-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today in the Senate to sound the alarm about one of America's guiding principles--everybody knows about this--the constitutional principle of civilian control of our military, very much a cornerstone of our Republic.

This fundamental principle of self-government may have been in jeopardy during the final days of the Trump administration, but before I get to that, I will provide a historical context.

That principle became part of the American fabric on June 14, 1775, when the Congress of the Continental Congress appointed George Washington commander of the Continental Army. His commission ordered him to report to civilian authorities.

It specified:

You--

Meaning the new General Washington-- are punctually to observe such orders and directions, from time to time, as you shall receive from this, or a future Congress of these United Colonies.

Well, he followed that. At the war's end, General Washington gave this principle lasting purpose, and he did it with power and grace.

On December 23, 1783, in a solemn ceremony at the statehouse in Annapolis, George Washington voluntarily surrendered his commission, as well as his military power, to civilian authority, the President of the Continental Congress. The scene is memorialized in a dramatic John Trumbull painting that is displayed in the Rotunda not far from here. All of my colleagues go through that part of this Capitol every day and probably don't pay a lot of attention to it, but it is an important description of our basic constitutional principles.

We know there are other ways of doing these things in other countries. We know that dictators rule their nations with an iron fist because they control the sword. Washington selflessly laid down that sword to ensure America's destiny for generations to come. He chose to disband the Army and return to private life at Mount Vernon.

One scholar explained it this way:

The Virginian . . . went home to plow.

By this noble act, Washington cemented a crown jewel of self-rule: civilian control of the military. Five years later, as Washington was elected President, this bedrock principle was enshrined in our Constitution.

While this governing rule is essential to the preservation of democracy, it has been challenged with grave consequences. The Truman- MacArthur dispute over conducting the Korean war is a case in point. President Truman wanted to limit the war. General MacArthur disagreed. General MacArthur defied orders, and General MacArthur criticized his Commander in Chief's--Truman's--decision, and he did that publicly, so Truman fired him for insubordination.

Now I want to get to the main purpose of coming to the floor. Recently, several books, including a book entitled ``Peril'' by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, suggest that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, may have trampled on this principle. The book ``Peril'' provides an alarming account of his words and deeds.

Milley told the authors he ``was certain'' that the Commander in Chief was ``in serious mental decline . . . and could go rogue and order military action or the use of nuclear weapons. Milley felt no absolute certainty the military could control or trust the President.''

So Milley, in his words, ``took any and all necessary precautions.''

``His job,'' he said, was ``to think the unthinkable'' and, in his words, ``pull a Schlesinger.'' To ``contain Trump,'' he had to ``inject a second opinion.'' His opinion was then injected into the command structure.

In doing so, he may have stepped out of his lane as the President's principal military adviser and into the statutory chain of command where law doesn't allow him to go because, by law, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no command authority.

When President Nixon faced a crisis over impeachment and resignation, Secretary of Defense Schlesinger feared that he might order an unprovoked nuclear strike. So he, Schlesinger, reportedly took extra legal steps to prevent it. That is the same Schlesinger that Milley referred to as he was being interviewed for this book.

It happens that ``pulling a Milley'' as opposed to a ``Schlesinger'' is a very different kettle of fish. A four-star general can't ``pull a Schlesinger.'' Schlesinger was at the top of the chain of command, just below the President. He kept the President's constitutional command authority firmly in civilian hands as the Constitution requires. Milley allegedly placed military hands--his hands--on controls that belong exclusively to the President.

According to ``Peril,'' the book I am referring to, he summoned senior operations officers in the Military Command Center to his office. He had them take ``an oath'' not to ``act'' on the President's orders without checking with him first.

These brazen words and actions, if accurate, strike at the heart of our democracy: civilian control of the military. They turn this guiding rule upside down and show utter contempt for the Commander in Chief. Coming from the Nation's top general, they are dangerous and contrary to military code 10 U.S.C. 888.

After describing Milley's actions, the book's authors rightly ask this question: ``Was he subverting the President?'' Had he ``overstepped his authority and taken extraordinary power for himself?''

Milley assured this Senator in a letter to this Senator that his actions were on the up and up. The book, however, seems to imply a different story. I had a hearing where the general was. Senator Blackburn asked him about the mismatch. He replied: ``I haven't read any of the books, so I don't know.''

She said to him: ``Read them and report back to us.''

He said: ``Absolutely,'' he agreed. ``Happy to do that.''

Nine months later, he is still dodging the question with the same lame excuse.

To crank up the pressure, I joined Senators Paul and Blackburn a few months ago in a letter pushing for a straight answer. When none came, I began sending handwritten notes to the general. I soon received a 10- page letter from General Milley that ignored the question. My second note sparked an email. It claimed that our letter did not raise ``a direct question'' and asserted ``General Milley answered the specific questions.''

I think I can legitimately ask: Is that Pentagon baloney or what is it?

After my third note, General Milley responded with the same old smoke-and-mirrors routine: ``I have never read the books.''

Years of oversight have taught me this lesson: Evasive answers usually offer revealing clues about the truth. I think General Milley knows better. He knows the score. If those books and all attendant press coverage of those books contained gross misrepresentations, we would have heard about it a long time ago. He would have hammered the authors and corrected the record. However, to date, not a peep from the general. His silence speaks volumes.

Something doesn't smell right. As the Pentagon watchdog, when I get a whiff of wrongdoing, I sink in my teeth and don't let go.

So Congressman Jim Banks, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and I upped the ante on April 11. With 12 pointed questions, we gave General Milley a second bite of the apple to clear the air. Now, 2\1/2\ months later, we still have no response.

General Milley, you said you were going to answer Senator Blackburn's question. Honor your word. Answer the question. Come clean with the American people. We are all ears.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source