# General Milley promising to tip off China in advance if America planned to attack: OPSEC violation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2021, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/general-milley-promising-to-tip-off-china-in-advance-if-america-planned-to-attack-opsec-violation/950665 "2021-09-14T20:09:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 42
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2021, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/general-milley-promising-to-tip-off-china-in-advance-if-america-planned-to-attack-opsec-violation/950665/42 "2021-09-15T22:58:23Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If Milley did that\* (and also suggested that he could override the President on nuclear launch), then that is a violation of the principle of civilian control of the military, and a violation of his oath to respect the chain of command. > > I don’t think he did anything illegal, but I also think a President would be well supported if he asked him to resign over it. If you don’t have faith that the military will do what they are ordered to do, it’s totally appropriate to find a new military leadership that will. > > Personally, I’d fire him just for the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle. Even if it wasn’t totally his fault, America suffered so much reputational damage over it that it would be good optics to shake up the military command and force some resignations to signal to China and others that such a mistake wouldn’t be happening again, and that you were taking it seriously. > > (\*) This information comes from Bob Woodward’s new book, and Woodward has a history of getting some facts and contexts wrong. I’d like to see a second source of corroboration. You may want to check up more on how the U.S. military works, the Joint Chiefs have a limited role in operations like the Afghan withdrawal, they are not even in the military chain of command, do not issue orders to the combatant commands, do not plan the operations of the combatant commands etc. We have fired military officers for fuck ups, the person who would normally be fired in this scenario would likely be General Kenneth McKenzie as an example. As a matter of policy firing random members of the Joint Chiefs for operational decisions they were not involved in would rank as a “stupid, bad” policy idea. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Note that the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are considered blatant violations of the Hague Conventions (see _Ryuichi Shimoda, et al v. The State 下田(隆一)事件_ [Japanese case, 1963] ), but Japan explicitly waived her claims against the Allied Powers in Article 19(a) of the Treaty of San Francisco (1951). > > Treaty of San Francisco, Article 19(a) > > > Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of the war or out of actions taken because of the existence of a state of war, and waives all claims arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of any of the Allied Powers in Japanese territory prior to the coming into force of the present Treaty. > > ~Max You’re speaking inaccurately here. We had a thread about strategic bombings awhile back that covered this–actually a thread dealing with the Israel/Gaza conflict but the legality of strategic bombing was discussed [[Israel vs Gaza 2021… wtf? - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-vs-gaza-2021-wtf/942168/460)], but the two atomic bombings would fall under the same aegis. Bombardment and the laws of war, during WWII, were operating under the Hague Conventions of 1907 concerning the bombardment of occupied towns by Land and by Sea. Specifically: _Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); 18 October 1907_ and _Laws of War: Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX); 18 October 1907_. While it has been an **opinion** by some internationalists that these laws forbid things like strategic bombing, that has never been sustained by any legal action, nor does it meet the plain reading of those actual treaties. The reality is aerial bombardment was ill-covered by existing laws of war. While deliberate targeting of civilians by any means was well covered by existing laws of war, under those same laws **incidental killing of even extremely large numbers of civilians, could still be perfectly legal if you could ascertain a valid military target.** Both Japanese cities contained valid military targets. Additionally, Geneva Protocal I, which was signed in 1977 (but not by the United States), attempted to fill some of the gaps on aerial bombardment. That protocol actually specified that if a belligerent intermeshes their civilian and military infrastructure, then the military infrastructure can still be targeted by other belligerents. The ensuing and guaranteed civilian deaths then actually get ascribed to the **defending belligerent** for blame, because it was a violation of the laws of war to commingle their civilian and military infrastructure. Japan did this as a matter of routine in response to strategic bombing. It broke lots of factories up into small shops that would operate in small wood frame buildings all throughout Japanese cities. This was cited as a specific justification for firebombing of Japanese cities. > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > But the United States has committed numerous “war crimes” in the past seventy-five years, and the number of prosecutions for them have been so few and culpability reduced to often a single individual of junior rank or status (when anyone was prosecuted at all) that the threat of a president or senior official being prosecuted under war crimes statutes is of negligible concern or cause for restraint. > > Stranger This is a common thing said, quite stupidly, by people who do not know what war crimes are, and who confuse them for “things that make me cry.” Now as for Milley–he didn’t leak classified information, technically did not violate the chain of command, he likely has a formal liaison job with this Chinese general, meaning it is appropriate and acceptable for him to speak with that general on policy matters. He’s covered so far. But some of the specific things he says, if reported correctly, likely qualify as him “going into business for himself” in terms of foreign policy. It doesn’t quite break the concept of civilian control of the military, but it violates the spirit and intent of positions on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is to serve in high level advisory capacity to the President and other special policy assignments as necessary. It would be akin to a Deputy Secretary of State meeting a high-ranking diplomat of a foreign country, and going specifically against the policy dictates of the current administration. Not a crime, but not proper. Certainly, justifies a sacking. But it’s also a matter of diplomatic policy, so it would be up to the President to exercise his discretion on the matter. It appears thus far Biden has decided it isn’t a firing offense. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/general-milley-promising-to-tip-off-china-in-advance-if-america-planned-to-attack-opsec-violation/950665)._