Former Army Lieutenant Colonel and proud North Carolinian, Brad Miller,
the former four-month commander of the 21st Brigade Engineer
Battalion in the 101st Airborne Division, has been making the rounds in
alternative media to promote the Declaration of Military
Accountability. The declaration is styled as a letter to the American people. Miller is the first signatory, and the person who sent it to
senior military leaders. The declaration has been distributed on social
media in a campaign to solicit signatures for a companion petition, and
Miller has requested wide dissemination particularly to elected representatives.
The declaration is a rallying cry for veterans to run for Congress or
seek executive office in order to hold current or retired military
leaders accountable for their “complicit[ity] in recent illegal
activities,” by recalling them for court-martial, denying them
retirement pay, and/or denying them senior executive branch positions.
The goal of the document is certainly legitimate although perhaps a bit
naive in its stated strategies. There does need to be military
accountability for the widespread law breaking that produced a shot
mandate that was executed in an unlawful fashion and put the entire
military force at risk with absolutely zero concern for long-established
“risk assessment” models. But who should lead or best represent this
campaign? This blog post will make the argument that Brad Miller is a
poor representative for the cause of military accountability given his
own performance vis-Ã -vis the shot mandate while in the military, and
especially while briefly in command.
If you’ve read this far, you may be asking yourself, why focus on one
person, rather than the cause as a whole? Because causes are often
identified by, and rise and fall with, the credibility of their leaders
and representatives. And although the declaration has many signatories,
Miller’s signature is first and foremost and he is actively representing
the issue in alternative media. Simply put, a movement that seeks to
impose penalties on not just those who initiated the mandate, but those
who were complicit in implementing it, demands leadership whose approach
to the mandate is beyond all reproach. Who took every possible act to
raise the alarm and shield those they were responsible for from the
“unwilling medical experimentation” the declaration discusses. Who, at a
minimum, put the chain of command on notice of the mandate’s
unlawfulness (for statutory or constitutional reasons) on their way out
the door—rather than merely expressing policy disagreements in unspecific terms.
Among the declaration’s signatories are several who fit the bill;
Miller is not one of them—notwithstanding that Miller brought many great
qualities to his role as a military officer and continues to offer the
public now. Beyond his notable achievements as a West Point graduate, a
Combat Engineer, graduate of the School of Advanced Military Studies,
as well as a graduate of Airborne, Air Assault, and Ranger schools,
Miller demonstrated an uncommon awareness of his oath of office by not
merely mouthing the word “Constitution” but by actually studying
it. This is evident in his lengthy and remarkably accurate discussions
of the document and of early American history. Beyond these military
and public service achievements, Miller is also an impressive oral
communicator, and demonstrates a rare measure of self awareness and self
criticism, at least within his video soliloquies.
But he has himself explained that at the time he refused to comply with
the mandate, he believed it was lawful. And even after eventually
learning of its unlawfulness, he did not convey that objection to his chain
of command. I do not fault him for evolving his thinking on the
mandate—doing so is admirable. Nor do I claim that only those who
recognized the mandate’s unlawfulness on day one are worthy. Faithful
public service is enormously difficult and also incredibly rare, and I
believe Miller suffered a legitimate trauma that I believe he is
attempting to process currently. A measure of empathy is in order,
even while critiquing a former public official currently considering
future public office.
But those who seek to impose accountability on others must meet a higher standard. Especially because Miller has stated he is considering public
office, and his declaration champions public office as the primary
avenue to achieve military accountability. Accordingly, assessing his
fitness for public office—given, in part, his previous performance while
in uniformed public office—is an important topic for discussion.
This is not personal. I first became aware of Miller when he contacted
me on Twitter. There I learned of his career, his resignation, and his
public media. As a field grade military officer who also resigned his
commission (at the fifteen year point in my case),
I dove into Miller’s media and communicated with him with the goal of
learning more about his situation and in the hope that I could support
him in some way. In the process, I have developed the opinions shared
here. Some of these opinions are critical of Miller, just as Miller
criticizes military officers and others (see Video at 4:21 and 38:00)—though my intent is not to “shame” Miller; rather, the spirit of my critique aims to be that described in the Proverbs. My
vantage point is limited. But in no way do I think Miller is a bad
person. I do think he did not do enough with the authority that he
held, that he was an inadequate military officer and failed as a
commander while briefly occupying that position. These failures do not
make him a bad person and certainly do not make his stated positions or
beliefs wrong or inaccurate. There is plenty to like about what Miller
says, but to serve the cause of military accountability and accurately
assess fitness for public office, we must honestly examine actions and,
as best we can, motivations. Words are useful but many in the wrong
will say what is right. That is the hallmark of the American "public
servant" today whether senior military leader, cop, or politician.
Action and inaction, however, tell the truth and it is there we must focus our
analysis rather than prioritizing words, familiarity, or tribe
membership. Our current government is in large part the result of
people not having standards more substantial than determining who they'd
like to drink a beer with. Changing that government requires we change
our approach in both critiquing and selecting government officials.
