Pompeo is a snake. When the book, Peril, came out he lambasted Gen. Milley along with Trump world even though he was trusted in the Milley and Esper circle. Now I can’t find record of it but I heard the whole interview weeks ago and it was full Maga against Milley. Now, after, yesterday, he is playing the careful wordplay game. This man is a competent Trump. He is not to be trusted with a bag of groceries.
I am glad that so many people have pointed out Peter Baker's misleading strip quote of the Stephanopoulos interview. My question to you, Charlie: how do we make sure that those sorts of strategically bad edits (designed to push a story line) don't take flight? Even you were misled enough to include it in your newsletter.
Also, listening to your podcast with Amanda Carpenter led me to want to push back on one other thing: there's no way that the progressives should approve the infrastructure bill until Sinema puts her cards on the table. Manchin is a known quantity, and the bought-and-paid-for Mark Penn dissidents in the House have played their cards, and while some of the most appealing parts of the reconciliation bill (drug negotiation and tax increases) will have to be scaled back way more than I would like to get their votes, it's at least a rational negotiation with them where the progressives can feel somewhat confident that there won't be a full-fledged reneging on the deal. Sinema, on the other hand, can't be trusted in my view unless and until she's signed in blood -- and even then I'm not sure. So even though it's counterintuitive, I think that you and Amanda are wrong and that the infrastructure bill has to be held hostage until she shows her cards. (see, e.g., the Ro Khanna interview on AC360 last night).
Frank, I agree wholeheartedly with your take. The progressives have been up front about being willing to negotiate. The problem is that the conservative democrats (they are not the moderates or centrists) have not given them any opening to negotiate because they refuse to say what they want!
But, I'm confident it will get done. This is how legislating normally works. It's ugly and messy and can never get done . . . until it does. We've been craving normalcy and this is normal legislating.
Kevin - glad to see Charlie took your comment to heart and gave it appropriate play this morning.
And Charlie - still trying to figure out how to deal with stuff like Baker’s misleading strip quote. But really appreciate you giving Kevin’s comment to heart.
Agreed. And Manchin understands that and will have predictable asks, as do Gottheimer and his crew, who have made their asks. But I do worry about Sinema -- way too unpredictable. So fingers crossed...
BTW - apropos of the comment re Baker, the most misleading strip quote of all time was probably Bill Barr's selective edit of the Mueller report. It too had the desired effect of pushing a story line. How do we deal???
"So your military advisers did not tell you, “No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that?""
That's what Biden answered no to. No general told him they could keep a stable situation in Afghanistan with only 2,500 troops staying there especially given the Doha agreement between TFG and the Taliban.
From the same link above, Austin said, “the intelligence was clear that if we did not leave in accordance with that agreement, the Taliban would recommence attacks on our forces.”
So keeping 2,500 US forces there would not nearly have been enough to keep any kind of stability.
But I'm looking forward to Shay Khatiri's next hyperventilating article about how we should have stayed in Afghanistan forever because reasons.
Lol, and right on cue today Shay has an article using a Bakerite partial quote to cliam Biden either may have lied or, using the Fox Newsian claim that Biden might have dementia, forgotten the advice from the generals.
I hope no one takes my post as a takedown of Charlie or The Bulwark in general. I'm a progressive and I consider this site one of the best. But as Charlie says, we aren't here to create a safe space for anyone and will say what we think.
We have to remember that Austin is a politician now (and not particularly good at it), not just a “former general.”
His quote about Afghanistan being a logistical success is a perfect example. From a military perspective, it was disastrous from a logistical perspective.
Logistics is one of the most difficult skills, which is why it was one of the main services that we provided for Afghanistan. And no, doing so isn’t unusual. We ran logistics for the South Korean military for 50 years, and are still intimately involved.
You cannot have a modern military without logistics, which is why the Afghanistan military collapsed almost immediately. “The Generals” have been pointing this out for years, and McKenzie’s recommendation to keep 2,500 troops there no doubt took that into consideration. So, OF COURSE the Afghanistan military would collapse after we yanked logistical support.
The South Korean military would collapse, too, if we yanked logistical support overnight. And it constitute a massive logistical failure, just like the Afghanistan debacle.
Oh, an we left a ridiculous amount of equipment there…also a logistical failure.
the one place I think you slipped up was on the refutation of the advice on withdrawal Biden got form the generals and whether or not he lied about it.. the advice changed. In the spring there were dissenting opinions, but by the end of August there was (near) unanimity to pull out by 8/31.
