This week's
Sunday School brought us two former Secretaries of State, General Colin Powell (Ret.) and Condoleezza Rice.
For your Extra Credit, I wanted to share the classroom visits by some of the retired military folks who have been making
their voices heard: former Joint Chiefs chair, General Martin Dempsey (Ret.) who was in the classroom with Martha Raddatz on This Week with George; former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis (Ret.), who visited Chuck Todd in the Meet the Press classroom; and former Chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Mike Mullen (Ret.), who was down the hall with Chris Wallace in the Fox News Sunday classroom.
They were among the many who have recently spoken out about the president, his calling for "dominating the streets" of America, and more; we'll take them in the order listed above.
Raddatz asked Dempsey what he meant when he said Trump's threat to use active duty military in the protests was "dangerous and very troubling." He said he tries to be "thoughtful about the way things evolve," and it was "in the moment" that he thought it would be appropriate to point out the risks.
...obviously, Martha, the president... he’s given a lot of authority by our Constitution and the laws that interpret it. And it’s -- it -- for me it was a 'can' and 'should' dichotomy. And I thought that given the state of the -- of the unrest and the risk that we would put the active duty military in a position where its relationship with the American people would be adversely affected, that I -- that should say something.
Raddatz
wondered what effect Trump's and the Administration's rhetoric has on the military and National Guard as they face their fellow Americans. Dempsey talked about the history that he and his generation of military leaders bring to the table - how they spent their careers - two, three or even four decades, in his case - "trying to rebuild our relationship with the American people" after the protracted and unpopular Vietnam war, and after battling racism and drug use in the military, and
... it took us a while to actually regain the trust of the American people. We transitioned from a conscript military to an all-volunteer force. And we have a wonderful relationship with the people in this country. And -- and I thought it important to continue to work to try to keep that relationship sound and solid. And, you know, inflammatory language can -- can be a -- an impediment to that.
They also talked about the photo shoot at St. John's, which occurred after SecDef Mark Esper and current Joint Chiefs chair General Mark Milley tried to talk Trump out of using active duty military forces quell the protests; Dempsey said that "some of the most awkward moments we have in that - in the civil-military relationship are photo ops," and that
...oftentimes the best things come out of, let’s call it 'creative friction.' And this week has certainly been that. But, you know, I’m actually in the camp that says, OK. Look, this last week was one of our most challenging in my memory. What’s -- what’s next? You know, let’s get beyond that and figure out what’s next.
Raddatz mentioned images of unarmed National Guard troops standing alongside "black-clad, pistol-packing DEA agents" and how the distinction was lost on who was armed and who wasn't. She also talked about an ABC reporter, Stephanie Ramos, who's also a Major in the Army reserve, and how she's seen "the difference of how people are treating the Guard and the Reserve, and she's very nervous about that."
Dempsey said Ramos
should be nervous; the military is "given enormous power by the people of the United States,"
And they’re given that power because the people of the United States trust them that they’ll be both a -- a force for order and stability overseas. If necessary, in -- in extremis at home, but also that the military will be a positive influence in letting people achieve their potential.
He talked about the box on his desk, engraved with "Make it Matter." It contains a card for each of the 132 men that were lost under his command in Baghdad, back in 2003. He said it's a reminder that, since
they couldn't fulfill their potential, he had to make sure
he fulfilled his. And, bringing it back full circle, he said
That’s what these protests, by the way, it -- it seems to me, are all about is the -- is trying to allow people to actually fulfill their potential, one of the great promises of living in this country. So we have -- we absolutely have to be very careful about how the military is used in that circumstance.
It's hard to disagree with him on that.
Across the hall in the MTP classroom, Todd asked Admiral Stavridis why he felt compelled to speak out, and why he thought so many other 'four-stars' felt the need to do so. His answer? It's all about the oath they all took, to support and defend the Constitution. He said seeing "armed, active duty military" clearing peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square in DC "
...rang echoes of what the founders feared more than anything, which was the use of armed active duty military against citizens." And that's why we have the First Amendment and other protections in the Constitution.
So I think spectrum that kind of runs from reticent, Jim Mattis, John Kelly, who were part of this administration, to people like me kind of in the center, to people like General John Allen and Admiral Bill McRaven who've been quite critical, that whole spectrum jumped and felt that shock of watching active duty troops clear peaceful protesters. Wrong answer.
Stavridis spent a lot of time outside the US, both during his time as NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and during his time as the head of the US Southern Command; Todd wondered about our loss of standing internationally as a result of what's going on, and if Stavridis was concerned. Referencing Latin American and Caribbean countries, some of which "who, let's face it, have a long history of dictatorships and repression," he said that he
They've come a long way since the '60s and '70s. But I spent a lot of time talking to those leaders, making sure that they continued on that path. I never thought I would be criticizing my own government in that regard. It's a shocking turn. And to your point, yes, it reduces our moral influence and our leadership role in the world. We ought to worry about that deeply.
