More Mush From the "Elites"

Military incompetence and analytical mush from David Ignatius and the Washington Post

I recently published an article dissecting General Mark Milley’s prevarication about not knowing what “woke” meant, when questioned about whether the military had become too woke under his stewardship. A longtime acquaintance responded by circulating a September 20 opinion column by The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, claiming that Ignatius’ article presented a “much more balanced view of Mark Milley’s performance as CJCS . . . by a respected author and columnist who has covered him closely for the past four years.”

Intrigued by the push-back, I decided to take a close look at what Ignatius wrote that supposedly was a “balanced view” of Milley’s tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  With apologies for borrowing from the Boston Globe’s most famous headline describing a Jimmy Carter speech (“More Mush From the Wimp”), what I discovered was More Mush From the “Elites.”

 Before turning to a more detailed Fisking[1] of Ignatius’ article, a few general observations are in order.

• As a graduate of both Harvard and Kings College in Cambridge, England, Ignatius is a certified member of the “elite” by David Brooks’ measure. See my article, “Who Are the Elites Anyway?” As such, he regularly instructs the rest of us in how to think, both from his perch as an editor and columnist for the Washington Post and as a regular on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

• Ignatius, like virtually everyone else at the WAPO (even its national food writer) is a dedicated “progressive” leftist.  That’s ok, just know where he is coming from.  No one other than a dedicated leftist could discuss the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan without any comment other than that it was “chaotic.”  And no one other than a dedicated leftist could pen a supposedly “balanced” summary of Milley’s tenure without mentioning his promise to warn the Chinese if we intended to attack them. So much for balance.   

• Apples.  Oranges.  My prior article and Ignatius’ WAPO column are entirely different in purpose and scope.  So, Ignatius’ article is much broader than mine.  Mine focused on one topic – Milley’s slippery evasion when questioned about wokeness in the military.  I did not purport to offer a comprehensive view of Milley’s performance as CJCS. Ignatius’ column addresses a broader range of issues. But the WAPO sets the tone with its title: “As Joint Chiefs chair, Milley was a Pattonesque presence stepping carefully.” The comparison with Patton was a theme of Ignatius’ column.  He gave it three times as many mentions as he did Afghanistan.

• There is an ongoing campaign to paint Milley as the savior of the Constitution from an insane President Trump. Ignatius’ puff piece is part of that campaign. 

Without further ado, let us turn to a closer look at Ignatius’ column.  (Quotes from his column are in italics. The bracketed comments in bold font are my own.)

Ignatius leads off by discussing Milley’s trip to meet with NATO allies.  He quotes a Dutch officer’s praise of Milley’s performance as CJCS regarding Afghanistan, saying that “Milley had led the alliance through the unparalleled stress of a pandemic, America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. . . .”  [This is Ignatius’ sole reference to Afghanistan. And all he has to say about it is that it was “chaotic.”  Well, so was almost every firefight I was ever in. “Chaotic” doesn’t begin to describe the debacle that resulted in the turnover of billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment, including tens of thousands of vehicles, hundreds of thousands of weapons, and scores of aircraft. Ignatius’ Pattonesque hockey player’s oversight of the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan was a hat trick of military malpractice – on the strategic, operational and tactical levels. But none of this, including the needless deaths of thirteen brave Americans because the rules of engagement and orders did not permit a Marine Corps sniper to engage the suicide bomber whom he and others had identified, merits any mention by Ignatius.]  

Ignatius then added his own personal comment, which he apparently meant to be colorful: “Milley’s stint as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, which ends this month, was as bold and sometimes as noisy as an artillery barrage. . . .” [More meaningless puffery. But I think that we can all agree that Milley’s promise to tell the Chinese if we were going to attack them was “bold.” But it is not a boldness to be admired.]  

“Milley seems at first glance a modern-day George Patton, barrel-chested and often profane in private, with an ex-hockey player’s sense of leadership as a contact sport.” [When you see stuff like this, you know you’re reading a puff piece not an objective analysis. The only support that Ignatius gives for his comparison between Milley and Patton is that both apparently were prone to swearing. Because Milley shares a personality trait with virtually every private and sergeant in the 82d Airborne, that somehow makes him “Pattonesque?”]  

“Despite Milley’s bravado, ‘his constant concern as chairman was to avoid great-power conflict,’ said Col. David Butler, his spokesman. That meant carefully weighing risks of Russian escalation in Ukraine and avoiding needlessly provocative military exercises or saber-rattling in the South China Sea.” [So, Ignatius (and Milley?) is buying into the NOKO and Chinese (and others’) propaganda that our training exercises are “needlessly provocative.”]

“Milley’s time as chairman was jolted by his collision with Trump. It was a strange accident of history. Trump, who had avoided military service and knew nothing of war, was attracted to Milley’s Patton-like demeanor. [Ignatius’ bias shows through here.  Trump “avoided military service and knew nothing of war.”  Did Ignatius ever make a similar criticism of Clinton or Obama?] The relationship exploded on June 1, 2020, when Trump led Milley, in uniform, across a forcefully cleared Lafayette Square for a photo opportunity before which Trump denounced the racial-justice protests that came after the killing of George Floyd.” [The “forcefully cleared” is intended as a pejorative to show how callous Trump was.  Would these people being cleared be the same “mostly peaceful” types who set fire to St. John’s Church in Lafayette Square before they were cleared out?  How were they supposed to be cleared from the Square?  With, “Please, please, pretty please”?]

