The generals shouldn't need to be involved


A free daily digest of the biggest news stories of the day - and the best features from our website
Thank you for signing up to TheWeek. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.
The sudden flood of books about the tumultuous last days of Donald Trump's presidency have brought a renewed focus to the role of Gen. Mark Milley, then as now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Milley reportedly worried that Trump's efforts to overturn the election results could be a "Reichstag moment," and spent the months between the election and Inauguration Day working to ensure a successful transition of power. He warned Pentagon commanders to refuse any illegal order from Trump, and assured nervous Democratic lawmakers that the military wouldn't be part of the outgoing president's machinations.
"They may try, but they're not going to f***ing succeed," Milley reportedly said. "You can't do this without the military. You can't do this without the CIA and the FBI. We're the guys with guns."
Mostly, Milley's story is about how the American constitutional system survived this time, thanks to a few people and institutions that held the line against a ferocious (if largely incompetent) assault. But it is also a story of slippage and decay. If the military is having to choose which side it will take during a transition of power — even if it's just a choice about whether to follow the rule of law — we're already a significant step removed from stable democracy.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Simply put, the armed forces aren't supposed to be kingmakers. Milley and the Pentagon didn't end up acting in that role after the 2020 elections, and there's no evidence they wanted it, but — in confronting the question of how to act if Trump tried to retain power — they moved incrementally closer to taking on the responsibility. In our democracy, the military is supposed to be subordinate to elected civilian leadership. (The Founders were very concerned about the possibility of an armed, tyrannical government.) If the generals play a role in deciding who those leaders will be, that delicate-but-critical dynamic is upended.
All of this is not the Pentagon's fault. Trump's actions, and his party's failure to check him, created the dilemma. Milley and his colleagues across the armed forces made the right decision in siding with the election results. That they felt the need to consider it at all means once-bright lines have already blurred.
Continue reading for free
We hope you're enjoying The Week's refreshingly open-minded journalism.
Subscribed to The Week? Register your account with the same email as your subscription.
Sign up to our 10 Things You Need to Know Today newsletter
A free daily digest of the biggest news stories of the day - and the best features from our website
Joel Mathis is a freelance writer who lives in Lawrence, Kansas with his wife and son. He spent nine years as a syndicated columnist, co-writing the RedBlueAmerica column as the liberal half of a point-counterpoint duo. His honors include awards for best online commentary from the Online News Association and (twice) from the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Fake news
Cartoons
By The Week Staff Published
-
Another coup for Guatemala?
Under the Radar Arévalo won a surprise landslide victory, but there have been efforts to stop him taking office
By Rebekah Evans Published
-
10 things you need to know today: September 25, 2023
Daily Briefing GOP leaders pressure far-right holdouts to help prevent a shutdown, Hollywood writers reach tentative deal to end strike, and more
By Harold Maass Published
-
Should cognitive testing be a presidential prerequisite?
Today's Big Question A growing chorus of pundits and candidates are pushing mental fitness challenges as a campaign necessity
By Rafi Schwartz Published
-
Trump's rhetoric rankles the anti-abortion movement
Why Trump's latest comments "may be the single biggest issue that leads him to lose in 2024"
By Joel Mathis Published
-
Donald Trump's Rosh Hashanah message to 'liberal Jews' reignites antisemitism debate
Was targeting his critics who 'voted to destroy America & Israel' the right way to mark the High Holidays?
By Rafi Schwartz Published
-
What might a post-Mitch McConnell GOP look like?
Here's what to watch for as questions about the longtime Senate leader swirl.
By Rafi Schwartz Published
-
Judge denies Mark Meadows' request to move Georgia case to federal court
Speed Read
By Justin Klawans Published
-
Is Glenn Youngkin the GOP's dark horse white knight Trump alternative?
Today's Big Question The Virginia governor has played coy, but some Republican insiders are eyeing him as a viable 2024 presidential candidate
By Rafi Schwartz Published
-
Vivek Ramaswamy: the ‘millennial tech bro’ running for president
Why Everyone’s Talking About Anti-woke ‘demagogue’ is picking up steam in the race for the Republican nomination
By Keumars Afifi-Sabet Published
-
Judge schedules Trump federal election plot trial for crowded March 2024
Speed Read
By Peter Weber Published