Miller and I have a great many similarities and I find myself
overwhelmingly agreeing with Miller on most important topics. I will
touch on our similarities and differences at the very end, which I think
may illuminate some of the motivation for Miller’s performance in the
service, and which should more clearly lay bare my bias for the reader's
consideration. Like all, I do have a bias. Before that, however, I will
first make the argument that Brad Miller is a poor representative for
the cause of military accountability given his previous performance in
the military. Past performance is a predictor of future performance.
My assessment of Miller’s military performance (section I) is based on
(A) Miller’s decision to continue serving the federal government for 15
years after concluding that the federal government murdered its own
citizens while directing, or conspiring in, the 9/11 attacks; (B)
Miller’s refusal to comply with the mandate despite believing at the
time that it was lawful, and his failure to raise any concerns about its
lawfulness to superiors; (C) Miller’s unwillingness to convey to his
chain of command that the mandate was part of a treasonous plot, which
he claims to have believed despite believing the mandate lawful; and
indications that Miller’s actions regarding (D) the mandate and (E) his
resignation were motivated, at least in part, by concerns that were more
personal than public service-related. From all of this, I conclude that
Miller is a poor choice to lead or represent the military
accountability movement.
I then turn to an evaluation of Miller’s fitness for public office, given his statement that he is considering it (section II).
I. PERFORMANCE AS A MILITARY OFFICER
A. 9/11 & Fifteen Years of Service to What Miller Believed was a Treasonous Government
Any assessment of Miller’s military performance has to account for his
decision to serve what he believed to be a government that had waged war
on the American people. Miller says that he would have admitted to you, as a military officer
in 2007, that he believed the attacks of September 11th were an inside
job (Video at 03:23). In his SubStack, Miller writes that the federal government of the United States conducted a “slaughter of its own citizens” and explains:
“As I have detailed before, I woke up to the uncomfortable truth
that 9/11 was an inside job during the summer of 2007. From that moment
forward, that realization colored the way in which I began to view the
world and the interaction of the American government with its own
citizens.”
In 2007, Miller was a military officer in the primary organization used
to produce violence on behalf of the government that he believed
murdered its own citizens. He considered leaving the Army when his
service commitment lapsed. But he chose instead to remain, continued to
serve what he believed was a treasonous government (for fifteen years after
he first reached his conclusions about 9/11), and later deployed for
operations in Afghanistan for which the 9/11 attacks served as a
pretext.
For me, it is difficult to imagine rationalizing a decision to continue
working for a government that you believed caused Americans to burn
alive in the Twin Towers and to jump to their deaths from hundreds of
feet up. To do so for fifteen more years until the near-completion of a
military career, while deploying to Afghanistan which was identified as
the culprit in those attacks, raises questions for me, about Miller’s
credibility as an advocate for government accountability. However, it
is not a defenseless position. Miller was not tasked with assaulting
the buildings of New York during the attacks or coordinating a coverup,
so he was in no way obligated to leave service. Similarly, a Post
Office employee who recognizes illegality conducted by the Department of
Homeland Security is not obligated to leave his post simply because
parts of the same federal government are breaking the law. Should a
whistleblower leave federal service if unlawful actions he reports are
not properly punished? Of course not. So long as you do not conduct unlawful action
and you elevate concerns in your area of responsibility up the chain of
command and you exercise your authority to defend the Constitution, you
are honoring your oath of office and serving faithfully. A
good public servant can exist among other public servants who are not
good.
That is how Miller explains why he continued to serve despite believing
the federal government had slaughtered American citizens—that after
2007 he “still thought the Army needed good people.” (By
2023, after the shot mandate, he changed his mind and now believes the
government and military are “too far gone” to remain in military
service.)
By staying in—and presumably performing excellently on all the
traditional metrics—Miller did achieve a position of some influence as a
battalion commander. So the question is, did he take the opportunity to
do good from the inside? Did he speak truth to power, defend those in
the right, and choose doing right over promotion and career? Enough to
justify the decision to keep serving a government that, in his view,
murdered nearly 3,000 Americans? I turn to that next.
B. Miller Refused the Shot While Believing the Mandate Was Lawful
A fundamental problem with Miller’s credibility as the leader or
representative of an accountability movement is that he refused to
comply with the mandate while believing it to be lawful. But he has
elsewhere agreed that lawful orders rightfully must be obeyed even when
we disagree with them. He correctly states, "the military requires discipline & that means following orders, to include orders you may not like & perhaps find unsound."
Yet that is not how Miller conducted himself when he disobeyed what he believed to be a lawful order on active duty. Miller stated:
“… in my argumentation as to why I didn’t want to use
the COVID shot, with my superiors…. I would have used the unlawful
argument, but I didn’t know about it. You know. But by the time that I
actually resigned I was aware of that.” (Video at 25:05)
“A year later, when I tried to kinda go see [my Brigade Commander],
kinda talk to him, and one of the reasons I wanted to talk to him on my
way leaving the Army was because I was going to tell him ‘hey, you do
know this is all unlawful right?’ I never told him that when I was
getting relieved…when I got relieved of command, I did not know about
the whole BioNTech Comirnaty bait and switch, I was not aware of all
that…I became aware of all of that after I got relieved…” (Video at 23:33)
Miller states that even before he took command of the battalion, he
knew he would get fired. He said “there was just no way” he would make
it through command (Video at 20:16).