Your comment and Tim's on Sen. Sanders 'inconsistency' is the most concise explanation I've seen yet for why the next President probably won't be a Democrat and why there's at least a chance that the GOP will control both houses of Congress too. If anyone ever wants to write a book about how to achieve losing when one is leading within sight of the finish line, the Democratic party is an outstanding case in point.
So Milley's "that's not how the military works" take is full of shit. We *100%* have a military that not only rejects certain types of orders but is *expected* to do so. Example: A lieutenant tells a private to execute a POW, the private refuses to do so because even though he was issued a direct order from a superior he has the right to refuse if he believes the order is illegal, immoral, or so ill-informed that it is bound to get troops unecessarilly killed. What Milley did here was sound the "I vas just following orderz!" line that was used at Nurenberg. Maybe he doesn't get to resign, but he *does* get to tell the Pentagon and politicians to go back to the drawing board or his troops aren't moving an inch because the plan is FUBAR. I have personally seen more intestinal fortitude from *corporals* telling company-level officers to fuck themselves when issuing FUBAR orders to the enlisted. This is the kind of shit that got officers "fragged" in combat. If you didn't know what the fuck you were doing your guys wasted you before you wasted them. What Milley is telling us is that he'd rather live in the world where his troops die so that his office doesn't lose face for refusing FUBAR orders. THAT is what he was defending yesterday.
Trump: "I want to nuke Iran's military, hit Natanz with an ICBM-N right now on my orders."
Milley: "Now sir, that's not my advice, but since you're in full control of the military I will order the snap count and get our bombers airborne immediately."
No, Milley does not get to tell the President (a politician) to "go back to the drawing board or his troops aren't moving an inch." That's not how the US military works.
So if Trump ordered a nuclear launch on FUBAR rationale you'd be okay with Milley saying "of course sir, right away!" yes? Since the military is under civilian control without any checks right?
I think you missed the part when Milley very clearly delineated the line between legal and constitutional orders vs illegal or unconstitional orders. If it is a legal order, military is obligated to obey, even if it is against their recommendations. There is a reason the President is the Commander in Chief. His/her orders are final as long as they are legal and constitutional.
Apply this to FUBAR nuclear launch rationales under somebody like Trump and see if it holds up. Imagine Milley saying "that's not my recommendation to nuke Iran tomorrow, but yes of course we'll do whatever you say Mr. President."
So here's the thing. I've personally told a Marine Corps captain to go fuck himself when he tried to get my engineers to dismount and sweep a wadi for IEDs at night with NVGs on. That's a death trap because NVGs have no depth perception and you can't make out the fine detail of the earth where wires and pressure plates sometimes protrude. When that infantry commander brought my refusal up to my engineer unit's commander, that commander understood my decision and told the infantry captain to get fucked. If a 20-year-old corporal can tell a captain to go fuck himself for putting ground troops in unecessary harm for FUBAR rationale, I think that Milley could have done the same with Biden. Call me crazy I guess. Imagine a 20-year-old corporal having more backbone than 3-stars who couldn't withhold their institute's participation. That's not "being political," that's being a good leader.
Part of good leadership is having the intestinal fortitude to be able to tell your superiors "hell no." Absent that sentiment, we're all just "yes men." Stupidity gets people killed in war, and stupidity at high office is enabled by the "yes men" below them. If you want to turn a blind eye toward that licensing of stupidity, then by all means, join the Trump model of leadership where subordinates refusing shit orders gets you 86'd. Being a good yes man is at the heart of Trump's subordinate model. Part of the reason we lost this war is because the Pentagon refused to question what it was doing on a 20-year timeline. It's an organization of yes-men looking to make the next rank. That's what the absence of intestinal fortitude looks like. It's wishful thinking and self-affirming applied at scale to an institute of war.
Pompeo is a snake. When the book, Peril, came out he lambasted Gen. Milley along with Trump world even though he was trusted in the Milley and Esper circle. Now I can’t find record of it but I heard the whole interview weeks ago and it was full Maga against Milley. Now, after, yesterday, he is playing the careful wordplay game. This man is a competent Trump. He is not to be trusted with a bag of groceries.
I am glad that so many people have pointed out Peter Baker's misleading strip quote of the Stephanopoulos interview. My question to you, Charlie: how do we make sure that those sorts of strategically bad edits (designed to push a story line) don't take flight? Even you were misled enough to include it in your newsletter.
