Pentagon leaders to testify on use of military during unrest

Top Pentagon leaders will appear before Congress on Thursday to discuss a host of controversies, including intelligence reports of Russian bounties and the use of the military to quell civil unrest last month.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Defense Secretary Mark Esper (left) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley listen during a Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 4, 2020. Both will speak before Congress on a number of controversies on July 9, 2020.

The Pentagon's top leaders are going before Congress for the first time in months to face a long list of controversies, including their differences with President Donald Trump over the handling of protests near the White House last month during unrest triggered by the killing of George Floyd in police hands.

The House hearing Thursday will provide the first congressional testimony by Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, since March 4, when they appeared to discuss the administration's defense policy proposal. That was before the full impact of the coronavirus pandemic became apparent and before nationwide civil unrest threw the Pentagon's relations with Mr. Trump into crisis.

Mr. Trump's push for an aggressive response to the civil unrest led to an extraordinary clash with Mr. Esper and Mr. Milley, who on June 1 accompanied the president when he walked from the White House to St. John's Church on Lafayette Square, where he held up a Bible for photographers. That day, a National Guard helicopter was flown at extremely low altitude to help disperse protesters from the capital's streets, prompting a Pentagon investigation into whether that was a proper use of military resources.

Mr. Esper drew Mr. Trump's ire for telling a Pentagon news conference that he opposed invoking the Insurrection Act to permit the president to use the armed forces to put down domestic civil unrest. Mr. Esper said he saw no need for such an extreme measure, a clear counterpoint to Mr. Trump’s threat to use force.

Mr. Esper also made known his regret at having accompanied Mr. Trump to the presidential photo opportunity in front of St. John's on the day of the Lafayette Square confrontations.

Mr. Milley later expressed public regret that he also had been part of the scene with Mr. Trump. He said he had been wrong to stride in uniform with Mr. Trump after protesters had been cleared from Lafayette Square. Mr. Milley said his presence “created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”

“I should not have been there,” he told a National Defense University commencement ceremony.

Mr. Esper and Mr. Milley also are likely to be grilled by members of the House Armed Services Committee on a simmering debate over removing the names of Confederate Army officers from United States Army bases and banning other Confederate symbols. That also puts them potentially at odds with Mr. Trump, who has said he opposes removing the Confederate names from bases like Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

The House and Senate versions of the 2021 defense policy bill require name changes at those 10 Army bases. Mr. Trump has said he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk with that provision intact.

Neither Mr. Esper nor Mr. Milley has spoken publicly about two other controversies likely to be raised at the House hearing – intelligence reports that Russia may have offered bounty money to the Taliban in exchange for killing American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, and reported White House resistance to permitting the Army to promote Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to the rank of colonel.

Mr. Vindman, who played a central role in the impeachment case against Mr. Trump, announced Wednesday that he will retire. A statement by his lawyer accused Mr. Trump of engaging in a “campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation” that meant Mr. Vindman's future in the Army would “forever be limited.”

Mr. Vindman’s name was on a promotion list sent to Mr. Esper earlier this year, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter. But that list was delayed for weeks because the White House asked for an investigation of Mr. Vindman, one of the officials said. The Pentagon did a review and found that any suggestion of misconduct was unfounded. One official said the list was resent to Mr. Esper about a month ago, but again was delayed.

A senior defense official said the list was held up by a routine personnel review not related to Mr. Vindman. Mr. Esper received the final promotion list on Monday and approved it, with Mr. Vindman’s name included, and it was expected to be sent to the White House in the next day or two, the defense official said.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an internal personnel matter.

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.