“Milley was furious that he had let Trump use him as a prop and quickly apologized to his colleagues in uniform. From then on, he battled to defend the military from what he saw as Trump’s assault on its independence and professionalism. If anything, Milley might have overcorrected. He was so worried about the military being used to quell a civil disturbance on Jan. 6, 2021, that he was wary of an aggressive response to the mob assault on the Capitol that he sensed was coming.” [That he “sensed was coming”?  Didn’t they have intelligence that it was coming?  And does Ignatius have any sense of irony in mentioning this? Trump offered troops to secure the Capitol building, Milley resisted that. Now all the leftists, including the WAPO, are cheerleading the J6 and Trump prosecutions which advance the theory that Trump was trying to stage a coup with the out-of-control J6 demonstration, which would not have occurred if there had been adequate security.]

“After Trump’s departure, Milley became a close and trusted adviser to President Biden, reinforcing the White House’s twin goals of supporting Ukraine and avoiding war with Russia. His baseline advice was that the United States should concentrate on what he described as “line-drive singles,” rather than swing for flashier but higher-risk home runs. That middle course suited Biden.” [Oh, boy. Ignatius doesn’t have a clue how damning of Milley’s expertise this is. Middle course” pretty well sums up the Milley/Biden strategy. It apparently is now our new military doctrine. Sort of like, “leading from behind,” I guess. Whatever happened to the idea that adhering to the principle of war known as “mass” will save lives in the long run?] 

[The principle of “mass” is a fundamental tenet of military operations and strategy.  Simplified, it means to employ “economy of force” by allocating less resources to secondary objectives and massing decisive combat power at the decisive point.  Confederate Cavalryman Nathan Bedford Forrest put it more simply: “Get there firstest with the mostest.”  As for how this new doctrine would work in practice, picture this conversation with this new, Biden-approved doctrine in place: CAPTAIN AND COMPANY COMMANDER: “Yes, yes, I know, lieutenant.  The position you are to attack is held by a reinforced company and you have only a single platoon.  But our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just want line-drive singles, so you will attack it with only your platoon, just to inflict some casualties, instead of using a battalion.”  LIEUTENANT AND PLATOON LEADER: “But, sir, our doctrine calls for attacking forces to outnumber defenders by the historically accepted ratio of 3 to 1.  If my platoon attacks, we will be the ones outnumbered by 3-1.” CAPTAIN:  “General Milley has made it clear that he only wants line drive singles, not home runs. Get with the program, lieutenant.”]

[If Ignatius is correct that Milley foresaw a long, drawn-out war, this “line drive single” doctrine goes a long way toward explaining it.]

“When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Milley thought Kyiv would probably fall quickly. . . .” [This Patton-like genius for war misread that pretty badly, didn’t he? Ignatius, however, eschews any analysis of this or how it might undercut his “Pattonesque” portrayal.] 

“The tensest time for Milley in the Ukraine war might have been last fall, when . . . U.S. intelligence warned that Russia might use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a general collapse of its forces. To contain what he believed was the greatest risk of nuclear war since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, Milley contacted Gerasimov and queried him on Russian doctrine on tactical nukes. [What the heck does this mean?  Is he really saying that Milley called Gerasimov and asked, “What is your tactical nuclear doctrine, anyway?”  And out intelligence services haven’t figured out what is Russian military doctrine?  And did Milley tell the Russians that we have this enormous gap in our military intelligence?  Or is this just some grand over-simplification by Ignatius?]  That call, and similar contacts by Austin and other top officials with their Russian counterparts, reduced their concern about escalation but didn’t extinguish it.” [Well, I am glad that his calls with the Russians did not “extinguish” any concerns about escalation.  Can you imagine a conversation with Biden about this if the situation were otherwise?  “Mr. President, we don’t have to worry any more about escalation in Ukraine.  We talked to the Russians, and they have extinguished all our concerns about any escalation.”  The very idea of such a hypothetical conversation illustrates the shallowness and lack on any analytical thought in Ignatius’ article.] 

“As a student of military history, Milley understood better than most that war is an extension of politics. [More unabashed puffery.  This principle is so well known that it can be characterized as a truism.  What is the evidence that Milley understands this better than most?  Who are the “most” who don’t understand this fundamental concept?  Pure propaganda.]  He tried to fence the chairman’s office from political pressure, [In other words, he fought the Commander in Chief’s agenda. Any concerns for the Constitution here?] but in the Trump era, that proved impossible.” [In the Trump era?  Was there no political pressure on the Pentagon under, say, Clinton, Obama, or Biden?  I could write a book on just the last one.  No political pressure on the military by Biden?  How about the political pressure for the military to be completely out of Afghanistan by the 9/11 anniversary date, irrespective of military advice or the situation on the ground?  How does our elite columnist manage to ignore that fiasco?  And separate chapters of that book could be written on the political pressure to accommodate “transgenders,” political pressure to dilute physical standards to accommodate women, political pressure to admit more women and blacks to the service academies, the same for selection for command, the same for staffing special operation units, and so on and on ….]

Ignatius closes with what he says is “[o]ne of Milley’s favorite military aphorisms … from Chinese strategist Sun Tzu. ‘See yourself, see your enemy, win a thousand battles.’” I respectfully suggest that it might have been more appropriate to recall a quote from General William Tecumseh Sherman: “If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.”

[1] According to the Urban Dictionary, “fisking” is a “word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.”