Also, listening to your podcast with Amanda Carpenter led me to want to push back on one other thing: there's no way that the progressives should approve the infrastructure bill until Sinema puts her cards on the table. Manchin is a known quantity, and the bought-and-paid-for Mark Penn dissidents in the House have played their cards, and while some of the most appealing parts of the reconciliation bill (drug negotiation and tax increases) will have to be scaled back way more than I would like to get their votes, it's at least a rational negotiation with them where the progressives can feel somewhat confident that there won't be a full-fledged reneging on the deal. Sinema, on the other hand, can't be trusted in my view unless and until she's signed in blood -- and even then I'm not sure. So even though it's counterintuitive, I think that you and Amanda are wrong and that the infrastructure bill has to be held hostage until she shows her cards. (see, e.g., the Ro Khanna interview on AC360 last night).
Frank, I agree wholeheartedly with your take. The progressives have been up front about being willing to negotiate. The problem is that the conservative democrats (they are not the moderates or centrists) have not given them any opening to negotiate because they refuse to say what they want!
But, I'm confident it will get done. This is how legislating normally works. It's ugly and messy and can never get done . . . until it does. We've been craving normalcy and this is normal legislating.
Kevin - glad to see Charlie took your comment to heart and gave it appropriate play this morning.
And Charlie - still trying to figure out how to deal with stuff like Baker’s misleading strip quote. But really appreciate you giving Kevin’s comment to heart.
Agreed. And Manchin understands that and will have predictable asks, as do Gottheimer and his crew, who have made their asks. But I do worry about Sinema -- way too unpredictable. So fingers crossed...
BTW - apropos of the comment re Baker, the most misleading strip quote of all time was probably Bill Barr's selective edit of the Mueller report. It too had the desired effect of pushing a story line. How do we deal???
About that Peter Baker tweet: he "creatively" edited Stephanoplous's question. The actual question was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/28/3-big-takeaways-mark-milley-hearing/
"So your military advisers did not tell you, “No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that?""
That's what Biden answered no to. No general told him they could keep a stable situation in Afghanistan with only 2,500 troops staying there especially given the Doha agreement between TFG and the Taliban.
From the same link above, Austin said, “the intelligence was clear that if we did not leave in accordance with that agreement, the Taliban would recommence attacks on our forces.”
So keeping 2,500 US forces there would not nearly have been enough to keep any kind of stability.
But I'm looking forward to Shay Khatiri's next hyperventilating article about how we should have stayed in Afghanistan forever because reasons.
I thought it was a mistake for The Bulwark to publish that. Khatiri's posts were more appropriate for the anti-Biden Washington Post.
Lol, and right on cue today Shay has an article using a Bakerite partial quote to cliam Biden either may have lied or, using the Fox Newsian claim that Biden might have dementia, forgotten the advice from the generals.
https://www.thebulwark.com/did-biden-lie-about-what-the-generals-recommended-for-afghanistan/
I love The Bulwark and being part of Bulwark+, but on this issue you guys really need to do better.
It's way off message. The Lincoln Project has been relentlessly on-message.
They never used to be so much, and the NYT's is still worse...but, I have been disappointed lately
Thank you, Kevin. I had assumed the Q&A was as presented.
You're welcome Peggy. :)
I hope no one takes my post as a takedown of Charlie or The Bulwark in general. I'm a progressive and I consider this site one of the best. But as Charlie says, we aren't here to create a safe space for anyone and will say what we think.
Just a note of appreciation for The Bulwark… you and The Economist are currently my two most helpful, informative reads… thanks….
We have to remember that Austin is a politician now (and not particularly good at it), not just a “former general.”
His quote about Afghanistan being a logistical success is a perfect example. From a military perspective, it was disastrous from a logistical perspective.
Logistics is one of the most difficult skills, which is why it was one of the main services that we provided for Afghanistan. And no, doing so isn’t unusual. We ran logistics for the South Korean military for 50 years, and are still intimately involved.
You cannot have a modern military without logistics, which is why the Afghanistan military collapsed almost immediately. “The Generals” have been pointing this out for years, and McKenzie’s recommendation to keep 2,500 troops there no doubt took that into consideration. So, OF COURSE the Afghanistan military would collapse after we yanked logistical support.
The South Korean military would collapse, too, if we yanked logistical support overnight. And it constitute a massive logistical failure, just like the Afghanistan debacle.