During a shadow program of his Division Commander, General Joseph
McGee, Miller told the General he would not get the shot and the General
told Miller he did not have to finish the shadow program, indicating
that Miller would not be in command long (Video at 1:21:17), and he would be "out of the Army very soon” (Video at 1:18:01).
Miller considered telling his superiors that he would not take command (Video at 21:30).
Ultimately he decided to take command to force them to fire him,
apparently under the impression that firing a battalion commander would
be somewhat of a big deal (Video at 23:42).
That approach—forcing a noisy exit—is laudable, and fosters
accountability, but only if Miller then knew (and explained) that the
mandate was unlawful. But when the mandate dropped and Miller refused
the order to take the shot, he did so while thinking the order was
lawful. Miller states:
“…one thing that I had not done, that I regret, is I had not
strongly told [his Division Commander], ‘sir, this is unlawful.’ I
wasn’t gonna go along with it, but I had not strongly told him that.
Part of that is because I didn’t necessarily know that when I left
command, when I got relieved of command…”(Video at 1:25:10)
Miller has said he didn’t know the shot was unlawful until two months
after he was fired as a commander and that he never told his superiors,
strongly or otherwise, that the mandate was unlawful. Miller did not
find out the mandate was unlawful (due to the military illegally
mandating EUA products) until closer to the end of 2021, two months
after he'd been fired. Regarding his division commander, Miller stated
“I didn’t pursue him…in order to tell him this thing is completely
unlawful, I told him it was bad news, I told him I didn’t agree with it,
but I never said to him ‘this is unlawful…’” (Video at 1:27:54). Miller has expressed his regret for not explaining that the mandate was unlawful once he learned of it.
Given that Miller never told his superiors that the mandate was
unlawful, that would necessarily mean he also did not state that he was
resigning because of the unlawfulness of the mandate, despite knowing by
that time that it was unlawful. (As far as I am aware, however, Miller
has not made his resignation document(s) public.) Resignation in
protest can be a valuable way to spark accountability. But doing so
requires an actual protest about an issue that justifies
disobedience—the unlawfulness of the order.
C. Miller’s Failure to Convey His Belief that the Shot was Part of a Treasonous, Unconstitutional Plot
While Miller states that he did not know the order to take the shot was
unlawful at the time he refused it, in the sense that it violated a
federal statute, Miller has also indicated that from the beginning he
thought the shot mandate was "unconstitutional" and "part of a
treasonous plot.” (Video at 1:25:47)
Of course, an unconstitutional order is an unlawful one, so if true
that Miller believed the mandate was unconstitutional because it was
treasonous, then that illegality would justify noncompliance. But if he
actually held that view from the beginning, why did he claim he had no
argument of the mandate being unlawful? Treason would present a far
greater argument of illegality than a bureaucratic (although still
important) law that states emergency use medical products cannot be used
unless the President authorizes them (which, strangely, the President
did not do). That being the case, I must question whether Miller
actually, while in uniform, thought the mandate was treasonous and
unconstitutional. Still, even if Miller did in fact hold that belief,
he did not convey it to anyone in the chain of command or even convey,
generally, that he was refusing the mandate because it was
unconstitutional or unlawful—again defeating the purpose of being fired
or resigning in protest.
Miller explains:
“But what I can definitely tell you is, by the time that I resigned,
one of the reasons that I resigned was because by then I knew, hey it’s
not just that this is unconstitutional… now I always kinda believed
this was treason, I always believed that, I didn’t necessarily, I always
believed this was a plot against our own country and against our
people, but that was based on a whole lot of conjecture and connecting a
lot of dots just over the years, I didn’t really have a way to
necessarily prove that, and so I didn’t necessarily use that in my
argumentation as to why I didn’t want to use the COVID shot, with my
superiors, I mean they would have thought I was an absolute nut case. I
would have used the unlawful argument, but I didn’t know about it. You
know. But by the time that … I actually resigned I was aware of that (Video at 24:25).”
Miller has not explained his view that the shot mandate was treasonous
and unconstitutional despite critiquing other officers for also not
elevating an argument of the mandate's illegality (Video at 53:02),
except to say the plot was against our country and developed with
treasonous intent. But as defined by the Constitution “Treason against
the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in
adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Const. art.
III, § 3. Miller doesn’t explain how the mandate meets these criteria. If he means that the mandate was a deliberate plot to physically harm
service members to degrade military readiness, and thus qualifies as
making war on the United States, then it begs the question, why wouldn’t
he have explained this to his chain of command? How can he criticize
other military officers for not providing a legal argument to their commanders
when he himself also did not provide one to his superiors?
He says he did not because his superiors would have thought he was an
“absolute nut case.” Despite referring to his bosses as “fantastic” and
“highly, highly, highly intelligent people” (Video at 11:06),
Miller shirked his duty to elevate unvarnished truth, as he understood
it, to his superiors for their consideration, even when the health of
the 700 or so troops in his charge was on the line (assuming his belief
that the shot was meant to harm them).
