The @NewYorker article about Gen Milley is chilling. Not for the description of Trump--we've heard that before. Because it describes the senior uniformed officer in the US military working with Cabinet and Congressional power brokers to frustrate the president's policies. 1/13

I think Trump was the most harmful and dangerous president in US history. One of the ways in which his harmfulness manifested was the seductive illusion of some of those around him that they could mitigate his harm by being the "Axis of Adults." 2/13

It's one thing for advisors to influence a president through spelling out alternatives and opposing viewpoints. But the article details Milley, Pompeo, and Esper's resolution to keep the President from starting a war--foreign or domestic--they believed would be unlawful. 3/13

The legal structures surrounding the president's use of military power are extraordinarily sweeping. It's not clear at all that an attack inside Iran or calling active duty troops into the streets of the US under the Insurrection Act would have been illegal under US law. 4/13

What those profiled in the article seem to have meant by "unlawful" was "a use of force we believe would be wrong." And, to be clear, those uses of force WOULD be ethically wrong. But their legality is much murkier, and not up to a uniformed military officer to decide. 5/13

Politicians are chosen and held accountable by election, impeachment, and political pressure. Generals are not. None of us voted for Milley. So there are some decisions Milley can't make. 6/13

The article says Milley was prepared to publicly resign and implies he would have had the Joint Chiefs join him if ordered to do those things. That's on the extreme edge of appropriate civ-mil relations, but ultimately OK. His work to keep the order from coming isn't. 7/13

There are multiple Constitutional mechanisms to deal with an unqualified or incapacitated president. By maneuvering to short-circuit the president's policies, Milley and others prevented these mechanisms from needing to kick in. 8/13

There's good reason to be skeptical about whether Congress would have acted, but there's no room for interpretation as to whether it is the responsibility of Congress or of a minority of Cabinet secretaries and the military. It isn't. 9/13

Phrased differently, none of the people on the daily phone calls about "landing the plane" were qualified to land it. And because they took it on themselves to do so, those who were not only qualified, but required to do it, didn't. 10/13

Milley and Esper et al may have thought they were doing good, but they had no authority or right to do so. This allowed those whose job it was to faithfully execute the Constitution to keep mouthing the big lie without fear of consequences. 11/13

It's fair to ask, "isn't that better than the alternative?" Maybe. But the lesson ought to be "don't elect unstable authoritarians who will surround themselves with buffoons" not "it's OK...the military will keep anything bad from happening." 12/13

TL;DR: Presidents have great legal leeway in using force The military's role is to give policy advice, not conspire to shape policy. If the president gives an order that is "lawful but awful" military leaders can obey or resign, but it's up to Congress or the Cabinet to fix it.