Dnicknames said:
Milley is a man of enormous courage and character, even if you disagree with his actions.
Milley knew that many would contend he overstepped his authority and had taken extraordinary power for himself, and he weighed that against his belief that he was acting as a good faith precaution, a check that there wasn't a historic rupture in international order, an accidental war or use of nuclear weapons. Welcome to being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
When he says January 6th parallels the 1905 uprising in Russia and we might have seen "a precursor to something far worse down the road" - that prediction should be a caution for us all.
My perception is we'll be studying the situation as a case study for many years.
pfft. His effort to parallel a mostly peaceful demonstration into anything other than a mostly peaceful demonstration only serves to show his partisan leanings. Fundamentally unserious.
That said......
we and China each have rather robust networks of satellites covering the earth in real-time imagery, signint, and elint. The term "sneak attack" is obsolete. No such thing. So my vote is that the events described in the book did not happen. No way Milley could have possibly though such was necessary.
And if Milley really was trying to usurp chain of command to interdict what he perceived to be a deranged head of state, then it's Mulley who is suffering from (at worst) derangement or (at least) cooperating with Democrats acting on their own Trump derangement.
And while we're on the subject of derangement, how concerned is Milley over the manifestly mentally incompetent POTUS we have now?