Beyond failing to pass up his assessment to superiors that
the mandate was deliberately designed to harm troops (assuming, again,
that is the crux of his purported treason belief), Miller could have done more in
his role as a commander. If we assume that Miller actually believed
the shot mandate was an act of war against the United
States—deliberately intended to harm readiness and to physically harm
soldiers, then why did Miller not issue an order forbidding his
battalion from taking the shot? Or, at the least, publicly counsel them
against? When he took command, there was no mandate, so such an order
would have been perfectly lawful, just as commanders routinely issue orders
against using legal substances, like alcohol prohibitions or
prohibitions against synthetic marijuana. While such an order almost
certainly would have been countermanded by his superiors, or if he was
advising against the shot, Miller might have been ordered to stop
talking about it, it still would have made a difference. Miller would
have given his soldiers more of a fighting chance in any future legal
proceedings they might face for refusing the shot and, most importantly,
he would have exercised command authority to protect those in his
charge from what he claims he thought was a weapon being used against
them and he would have defended his unit's combat effectiveness. But Miller did not exercise such lawful command authority. Why not?
When the mandate did later get issued, Miller told those in his charge that
he was “agnostic” about whether they took the shot or not and that he
would “not publicly trounce the Army’s policy,” though he would have a
one-on-one conversation about it with those brave enough to schedule an appointment with him (Video at 39:53).
Given Miller’s failure to take any act, or even issue a warning about
his purported belief that the mandate was a deliberate act of treason,
designed to harm, leaves us with two options. Either he did not actually then believe the mandate was treasonous and unconstitutional (and refused an order he believed to be lawful) or he
truly believed the shot was a weapon meant to damage those in his
charge, wielded by a government he believed had previously slaughtered
its own citizens, and yet he did nothing about it except personally
refuse—without so much as airing his concerns beyond a personal belief
that the shot was “bad news.” Don’t get me wrong—refusing and resigning
is a lot more than most did, and he paid a price for it. But if he
truly believed the mandate was an act of war—as his “treason” label
implies—then his failure to even sound the alarm falls far short of what
was needed. A commander refusing to "publicly trounce" a plot to harm
soldiers in his charge, failing to order his soldiers to avoid the
substance created by traitors to unlawfully harm them, and then not even
elevating these concerns and his analysis to his superiors would be
such an incredibly egregious failure of command and such a massive
dereliction of duty that it would, in my view, have merited Miller being
court-martialed and forced out in disgrace.
There is no way to know for sure which interpretation is right. In my
view, however, Miller did not likely think the shot was treason or
unconstitutional at the time of his refusal. I believe he simply
thought it was “bad news” and he didn’t “agree with it” as he told his
superiors (Video at 1:28:14).
Miller has since stated, “I’m not here to tell you now what COVID was
or was not, I don’t pretend to know exactly. There are lots of
different theories” (Video at 5:46).
Had Miller actually believed it was unconstitutional then he would have
provided that reasoning to his superiors. Miller's lack of legal
argument for any unconstitutionally or treason claim, his noncommittal
assertions (ie "I always kinda believed this was treason"), and the seemingly-unlikely scenario that
Miller would have failed his troops, his superiors, and the nation so
egregiously during a treasonous plot, leads me to believe that Miller did not, in fact, believe
the mandate was treasonous or unconstitutional. Rather he refused an
order he thought was lawful at the time but didn't agree with, and then
later, when he discovered the order was in fact unlawful, failed to
inform his superiors. And then he began asserting treason and
unconstitutionality while building an audience on social media once out
of public office.
If my view is correct and he did not refuse because the mandate was
unlawful or treasonous, why did Miller refuse? I turn to that next.
D. Alternative Reasons for Miller Refusing the Order to Get the Shot
Parsing motivation as an outsider is admittedly fraught. Nonetheless,
Miller’s statements provide some indications of other factors
contributing to his decision to refuse the shot. It seems likely, in my
view, that Miller’s reason for refusing the order was more a product of
his personal religious ideology than rooted in public service ideals.
Even after Miller had refused to take the shot, he was processing lists
of soldiers in his battalion who likewise had refused the shot and was
sending them up the chain of command. Miller relates that his boss, the
Brigade Commander, Colonel Mark Federovich, texted Miller and explained
that he successfully got the battalion’s list of religious exemptions
sent by Miller, but that it did not include a religious accommodation
request for Miller himself. Colonel Federovich asked Miller, “where is
yours?” (Video at 44:41)
Miller’s commander’s question indicates that he likely believed that
Miller’s objection was religiously motivated. Miller shares that he had
started a religious accommodation request, but did not submit it,
because he was looking for the mandate to be rescinded wholesale and not
merely as an exception for himself (Video at 45:30).
There are other indications that Miller’s views on the shot mandate are
connected to his religious perspective. Miller talks about his
“worldview” and uses that term to describe his identification as a
Christian. Miller states that his theological beliefs "heavily inform"
his worldview (Video at 15:12).
Miller relates that his problem with the military isn’t really the
military itself and that “it’s not just about the shot, it’s not just
about COVID” but rather he has problems with the people who have
infiltrated and control the government, who have dominant control over
governments and corporations throughout the world, and that these people
work for the "Evil One” and are responsible for the shot (Video at 26:13).