On what advise he could give to Esper or General Milley, he said Esper, who's a West Point grad and previously served on active duty, is a political appointee and "sort of signed up for this to a certain degree." But General Milley's in a different situation entirely.
As an active duty officer he's really got two choices here. One is to follow the orders and the other is to reach up under his shoulder, grab those four stars and say, "Sir, I cannot execute that order. I believe it violates my conscious, my view. I gave you my best military advice. You've rejected it." That's a very hard place for any active duty military officer to go. I hope General Milley doesn't have to hit that point.
And finally, on whether Stavridis is concerned about morale at the Pentagon and in the rank-and-file, the answer is yes.
You know, in this country we have about a million police officers. We have 500,000 National Guard who are citizen soldiers who operate under authority of governors. My view, that's plenty of people who can do the policing function. And their real role is to protect these peaceful demonstrators. This is not a battle space to be dominated. These are zones of protests to be protected. There are sufficient forces to do that. And I think the military is very concerned about getting pulled into the maelstrom of politics in an election year in order to push protesters, as they were at Lafayette Square. That was wrong.
I've heard Stavridis before, in a couple of NPR interviews, and I've always liked him.
Finally, let's take a stroll down the hallway to the Fox News Sunday classroom and Adm. Mike Mullen, who was asked right off the bat by Chris Wallace, after more than three years of no one speaking out, "why now?" Echoing his op-ed piece, he said
I think we've reached an inflection point in the country, and specifically to address the issue of racism, which was obvious, the substantial protests that were out there, mostly peaceful, was a very strong message... the potential use of our military to fight our own people, to deploy in the streets and to use a phrase that the secretary of defense used, to dominate in the battlespace.
We have a military to fight our enemies, not our own people. And our military should never be called to fight our own people as enemies of the state. And that quite frankly for me really tipped it over.
Wallace recounted what happened a week ago, the Rose Garden "I am your president of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters" statement, which also included the promise (threat?) to deploy the military if the states didn't handle things themselves, and of course the infamous Bible photo op. And he asked Mullen "why specifically was that so objectionable?" Specifically, Mullen said moving members of the 82nd Airborne - a 'ready' brigade, deployable on very short notice - one question was whether it was even necessary to bring them to DC.
He also talked about his own experience, back in 1968 when Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated, and Bobby Kennedy being killed the night before Mullen graduated from Annapolis. And he sounded a whole lot like Gen. Dempsey here.
And I see this reemerging and from a war, quite frankly, where the United States military lost the respect and the trust of the American people, we've regained that, and in very short order should we get into conflict in our own streets, there's a very significant chance we could lose that trust that it's taken us 50-plus years to restore.
That's what's in play right now, and we really don't need that kind of force, the American military to turn on the American people, particularly when they are -- they are executing their right to protest, you know, that is emblazoned in the Constitution of the United States.
On whether Esper and General Milley should step down, since they disagree with their Commander in Chief, Mullen said that "stepping down from a position like that is really a personal decision," and while he doesn't know Esper that well, he does know Milley well, and said
I know Mark is working hard to represent the United States military in every single way. I know he has pushed back on the president with some of the federalization, if you will, of this mission, and I think he will work hard to do his duty every single day.
I think he's in a uniquely difficult position. That job is tough no matter when you're there, but he's in a uniquely difficult position because of this president.
Moving to sort of a two-question speed round, Wallace noted that the military is "one of the great institutions in this country" in terms of how it handed racial issues, and wondered if there are lessons we can take that "are applicable to our nation's neighborhoods." Mullen's answer agreed that the military has "been actually very, very good at making an awful lot of progress." But, he added,
That said, I've heard from minority members of the military right now who are in despair and in anguish and appreciated my comments, because it gives them some hope that leadership may be more courageous. So there is a lot to learn.
And yet we are not perfect and the military, probably the single biggest thing we lack are black leaders at the four-star level, and we should do much more about that.
The last question was about Mullen's "tough things to say about president Trump," notably that
He laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest. I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief. This is not the time for stunts. This is the time for leadership.
Referencing talk from 2016 that Mullen might join Hillary Clinton, or that this year he might have run on a ticket with businessman Howard Schultz, Wallace suggested that "perhaps the president will call you a Trump hater" and asked "how do you plead, sir?"
My -- my goal in both expressing myself recently and -- I was not involved in any of those discussions in 2016, as -- as you just described. My goal is to support what we need for the country.
This is a moment, as I said, of moral clarity. I think it's very clear in the future whether we want to unify the country in a political division -- in the political division that has existed now for years, or whether we want to continue to divide the country. That is a choice that the American people have in front of them in the very near future.
So, it would seem, he pleads for America, and for the American people, to examine the choice they have, just like Colin Powell said we had to do.
Your mission, your way to earn your extra credit, is to consider what these leaders have said. Learn about them, their positions, the places from which they base their comments and decisions. And then think about the point - holding our leaders accountable - and let that be the driving force behind how you vote this fall.
I don't tell people how to vote - that's not my place - but I do require you to participate if you expect to earn a passing grade.
See you around the virtual campus.
