US General Mark Milley in June 2022 (Image: AP/Jeremias Gonzalez)
US General Mark Milley (Image: AP/Jeremias Gonzalez)

If you want to know why having leaders of integrity matters when democracy is under assault, look no further than The Atlantic’s recent report on the retiring chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley. 

Milley, a mountain of a man who came from a military family, had served for almost four decades before former US president Donald Trump elevated him to replace men who had refused to display loyalty to him over the constitution. 

Milley would prove to be disappointing for the same reasons, though he would be tested in ways his predecessors weren’t. By the time he took office, the men of principle who had surrounded Trump — and because of his sexism, they were all men — were gone, having resigned or been fired. This included John Kelly, Trump’s second chief of staff, and Jim Mattis, his secretary of defense.

This left Milley to face a challenge none of the 20 men who had occupied the chairman of the joint chiefs position since World War II had been likely to have considered. The possibility — which in the months leading up to January 6 became a reality — that the president of the United States would attempt to foment a rebellion or stage a coup to remain in office after he lost an election. 

As The Atlantic article puts it:

A plain reading of the record shows that in the chaotic period before and after the 2020 election, Milley did as much as, or more than, any other American to defend the constitutional order, to prevent the military from being deployed against the American people, and to forestall the eruption of wars with America’s nuclear-armed adversaries. Along the way, Milley deflated Trump’s exhortations to have the US military ignore, and even on occasion commit, war crimes.

It’s an understatement to say Milley’s deft execution of these challenges required wisdom and courage, two key components of what it means to lead ethically. But these qualities can’t account for the problem — first raised by an air force officer in the 1970s — that to this day the US military still doesn’t have an answer for. What do you do when an order to launch America’s nuclear forces (or, by implication, any of its military might) comes from a president who lacks an understanding of his responsibilities and the implications of his actions? 

What should a chairman of the joint chiefs, who in normal times is responsible for managing America’s national security challenges, have done in the days leading up to the 2020 election, as allies and adversaries of the US wondered what the risk of a coup meant for them? When Milley learnt his Chinese counterpart General Li Zuocheng believed Trump was planning to attack China, he reportedly phoned Li and said:

I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay. We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you. General Li, you and I have known each other for five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise …

Should the chairman of the joint chiefs have made clear to American politicians and the public — as Milley did — that the US military would not assist any political leader to stage a coup that overthrew democracy? Certainly his remarks in the days leading up to the November vote led me to breathe a sigh of relief that if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act to put troops on the street as a means to retain power despite his loss, the military would not play ball. 

I see Milley as a moral hero. Having understood that normal behaviour was toxic in the time of Trump, he did the hard thing. He stopped following orders and relied on his deep understanding of what his role was under the higher law of the US constitution. Namely, to preserve civilian rule and keep the country safe and secure long enough for that rule to return, so he could go back to following orders. As he told former first lady Michelle Obama on the day Joe Biden was inaugurated the 46th US president: “No-one has a bigger smile today than I do.”

This stance didn’t just require wisdom. It also took courage. The courage to do what your boss doesn’t want when your boss is the most powerful man, with the largest megaphone, in the world (Trump accused Milley of “treason” for his China call). The courage to admit your doubts to other high-ranking military and civilian leaders so you can make in-case-of-emergency plans to hold the fort until democratically committed leadership returns (under Milley’s leadership, the joint chiefs had a plan to resign one by one rather than obey orders from Trump they considered illegitimate or illegal). 

What is clear from the calm and sure way that Milley executed his obligations as an ethical leader is how prepared he was for the test of character that he faced. Integrity — the capacity to live up to our values through action — doesn’t materialise on its own. It requires the cultivation of the inherent understanding of good and bad that children have, the inculcation of good ethical instincts through practice through early adulthood, and the tempering of ethical habits by the wisdom of age and experience. If you don’t believe me, ask Aristotle, as this is his formula for ensuring ethical leaders do the right thing, for the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, in the right way and for the right reason. 

Certainly military brass in the US and Australia take their obligation to cultivate ethical leaders seriously, training them to analyse, consult and respond as moral agents in all the tough situations our troops face abroad as well as at home, as did Milley, when tested by a rogue political actor with authoritarian ambitions. 

They do this because they know the disaster that can befall a nation if the people who lead our institutions don’t know what the right thing is to do, or lack the courage to do it, when the crunch comes.