proclivities and other non-essential traits determine if a successful career is possible (see Unexpectedly, the USAF Finds Itself With a Critical Shortage of Pilots While It Says It Has Too Many White Officers). Stories abound of officers and noncommissioned officers being afraid to discipline women or sexual minorities for fear of being reported to the Star Chamber for some career-ending offense. In the aftermath of the USS Bonhomme Richard burning down, there were tales of US Navy petty officers buffing floors while sailors lounged about because they feared being accused of harassment. And who can forget the active network of "pup" fetishists operating rather openly in the Army? See Army Starts Sham Investigation Into Bondage Fetish Colonel and His Friends Because They Think You're Stupid for details.
But some former officials believe the potential Trump administration is looking to politicize the military.
“Do they start wearing MAGA hats in formation to signal who’s where?” asked one former senior Pentagon official. “The potential for this to go wrong is infinite.”
...
This seems like a reasonable objection, however:
U.S. troops take an oath of office to the constitution and vow to not follow any illegal order, and Congress must approve the promotion of general officers.
But establishing a board separate from the current process, which uses serving officers, could undermine the idea that generals refrain from sharing their political views within the Pentagon. It could also potentially prompt officers not to speak out against orders they believe are illegal, says Eric Carpenter, professor of military law at FIU College of Law.
“This looks like an administration getting ready to purge anyone who will not be a yes man,” said Carpenter, a former Army lawyer. “If you are looking to fire officers who might say no because of the law or their ethics, you set up a system with completely arbitrary standards, so you can fire anyone you want.”
A reasonable objection, but not necessarily one that should kill the idea, at least according to the author of the article I’m quoting from:
Like any other great idea, it isn't without high risk. The justness of this retention board's actions will rest on the credibility of its members. It will be difficult to get retired four-star officers to sit on a panel that orders the involuntary retirement of former colleagues. Even if it is not perceived as fair, we're no worse off than today, and a strong message has been sent about the purpose of the Armed Forces.
My opinion is that, if it rid the Army of other General MIleys lurking in the shrubbery at the Pentagon, it’s probably worth trying.
