At the beginning of the Trump administration, the Yale history professor Timothy Snyder wrote an overwrought pamphlet warning against the rise of a fascist administration — and warned that Trump and Putin wouldn’t allow us to have elections in 2018, or beyond it, because the Great Orange Hitler would never give up power. I’ve written a bit about the remarkable emptiness of Snyder’s historical analysis, but I’m reminded in recent days of one of the things that struck me about his proposed cure. Snyder warned people inside American institutions that the Great Orange Hitler was about to make them do bad things, so he urged them to “Defend Institutions” by resisting the authority of the President of the United States. To defend against the emergence of an American fascism, he alerted people with positions inside the administrative state to be prepared to resist the constitutional head of their branch of government; in effect, we must defend our democracy by working to undermine our elected leaders. It worked! The FBI fought against authoritarianism by using FISA warrants obtained through official lying to surveil a political campaign, and the authoritarian threat was eliminated. Take that, Putin!
We’re returning to that moment. On December 17, three retired flag officers published an op-ed — that link goes to the Google cache version — in the Washington Post warning that the American military is being politicized and may become involved in a future insurrection; for example, they warned, “A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name ‘Flag Officers 4 America,’ released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections.” Pretty chilling that retired flag officers are openly making political arguments, the retired flag officers warned in their published political argument.
Then they offer their cure, and things get interesting. Paul Eaton, Antonio Taguba, and Steven Anderson — two retired major generals and a retired brigadier general — suggest that government get serious about January 6:
First, everything must be done to prevent another insurrection. Not a single leader who inspired it has been held to account. Our elected officials and those who enforce the law — including the Justice Department, the House select committee and the whole of Congress — must show more urgency.
So in the context of arguing against the politicization of the military, three retired military officers issue a thinly veiled call for “those who enforce the law” to start prosecuting political leaders from the opposition party. Nothing says “defending our democracy” like generals calling for politicians to be imprisoned, you idiots. I’m trying to think of something I’ve seen in America that looks more like the dynamics of a banana republic, but this one is winning, so far.
Then they offer this:
But the military cannot wait for elected officials to act. The Pentagon should immediately order a civics review for all members — uniformed and civilian — on the Constitution and electoral integrity.
The proposed act is unremarkable, but the framing of that first sentence is appalling. Arguing against authoritarianism and the politicization of the military, retired military officers argue that the military must act without the authorization or guidance of elected officials. But the military waits for elected officials to act because the American military is subordinate to civilian authority; the demand that the military act without waiting for direction from elected officials is a conspiracy against constitutional authority, dressed up as a demand for the protection of our constitutional order. The tone-deafness can’t be exaggerated.
And then, incredibly, they come up with this:
In addition, all military branches must undertake more intensive intelligence work at all installations. The goal should be to identify, isolate and remove potential mutineers; guard against efforts by propagandists who use misinformation to subvert the chain of command; and understand how that and other misinformation spreads across the ranks after it is introduced by propagandists.
We must protect our country and its democratic values by intensifying domestic political surveillance, monitoring the off-duty political expression of servicemembers and policing the discourse they’re permitted to see and to join.
It’s otherworldly to see people write this shit without noticing what they’ve done.
I think you might be giving them too much credit. They are playing their part, reading the lines they've been given. Morally bankrupt, sure. Probably 'compromised' or 'leveraged' as well. But not necessarily as stupid as they sound.