News Forum - American general defends “clandestine” phone calls with China

[Poolie]

33 minutes ago, 9S_ said:

 

How do you defend the country when you give America’s #1 adversary of any potential attack. Will the Chinese general do the same before they attack the US?

 

When has China ever looked like attacking America? AND been proven to do so?

[9S_]

9 minutes ago, Poolie said:

When has China ever looked like attacking America? AND been proven to do so?

Don’t worry the top Chinese generals will inform Mark Milley. The fact they haven’t attacked yet just proves how strong our alliance is with China! Mark will let them know when the US will attack them and they will let us know when they attack us or invade Taiwan. 
 

[Poolie]

25 minutes ago, 9S_ said:

Don’t worry the top Chinese generals will inform Mark Milley. The fact they haven’t attacked yet just proves how strong our alliance is with China! Mark will let them know when the US will attack them and they will let us know when they attack us or invade Taiwan. 
 

Pure fantasy.

[Smithydog]

 

I must admit, I have been intrigued at the response to this. Not being American I have no personal opinion on what should happen. To me that is up for them to decide.

However, I do find the surprise at the General speaking to a Chinese general a bit confusing as to why now. After all, there seems to be a very well publicised meeting with the Russian Chief of Staff in 2019. I wouldn’t have thought the US would class the Russians much different to the Chinese.

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2043133/top-us-russian-military-leaders-meet-to-improve-mutual-communication/

Acknowledging the US desire for civilian command of their military, was there a change in his authority to have such discussions when the Acting Secretary of Defence was appointed after the election last year. The Acting Secretary seems to be suggesting he wouldn’t have allowed it. But thinking isn’t sufficient. Was there an order issued, how was it communicated to the General and what actual evidence is there of this. These to me, are at the moment, important missing pieces of information in determining right or wrong.

Putting any partisan politics and the usual to and fro and back and forth aside for the moment, answer this simple question. Was he allowed to or not and if not when and how was he told not to do it?

If there is clear evidence he ignored or went against a legal order, then I would suggest there is plenty of legal precedent for him to step aside and be punished if the law so dictates it to be appropriate. If not, then once again it will be just another sad example of partisan politics and point scoring. In the seeming confusion of the post US election last year, it wouldn’t surprise me if no order was given or someone simply didn’t even think to tell the General.

 

[Fester]

4 hours ago, Smithydog said:

I must admit, I have been intrigued at the response to this. Not being American I have no personal opinion on what should happen. To me that is up for them to decide.

However, I do find the surprise at the General speaking to a Chinese general a bit confusing as to why now. After all, there seems to be a very well publicised meeting with the Russian Chief of Staff in 2019. I wouldn’t have thought the US would class the Russians much different to the Chinese.

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2043133/top-us-russian-military-leaders-meet-to-improve-mutual-communication/

Acknowledging the US desire for civilian command of their military, was there a change in his authority to have such discussions when the Acting Secretary of Defence was appointed after the election last year. The Acting Secretary seems to be suggesting he wouldn’t have allowed it. But thinking isn’t sufficient. Was there an order issued, how was it communicated to the General and what actual evidence is there of this. These to me, are at the moment, important missing pieces of information in determining right or wrong.

Putting any partisan politics and the usual to and fro and back and forth aside for the moment, answer this simple question. Was he allowed to or not and if not when and how was he told not to do it?

If there is clear evidence he ignored or went against a legal order, then I would suggest there is plenty of legal precedent for him to step aside and be punished if the law so dictates it to be appropriate. If not, then once again it will be just another sad example of partisan politics and point scoring. In the seeming confusion of the post US election last year, it wouldn’t surprise me if no order was given or someone simply didn’t even think to tell the General.

 That's the difference - this call was not very well publicised - until....... oops! 

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, Fester said:

 That's the difference - this call was not very well publicised - until....... oops! 

But whilst his meeting with the Russian Chief of Staff was well publicised as per the report, that report also says he had been talking and co-ordinating over the phone for some time. Were all those calls publicised? What difference does it really make if it was publicised or not?

My question comes back to whether he was authorised to have such discussions as part of his duties. The article seems to make out he isn't the first Chairman to do so, which suggests others have been permitted to do so. What was the authority given to him by the administration who appointed him and was it later changed? 

Without such answers supported by proof, this has all the hallmarks of one of those sad political "gotcha" spins trying to push attention away, probably from something else that was written in the same book.

[Fester]

5 hours ago, Smithydog said:

But whilst his meeting with the Russian Chief of Staff was well publicised as per the report, that report also says he had been talking and co-ordinating over the phone for some time. Were all those calls publicised? What difference does it really make if it was publicised or not?

My question comes back to whether he was authorised to have such discussions as part of his duties. The article seems to make out he isn't the first Chairman to do so, which suggests others have been permitted to do so. What was the authority given to him by the administration who appointed him and was it later changed? 

Without such answers supported by proof, this has all the hallmarks of one of those sad political "gotcha" spins trying to push attention away, probably from something else that was written in the same book.

If the military commander of a superpower has serious and secret comms with an opposite number of a similar country, like China, but without the knowledge or consent of his C-in-C then, then yes, the publicity makes a difference because he's been found out - and now he's under pressure.