Miller adds:
“You know, I’m a believer, I’m a Christian…you know, I have a
worldview that I follow in which I believe we’re all part of something
that is bigger than ourselves, we’re all part of a family, we should do
things that align ourselves with God, that there are truths out there
that are not relative, and that we should live in accordance with those
truths. I don’t shy away from that. In our fallen world, you know,
there is a lot of evil out there too and I think it’s our responsibility
to defend ourselves from that…” (Video at 9:03)
Miller discusses what he calls “worldview warfare” and how it seeks to
damage a person’s worldview and adds that “I’m certainly a Christian,
part of the reason that I do what I do is because I believe in the
concept of being a Christian man of action, I don’t apologize for that,
that is first and foremost in my mind, that is the most important thing
to me.” (Video at 19:30)
Miller also states that his bosses were almost entirely “remarkable”
people who were extremely smart and cerebral, but that they had a
“warped” worldview. (Video at 7:44).
Adding all of these comments together, it seems to me that, rather than
some unexplained and unvoiced concern about treason or
unconstitutionality, at the heart of Miller’s objection was some kind of
theological worldview which he felt his superiors did not share.
E. Alternative Reasons for Miller’s Resignation
As discussed below, Miller’s refusal did not make his resignation a
foregone conclusion. He has stated that he decided to leave the Army
because he "had to" in order to keep his oath intact (Video at 3:38). Miller
does not explain why he could not continue to serve in the military
while also honoring his oath. Even assuming he had come to embrace the
view that the shot mandate was a treasonous plot by the time of his
resignation, he could have tried to work against that plot by raising
the alarm, encouraging others to refuse, and so on. Just as he had years
earlier decided to stay despite his belief that 9/11 was
government-sponsored murder. I can only speculate why he made a
different decision, over a decade later, to resign on the precipice of
retirement. But, while speculating, it seems to me that Miller’s
resignation was likely due to many factors— including feelings of guilt
and loss of faith in the service—but also due to pride and the shame
that comes from being relieved of command and feeling like an outsider
to peers and superiors.
1. When Relieved of Command, Miller Remained Hopeful He Could Limp to Retirement
Miller states that, while he expected, when he took command in June
2021, that he would be removed from command, he still thought he might
be able to “limp across the finish line” and make it to retirement (Video at 9:25).
After refusing the order, Miller was suspended from command and later
transferred to work on the staff of the Division Commander, General
McGee, who had removed Miller from command. At this point, he was not
yet sure that he was going to resign his commission (Video at 52:16).
Miller was then issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and he wrote a
rebuttal response. He states that he regrets, on advice of counsel,
softening the tone of his rebuttal response, since his response didn’t
persuade his superior to not issue the LOR (Video at 58:31). To my knowledge, Miller has not made either the draft or submitted versions of his rebuttal publicly available.
Miller stated that even though he’d become a “total pariah,” from the
perspective of the Army, while on the General’s staff, he didn't know
for sure that he wouldn't make it to twenty years (Video at 10:14). He took the flu shot, although he didn't want to, after he was relieved
of command. Miller explains that he took the flu shot because he
wanted to make clear his specific opposition to the covid shot, and he
held out some hope that the mandate might get corrected and that he
would be reinstated into command, so he had to be careful where he
decided to draw red lines (Video at 10:14-13:20).
Miller was not notified until 18 days after his formal removal from
command, and he was notified via email by a JAG officer who was a Major,
rather than by General McGee himself, even though he was working on
General McGee’s staff and saw him regularly. Miller understandably
relates that the manner in which he was notified was not right, and was a
"completely cowardly" move on the part of General McGee (Video at 59:48 - 1:03:22).
Despite this, Miller explains that he was still impressed that General
McGee asked him for his opinion as a former battalion commander during a
staff meeting, and felt it was as though General McGee was giving him
his "due" as a former commander who didn't get relieved for any real
infraction (Video at 1:07:24).
2. Why Miller Ultimately Decided to Resign
Miller explains he took the flu shot mid November 2021, started
thinking about resignation in February 2022, and resigned on March 2,
2022 after a directive came out on January 31, 2022 that all who did not
get vaccinated would get removed from service (Video at 07:57).
Why did Miller decide to resign a month after this directive was issued? He long knew he would be fired and
even after being removed from command he was still hoping to limp to
retirement and to get reinstated into battalion command. So why resign?
He recounts that when the removal directive came out, he “decided to
resign instead” (Video at 8:37). He also suggests
that his resignation might have been as an atonement for failing to
leave the military after he came to the belief that the government had
slaughtered American citizens on 9/11. Indeed, he states that his
resignation was “influenced heavily” by his decision to not leave the
service in 2009 upon his realization that the government he worked for
had murdered its own citizens. Yet Miller asks himself whether or not
he feels guilty for his military service and responds “no, not exactly” (Video at 08:53 - 13:20).
He clearly hoped to make it to retirement, he refused to draw needless red lines in that pursuit, and he was asked by his superiors where his religious accommodation request was. Had Miller put in that request he would have almost certainly made it to retirement. Even without that request, had he gone through the military separation process, he still almost certainly would have made it to retirement. So why such an odd decision so close to retirement?