Oh, an we left a ridiculous amount of equipment there…also a logistical failure.
the one place I think you slipped up was on the refutation of the advice on withdrawal Biden got form the generals and whether or not he lied about it.. the advice changed. In the spring there were dissenting opinions, but by the end of August there was (near) unanimity to pull out by 8/31.
Your comment and Tim's on Sen. Sanders 'inconsistency' is the most concise explanation I've seen yet for why the next President probably won't be a Democrat and why there's at least a chance that the GOP will control both houses of Congress too. If anyone ever wants to write a book about how to achieve losing when one is leading within sight of the finish line, the Democratic party is an outstanding case in point.
Yep, naive, tunnel vision, lacking foresight… who knows why they are acting the way they are. Embarrassing.
Should be embarrassing, I'm not sure it is to them.
We Democrats excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
it's interesting that there are many of us here.
They've certainly had enough practice, going all the way back to George McGovern and Clean Eugene McCarthy.
So Milley's "that's not how the military works" take is full of shit. We *100%* have a military that not only rejects certain types of orders but is *expected* to do so. Example: A lieutenant tells a private to execute a POW, the private refuses to do so because even though he was issued a direct order from a superior he has the right to refuse if he believes the order is illegal, immoral, or so ill-informed that it is bound to get troops unecessarilly killed. What Milley did here was sound the "I vas just following orderz!" line that was used at Nurenberg. Maybe he doesn't get to resign, but he *does* get to tell the Pentagon and politicians to go back to the drawing board or his troops aren't moving an inch because the plan is FUBAR. I have personally seen more intestinal fortitude from *corporals* telling company-level officers to fuck themselves when issuing FUBAR orders to the enlisted. This is the kind of shit that got officers "fragged" in combat. If you didn't know what the fuck you were doing your guys wasted you before you wasted them. What Milley is telling us is that he'd rather live in the world where his troops die so that his office doesn't lose face for refusing FUBAR orders. THAT is what he was defending yesterday.
To the best of my understanding, there is civilian control of the military, right? What you are describing is not that....
Trump: "I want to nuke Iran's military, hit Natanz with an ICBM-N right now on my orders."
Milley: "Now sir, that's not my advice, but since you're in full control of the military I will order the snap count and get our bombers airborne immediately."
No, Milley does not get to tell the President (a politician) to "go back to the drawing board or his troops aren't moving an inch." That's not how the US military works.
So if Trump ordered a nuclear launch on FUBAR rationale you'd be okay with Milley saying "of course sir, right away!" yes? Since the military is under civilian control without any checks right?
I think you missed the part when Milley very clearly delineated the line between legal and constitutional orders vs illegal or unconstitional orders. If it is a legal order, military is obligated to obey, even if it is against their recommendations. There is a reason the President is the Commander in Chief. His/her orders are final as long as they are legal and constitutional.
Apply this to FUBAR nuclear launch rationales under somebody like Trump and see if it holds up. Imagine Milley saying "that's not my recommendation to nuke Iran tomorrow, but yes of course we'll do whatever you say Mr. President."
So here's the thing. I've personally told a Marine Corps captain to go fuck himself when he tried to get my engineers to dismount and sweep a wadi for IEDs at night with NVGs on. That's a death trap because NVGs have no depth perception and you can't make out the fine detail of the earth where wires and pressure plates sometimes protrude. When that infantry commander brought my refusal up to my engineer unit's commander, that commander understood my decision and told the infantry captain to get fucked. If a 20-year-old corporal can tell a captain to go fuck himself for putting ground troops in unecessary harm for FUBAR rationale, I think that Milley could have done the same with Biden. Call me crazy I guess. Imagine a 20-year-old corporal having more backbone than 3-stars who couldn't withhold their institute's participation. That's not "being political," that's being a good leader.
Part of good leadership is having the intestinal fortitude to be able to tell your superiors "hell no." Absent that sentiment, we're all just "yes men." Stupidity gets people killed in war, and stupidity at high office is enabled by the "yes men" below them. If you want to turn a blind eye toward that licensing of stupidity, then by all means, join the Trump model of leadership where subordinates refusing shit orders gets you 86'd. Being a good yes man is at the heart of Trump's subordinate model. Part of the reason we lost this war is because the Pentagon refused to question what it was doing on a 20-year timeline. It's an organization of yes-men looking to make the next rank. That's what the absence of intestinal fortitude looks like. It's wishful thinking and self-affirming applied at scale to an institute of war.