The move by the US Chief of Staff after the assault on Congress on January 6 feared attacks and talked about it with Beijing. The right accuses him of treason
NEW YORK – After the assault on Congress conducted on 6 January by an angry mob stirred up by Donald Trump and in front of a president lost in a maze of conspiracy theories, furious at a defeat he did not want to accept, Chief of Staff Mark Milley, the major US military authority, made some decisions that go beyond its powers in fear that a psychologically unstable leader could perform acts that would create a military emergency: an unwarranted attack or even the use of nuclear weapons. Milley spoke with the other military chiefs, with the chief of the CIA and with that of the National Security, General Nakasone, to ask for maximum surveillance at 360 degrees and to make sure that orders regarding the nuclear arsenal would not be accepted without first consulting the same Chief. of staff. Then, on January 8, he also spoke to his Chinese parigrade, General Li Zuocheng to reassure Beijing that there would be no dangerous head shots from the outgoing president.
The revelation, contained in Peril, the new book on the transition from Trump to Biden by the famous journalist Bob Woodward (he discovered, along with Carl Bernstein, the Watergate scandal that forced President Nixon to resign) and Robert Acosta, political reporter of the Washington Post, in a few hours caused a political storm with the right accusing Milley of treason for having gone beyond his powers: politicians like Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul demand that the general be dishonorably fired and demoted. Fox, the right-wing television network, talks about the insurrection and calls for a court-martial claiming that an unelected soldier has in fact replaced in the role of commander-in-chief the legitimate (and elected) holder of this office: Trump.
There is no doubt that, if he has done what is attributed to him (at the time of writing the general has not denied anything), Milley has committed crimes. But left commentators absolve it in unison arguing that he acted in extraordinary historical circumstances with the sole objective of avoiding an uncontrolled military crisis or even a nuclear accident. As written in the book, Milley would have acted out of precaution and in good faith frightened by the mental decline of a president who was now shouting at everyone including the military and building alternative realities in his mind based on conspiracy theories about voting. According to Woodward and Acosta, Milley would have confided to his aides that he is very worried because you can never know what the breaking point of a president in such a state of mind is.
The conservatives, of course, do not accept this version and are also furious because Peril he says that Milley decided to act on January 8 after a telephone conversation with the speaker of the Chamber Nancy Pelosi. To the Democratic leader of Congress who said she was worried about possible head shots from a now out of control president, Milley would have replied: I totally agree with you. After all, the military chief had ended up in the crosshairs of Trump and his loyalists since June last year when he went on television to apologize for having lent himself to a political initiative: the president had, in fact, wanted him close to when, defying the demonstrations for the killing of George Floyd, he walked to the church in front of the White House. Then Trump spoke in the churchyard, flaunting a copy of the Bible. In those fiery days, Milley opposed Trump’s call for the military to be used to quell the riots, a task that by law belongs to the police, not the military.
September 15, 2021 (change September 15, 2021 | 06:22)