Miller’s decision to resign was no doubt influenced by a number of
feelings, including the sense of guilt and loss of faith in the service
that he discusses. But his description of the course of events leading
to his resignation suggests other common human emotions played a part,
including pride and a sense of feeling like an outsider after his
removal. Beyond that, in my view, is the fact that Miller had an
idolized vision of what it meant to be a battalion commander to the
point where it had become an intense part of his self identity. It
seems to me that having that identity stripped resulted in serious trauma.
Miller viewed commanding a battalion as "prestigious" and "very selective" and a "huge accomplishment" (Video at 4:26). Being a battalion commander meant you were "super successful." (Video at 1:11:02). He uses the term "almost existential" (in air quotes) to describe losing his command and career (Video at 37:20).
He describes the change of command ceremony in excruciating detail
about who is positioned where and who takes the colors and hands them to
whom, suggesting the importance of this transformational ceremony to
him (Video at 23:55 to 27:52). More importantly, he concludes the lengthy discussion of the ceremony by explaining:
"I am now the commander, they can fire me, but I mean I am now the
commander which means forever for the rest of time I will be able to say
that I was a battalion commander even if they fire me later that
day....I think to myself...wow I'm a battalion commander, this is a huge
accomplishment...this is an accomplishment twenty plus years in the
making" and "whatever happens, whatever happens, I'm a battalion
commander and they can take command away from me but they can never take
away the fact that I was a battalion commander.” (Video at 28:00 to 29:02)
This recitation suggests that Miller placed a great deal of value on
the government-bestowed title of “commander.” In his mind, it was a
massive achievement and most likely a deeply internalized identity.
Being a commander involved entering a select group, and Miller’s
attachment to the image of the commander is evident as he attempts to
critique other commanders who were his former peers and superiors.
There is a disconnect as he criticizes them heavily, yet they are
commanders, and commanders are exceptional and elite and cerebral, etc.
For example, despite objecting to their cowardice, Miller otherwise
highly praises other commanders, both superiors and peers. With very
limited exception, he describes his bosses as “remarkable,” “extremely
smart,” and “very cerebral”—yet also “complete cowards” (Video at 6:48 to 7:30).
He describes them as “fantastic bosses” and "highly, highly, highly
intelligent” but also as lacking the ability to think strategically or
to "think in complexity” (Video at 11:50 and Video at 7:43).
Miller says that if he had a chance to talk to his peers, he would tell
them they're part of the reason the military and nation is collapsing.
Yet he also says his peers are his friends and he is happy for their
accomplishments and they are "very good buddies of mine” (Video at 30:13 to 32:20).
Miller’s conflicted assessment extends to senior leaders. He claims
many are really "good people," just normal guys who "just happened to be
generals or whatever,” but yet they lack "moral integrity" and
"courage" (Video at 54:50 to 56:22).
He also believes that senior military officers are very very smart, but
at the same time they just can't think outside of the dialectical trap
they're in (Video at 57:01). At the very top, Miller believes those who lead the Army and the DoD
are "criminals" and some are guilty of "treason" and some are "extremely
depraved individuals" (Video at 5:58). Below that level, he doesn’t trust a single colonel or general, but not
because they are “bad guys”; rather, they are “good guys” (in air
quotes), but they're weak, don't have a lot of integrity, don't
understand how the world works, allowed themselves to get duped, and
because their careers depend on this mindset, they're not going to
question it (Video at 1:29:07). Similarly, despite otherwise praising his peers, those
who remain in the military are "weak, … do not have their country’s
best interest at heart,” there are commanders at every level who are
“complete cowards” with “no integrity,” there are leaders who are
engaged in activity to destroy the country, and those who remain in
uniform are "cowards and cucks” (Video at 13:59 to 16:38).
Miller himself acknowledges that he is "conflicted" in how he views his former peers and their career progression (Video at 30:13 to 32:20).
Conflict is evident in Miller’s simultaneous judgment that
taxpayer-funded public servants can be “good,” “fantastic” and “really
great” while simultaneously exhibiting cowardice and a lack
of integrity. The same goes for his assessment that officers can be
“highly, highly, highly intelligent,” “cerebral,” and “very smart,” at
the same time that they’re unable to think critically or strategically
or to grapple with complexity.
What explains Miller’s conflicted views? In my opinion, Miller’s
conflicted assessment of his peers and superiors is likely in part the
result of friendship attachments, but also the attachment he had for the
ideal of “the commander” (I would even suggest the myth) and the
fraternity of commanders that Miller briefly identified with as a
member. To question all those commanders is to question his own briefly held identity as one. If those commanders were all so cowardly, lacking in integrity, and unable to grapple with complexity, then is being a commander really a prestigious and huge accomplishment?
Further, I think it likely that the trauma of being relieved from
command, removed from this fraternity, and of being ostracized in some
measure was a heart-breaking moment for him that played a large part in his decision to resign. Consider Miller’s discussion of “positive”
moments he had with General McGee, followed by a discussion of McGee’s
failure to fire him in person. Miller fishes for a word to describe
that failure, saying that it would be too strong to say he wouldn't
"forgive him for it" and settling on "wrong" and “cowardly” (Video at 1:24:24). The emotion is evident on Miller's face as he describes his boss not firing him in person.
