Will Donald Trump use military to stay in power? Chief Mark Milley says Army takes oath to Constitution, not individual
With the people of the US feeling nervous about the near future as President Donald Trump has refused to concede defeat to Joe Biden in the just held election and speculation running rife over the possible role of the military, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley has uttered words that will allay fears.
On Wednesday, November 11, Milley said while speaking at the dedication of an Army museum: “We are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual.” His words came in the wake of Trump sacking his defense secretary Mark Esper and picking three staunch loyalists to key posts in the Pentagon. The episode rattled the defense establishment with both civilian and military personnel apprehending what could happen next. It was being feared that the incumbent was launching a move to remove all those who are not known to be loyal to him and plans were being executed to engage the historically apolitical military into the political process of the premier democracy. Things might remain stable till Biden’s inauguration on January 20 but the changes seen could further ruin possibilities of a smooth transition.
Trump and his close aides have been claiming throughout that the opponents stole the November 3 election and have refused to concede defeat, leaving the Republican Party divided and anxious.
Milley has made clear army's distinct position
Tension between the White House and Pentagon has been visible over the last few months, especially in the context of the president’s hard idea of using the military against protesters in Washington DC when the US was seeing relentless street fights in the wake of the death of George Floyd. Both Esper and Milley were not in agreement with the president on that. Milley even apologized publicly after he participated in Trump’s photo-op at a famous church near the White House in June. Troops and police were used to oust peaceful protesters to make way for the president and his entourage to St John’s Church, an action that led to a huge backlash.
“I should not have been there,” Milley, 62, told the National Defense University, adding: “My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” The effort to keep the military apolitical was evident on that occasion as well.
Milley’s latest remarks, which he made in the presence of Esper’s successor Christopher Miller, reflected his long-held view on the armed forces’ loyalty and duty towards the Constitution -- something he referred to as the ‘moral north star’ for the people in uniform.
Milley said: “We take an oath to the Constitution” and it spoke volume about the military’s upcoming role at a time when America’s politics is seeing a crisis in the making. The top military leader said that every service member will “will protect and defend that document regardless of personal price”. The American democracy is witnessing an unprecedented turn of events but thanks to Trump’s adamant stand, the military’s interference is not looking entirely unlikely -- something which has been unthinkable over the centuries.
Trump’s latest actions have put the Pentagon in an uneasy situation and everybody is guessing about the outgoing president’s plans. Did he remove Esper just because the latter was found to be not loyal enough? Or is the incumbent trying to give the armed forces a shape that would help him stay in office beyond January 20?
US forces will not turn backs on Constitution, Milley said in past
Milley dashed the second possibility in the recent past. According to a document, the general told lawmakers that he did not predict the military playing a role in the poll process or resolving issues that might come up during the presidential election. When asked about the role of the military if the election results were disputed, Milley told Democratic lawmakers Elissa Slotkin and Mikie Sherrill in writing: “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military.”
“I foresee no role for the U.S. armed forces in this process... We will not turn our backs on the Constitution of the United States,” he added. The Pentagon also said in the same month that the Constitution did not lay out a role for the military “as arbiter of political or election dispute.”