One Small Voice: Yes, Army Bob gets under my skin

by Lynn Mandaville

I don’t like to admit it, but Robert Traxler (“Army Bob”) knows how to get under my skin.  And I bet he likes it.

I sometimes think that maybe I get under his skin, too.  And when I think I have done that, I like it, too.

It’s a weird relationship he and I have, never having met face to face to have an honest discussion about those issues on which we don’t agree.  Though we mostly disagree, I think we have the potential to develop a more evolved relationship where we could openly admit to those things on which we do agree.

I have on a couple of occasions admitted to agreeing with topics on which AB has commented.  He has never reciprocated.  But that could be not that he refused to utter agreement with a socialist (which he seems to imply I am), but that he just plain never agrees with me.

Be that as it may, I found AB’s latest column to be thought-provoking, and I’m not ashamed to admit it when he writes a particularly good piece that has the potential to cross political barriers and speak to all of us.

His writing about the possibility that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have committed treason, put into words something that I, too, had been struggling with since Bob Woodward and Robert Costa began their book tour for Peril.

As Mr. Traxler pointed out, the military is subject to the will of the people.  It operates under a clearly defined chain of command, headed, ultimately, by the President of the United States, also known as the Commander in Chief.  Therefore, on the surface, it appears that General Milley may have overstepped his bounds when he communicated to Chinese and other foreign officials that he feared President Trump was becoming unraveled by his election defeat.

On the other hand, in my lay person’s understanding, there is an obligation for members of the military to disobey orders they consider unlawful or immoral, or to circumvent normal chains of authority when they fear for the safety and security of the country.

An important qualification, however, if I understand things correctly, is that it is up to the military system of justice to determine when those lines have been crossed, when an officer or enlisted person has entered a grey area within military standards of conduct.

Mr. Traxler also pointed out that it is not uncommon for authors to take some liberties in their writing to produce a compelling book.  Whether or not Bob Woodward is a “known prevaricator” (as AB writes) is not for me to say.  I’ve read none of his books.  But it was reassuring when AB used the word “alleged” to describe the claims made in Peril.

Until a thorough and fair investigation of General Milley’s actions is undertaken, we cannot know for certain where the General stands legally within the military sphere.  If General Milley is determined to have violated military protocol, it will be up to the military to establish the appropriate remedy.

I wouldn’t oppose a fair, non-politically biased investigation.  But, like AB, I’m not sure our Congress is capable of that.

With all of the above being said, I wish Mr. Traxler had limited his piece to just this issue, without the politically divisive language he is prone to include in an otherwise intelligent piece of writing.

I understand that ours are opinion pieces, but I don’t think it’s necessary to continue to harp on themes that have little to do with the topic at hand.

In particular, AB has gotten under my skin yet again with a couple of his favorite tropes.

“The socialist left and Democrats are cheering General Milley and his actions; do you folks really want the military to make foreign policy and dictate domestic policy?” Mr. Traxler writes.

Now, I can’t speak for other liberals, but I am not cheering General Milley and his actions.  I’m feeling concern about them and what, if true, those actions mean to the citizenry.

And the simple answer to his rhetorical question is NO, most people in general don’t want the military making policy decisions, whether they are a “socialist left,” or just a plain old garden variety liberal.  And to paint Democrats as anti-democracy is just plain unfair.  Democrats love this country as much as Republicans of all persuasions.

Though both political parties want to give off the aura of a clearly definable black and white difference between them, within both parties are people who lean either a little or a lot toward the other side on some issues while maintaining the (meaningless) label of their chosen party.

I would speculate that many liberals and Democrats have the same misgivings that I do about General Milley.  I believe he is a good man and a better-than-average general who may have done something that it is not my place on which to pass judgment.  I bet I speak for a significant percentage of America on this subject.

Mr. Traxler ends his piece with references to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, which he cites as having at least six articles with which the general might be charged.  AB writes:

“…a fully open congressional hearing, very unlikely with the socialist party owning the presidency, House of Representatives and Senate.”

An unnecessary and dubious claim if I ever saw one.

First, though I know there have been candidates throughout political history who run on socialist platforms, I’m not familiar with a formal, capital letter S Socialist Party.  I might be wrong, but I’d bet there are none in congress right now who would identify as Socialists with a capital S.

Second, no one but the American people “own” the presidency, House or Senate.  We do so by virtue of our voting.  Those office-holders are supposed to represent us, not the other way round.  (Whether they actually do or not is another argument altogether.)  Just as Mr. Traxler points out that the military is accountable to the people, so is the federal government accountable to us, we the people.

Third, Mr. Traxler overlooks in his statements the very real, very thin line that exists in almost every significant Senate vote these days, where one or two of either party, refusing to toe their party’s line, threatens to or does vote with the other side.  Neither Republicans nor Democrats “own” the Senate.

Both parties have fallen prey to that concept AB loves to toss around called “cancel culture.”  Both parties like to excommunicate those party members who actually think for themselves on isolated issues.  (I refer specifically to Liz Cheney-R and Kirsten Sinema-D, who have been singled out by their parties for disagreeing on matters of substance.)

And while it can be argued that Democrats have an advantage where, in a tie, Vice-President Kamala Harris is the tie-breaker, we have watched several votes become nail-biters as we worry about the outcome.

To sum up all of this, I agree with the main thrust of Mr. Traxler’s essay.  General Mark Milley’s conduct may be worthy of investigation.  Is it treason, or does it fall within some other violation of the Uniformed Military Code of Justice?  That is not for the court of public opinion to decide.  There are institutions in place to handle that for us.  And if it comes to pass, we should all just butt out and let them do their jobs.

I disagree with the manner in which Mr. Traxler continues to paint anyone who leans left of center with the broad brush of inflammatory rhetoric and innuendo.

It is unnecessary if one has a legitimate argument to put forward, as he did in this instance.

Army Bob has gotten under my skin again.  And this time I am irritated rather than amused.  It was so unnecessary, and accomplished nothing toward making his point other than to piss me off.

I am a liberal and not ashamed of it, just as Mr. Traxler is a conservative who is not ashamed of his bias.

But our biases do not have to be a source of contention on almost everything we put forward in this publication.

Like it or not, AB, you and I share very similar values.  You dress yours up in military garb, and I dress mine up like an earth mother.  But we are basically the same at our core.