In addition, as Miller describes it, while working on McGee’s staff he
might have been a "pariah," and he was viewed as a staff Lieutenant
Colonel who was “clearly not on the team” and that some may have even
thought was a “zealot” (Video at 5:31).
I believe these slights—the failure to fire Miller in person, the
belated email notice of removal from a staff Major, and some degree of
ostracization by the fraternity of commanders he was so proud to have
briefly been a part of—were primary motivating factors for Miller’s
resignation, which go unacknowledged in Miller’s recitation
of his decision-making. Even now the emotion, resulting from what was
obviously a significant and very real trauma that, I believe, led to an intense emotional state and a desire to simply make the situation end (which Miller might
inaccurately describe as "moral injury"), is readily apparent. The emotion is obvious and understandable. Miller claims he's "angry" and "frustrated" about what happened
to his career, and yet is also "completely at peace" with it because he
has "moved on" (Video at 29:04). He clearly has not yet fully processed the events. But
has he moved on? His media interviews, blog posts, and videos suggest
otherwise. And the question then becomes, is the Declaration of Military
Accountability campaign that he champions truly about
accountability for him? Or is it about righting perceived personal wrongs? Or leveraging his background as best he can, hoping for yet another rung on the government ladder?
CONCLUSION: Brad Miller is A Poor Representative for Military Accountability
Based on all of the above, I think there are two possible conclusions
you can draw from Brad Miller’s performance and decision-making while in
the military. Neither supports Miller’s leadership or representation of
the covid accountability movement.
One way to view events, and the most likely in my view, is that Miller
disobeyed what he then thought was a lawful order. Miller correctly
states that military readiness requires obeying lawful orders, even
orders we don’t agree with. But he did not follow this principle,
because he did not know the mandate was unlawful when he disobeyed it. And it appears to me that rather than being driven by concerns about
illegality, Miller acted out of fealty to a religious “worldview” in
refusing the mandate. He held out hope that the mandate would be
rescinded and he would be returned to command. Instead, he was
ostracized, and only then did he resign. But even having made the
choice to resign, after discovering the order was unlawful, Miller
failed to protest the mandate’s illegality to his superiors, despite
recognizing them as highly intelligent—presumably out of fear of damage
to his reputation (ie being seen as "an absolute nut case"). Miller
chose to leave the service after disobeying an order he then believed
was lawful; he was not forced.
In this view of his actions, Miller did not act in accordance with this
bedrock value of public service whereby public officials, no matter
their personal morality, are funded by the taxpayer to execute the
lawful wishes of the American people, as expressed through their
representatives. In public service, the official morality is the
morality of the whole of the American people distilled into our law.
Lawfulness is the only guardrail for a professional military officer.
Just as it would be immoral to sign a contract with a home buyer, take
his money, and then build the house you think looks nicer rather than
the house you agreed to build, it is also immoral for a military officer
to take great sums of money to be trained at West Point, accept a
paycheck and further expensive training, and then not execute lawful orders
simply because you disagree with them. Catholic, Muslim, Vegan, or
Atheist are obliged to operate solely according to the law of the land
once they don a uniform, they are not paid or permitted to fashion their
official action from private ideology. To do otherwise would be, in a very real sense, to
"infiltrate" our public government.
In the second possible interpretation of his actions, Miller disobeyed
an order that he thought was treasonous (i.e., an order that required
making war on the United States, adhering to enemies or providing them
aid or comfort). I think this interpretation is less likely, but it
would explain his refusal, because he would have believed the mandate
was unlawful. But if this was his view—that the mandate was tantamount
to an act of war on the United States—how is it enough to do nothing but
personally refuse? Before the mandate, while in command of a battalion
of roughly 700 soldiers, Miller did not exercise his command authority
to order those in his charge not to take the shot. He did not publicly
warn them about a shot that (in this interpretation) he believed was
designed to do them harm. Later, once there was a mandate, he publicly
told his soldiers that he was “agnostic” about their personal decision.
Miller did not even convey to his superiors that the shot was an
unlawful and an unconstitutional treasonous attack on military readiness,
out of concern for damage to his reputation. And even after being
relieved of command, Miller hoped he would be returned to command in an organization that he believed (in this view) was complicit in treason via the mandate.
Miller did ultimately decide to resign, at least in part based on his
regret for spending over a decade in service to a government that he
believed had slaughtered 3000 of its own citizens, but how is leaving
without in-service protest all that different from staying in? Why is protesting, outside of office, being faithful to an oath of office no longer occupied, while protesting in executive office not possible?
Whichever conclusion is more accurate, it must be concluded that Brad Miller is a poor
representative for military accountability. Whether he failed to follow
what he thought was a lawful order, or whether he failed to exercise
command authority to protect the soldiers in his battalion against an
unlawful action intended to harm them, in both situations he failed to
provide his assessment of the illegality of the order (whichever
timeline of discovering unlawfulness) to his superiors for fear of his
reputation being damaged. Any attempt to now pass that information to
military leadership as a civilian at a minimum lacks credibility, and
risks the effectiveness of any cause of military accountability
championed by him.
In short, a military commander who got it wrong and did not pass information up his chain of command is in no position to
demand accountability from other military commanders who also got it
wrong.
