The recent actions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth against retired General Mark A. Milley have ignited a firestorm of controversy, underscoring the continuing political tensions within the U.S. military and the lingering aftershocks of the Trump presidency. Hegseth has initiated a three-pronged attack against Milley: removing his security detail, revoking his security clearance, and ordering an inspector general inquiry into his record as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This investigation, according to Hegseth’s spokesman, aims to determine if a review of Milley’s rank upon retirement is warranted, essentially raising the possibility of a posthumous demotion. This move has been interpreted by many as a politically motivated attempt to punish Milley for his public disagreements with former President Trump.
The crux of the dispute lies in Milley’s actions during the turbulent final days of the Trump administration. Milley’s vocal opposition to Trump’s attempts to politicize the military, including his infamous walk through Lafayette Square with the then-president after the forceful clearing of protestors, earned him the ire of Trump and his supporters. Milley later expressed regret over the incident, acknowledging the perception of military involvement in domestic politics it created. Further fueling the animosity was Milley’s communication with his Chinese counterpart during the Trump administration, assuring them of U.S. stability and peaceful intentions. These actions, while intended to de-escalate potential tensions, were perceived by Trump and his allies as undermining the president’s authority and potentially bordering on treason.
Hegseth, a staunch Trump loyalist, has echoed these sentiments, accusing Milley of undermining the chain of command and asserting the need to restore accountability within the Defense Department. This narrative paints Milley as an insubordinate political operator who overstepped his bounds and challenged civilian control of the military. Conversely, Milley’s supporters view him as a defender of democratic principles who acted to protect the integrity of the military and ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Milley’s retirement speech, in which he reminded troops of their oath to the Constitution, not to any individual leader, underscores this perspective and further solidified the divide between the two camps.
Adding another layer of complexity to the situation is the pre-emptive pardon granted to Milley by President Biden before leaving office. This pardon shields Milley from potential court-martial proceedings based on any findings of the inspector general’s investigation. However, it does not preclude the possibility of a rank reduction, which would carry symbolic weight and potentially impact his retirement benefits. The removal of Milley’s security detail, purportedly due to the cessation of threats related to the killing of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani, has also drawn criticism, particularly from Republican senators who argue that such moves could discourage future officials from acting in potentially controversial but necessary situations.
The escalating tensions between Hegseth and Milley symbolize the broader struggle within the U.S. military to navigate the increasingly politicized landscape. Milley’s actions, whether viewed as heroic or insubordinate, have brought into sharp focus the delicate balance between civilian control of the military and the military’s responsibility to uphold the Constitution. The inspector general’s inquiry will undoubtedly be closely scrutinized, and its outcome will have significant implications for the future relationship between military leaders and civilian authorities.
The targeting of Milley also highlights the lasting impact of the Trump presidency on the Department of Defense. Trump’s attacks on Milley, including calls for his execution and the removal of his portrait from the Pentagon, set a precedent for challenging the traditionally respected position of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Hegseth’s actions can be seen as a continuation of this trend, signaling a willingness to pursue retribution against those perceived as disloyal to the former president. The ongoing controversy underscores the deep divisions within the military and the challenges facing the Biden administration in its efforts to restore norms and depoliticize the armed forces. The investigation into Milley’s conduct, and any subsequent actions taken, will serve as a crucial test of the balance between accountability and political motivations within the Defense Department.