II. Mr. Miller’s Fitness for Public Office
In addition to representing the military accountability campaign,
Miller is also apparently contemplating again seeking public office.
Beyond what I view as his prior failures in public office while serving
in the military, some of his statements raise grave concerns for me
about the direction he would take the country. Specifically, I am
troubled by (A) his declining support for the Constitution as a
foundational document; (B) his "worldview," which in my opinion is
superstitious and tends toward theocracy and divisiveness; (C) the
dangers that can occur when decision-making is driven by such a
worldview; and (D) his motivations for seeking public office.
A. Mr. Miller Is a Constitutionalist, “But…”
In considering Mr. Miller's fitness for public office, which is a
personal and subjective endeavor where reasonable people will disagree, I
personally find Mr. Miller's admittedly declining support for our
Constitution to be troubling—at least so long as the public office at
issue requires an oath to support our Constitution.
One of Miller’s strongest attributes, in my estimation, is his knowledge of the Constitution and early American history. In a video well worth watching,
Mr. Miller gives an excellent rundown of the ratification of the
Constitution, questions about its legitimacy, federalist and
anti-federalist perspectives, and problems associated with the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Mr. Miller also, I think correctly, describes the Constitution as a
flawed document, although he does not point to any specifics. Due to
these unspecified flaws (which I have no doubt he could identify), he says that he is a constitutionalist, “but” he is “less of a
constitutionalist” than he was a couple of years ago and that his “view
of the Constitution is less staunch" than in previous years, because he
had a far higher opinion of the Constitution then (Video at 1:52 to 4:14).
Mr. Miller then explains, however, that he would like to “audit” the
government of the United States, at least as a thought experiment, by
assembling delegates in a convention that includes political
philosophers, historians, lawyers, theologians, economists, religious
leaders, and other "experts,"—so long as "we" can trust them—to look at
previous governments and Christian empires for potential incorporation
into a new way of governance. In his view, the Founders largely
used Rome and Ancient Greece as models, but he would like to
include the thousand year "Christian Empire," the Byzantine Empire, as a
possible model to be emulated in some unspecified way—even though the
Byzantine era spans a timeframe that generally terminates with the end
of the Middle and Dark Ages (Video at 1:34:20 to 1:38:10).
Mr. Miller asks where does sovereignty lie? Is it with the federal
government, the States, the people, or God? He says he wishes smart
people, religious leaders, economists and such would get together and
whiteboard everything out. Although Mr. Miller would like to audit our
system of government, he says that he is a "constitutionalist" because
he recognizes it is the supreme law of the land, and there are some good
principles in it, despite it not being an overt Christian document (Video at 1:40:30 to 1:42:46).
Mr. Miller's knowledge of the Constitution is impressive and he
demonstrates an honest textual approach. He has the integrity to admit
that the Constitution is not a Christian document. I agree with him on
that, as the document never mentions God or a deity and the only two
times it mentions religion is to limit the federal government's ability
to establish a religion, use religious tests for office, or to infringe
on the right of the people to worship. It appears that it frustrates
Mr. Miller that the Constitution is not a Christian document, but he has
the honesty to make an accurate assessment all the same.
All that said, I am troubled by his proposal to “audit” the
Constitution, even as a thought experiment. Our Constitution has a
mechanism for changing it through an amendment process, and Mr. Miller
is correct that the document is flawed. I would like to see several
amendments. But the apparent desire to re-write the document from its
foundations up seems to me similar to Marxist efforts to do the same,
starting from their own secular religious ideology. Mr. Miller's
desire to "audit" the document using experts that he trusts, to
include religious leaders and theologians, while potentially modeling a
Christian Empire that peaked during the Dark Ages worries me. While he does not describe what portions of medieval governance he would
like to consider for emulation in America, he appears concerned about
the limited role of religion within it (at least for his personal
religious ideology). Were he in a position to pull levers of political
power to direct government violence and govern the citizenry, I would
find his worldview, coupled with his desire to make major alterations to
the government’s structure concerning and potentially dangerous.
B. Mr. Miller's Theocratic Tendency, Divisiveness, and Superstitious Mindset
Mr. Miller's "worldview" can ultimately be summed up as one of "spiritual
warfare" where Satan controls or influences the actions of people,
governments, and shapes world events. For him, understanding this
spiritual warfare is vital to combating the evil in our government. He
believes many if not most Christians do not understand spiritual warfare,
even if they claim they do. In my opinion, Mr. Miller’s worldview is
superstitious and tends toward favoring theocracy and fostering
divisiveness. For these reasons, it raises concerns for me, if he were
to seek public office. Here are a few examples of Mr. Miller’s worldview:
He not only believes that the attacks of September 11th were an
inside job by the U.S. government slaughtering its own citizens, but
also believes this mass murder was actually an occult magic ritual and
human sacrifice. Mr. Miller states that "you may think that's crazy...I
don't think it's crazy, I've read the book, I think the argument is
compelling" and that it jives with his worldview as a Christian where he
believes in our world God is warring with "evil people" and "demonic
entities" in a "spiritual war" that people either don't know about or
are afraid to talk about (Video 9:46 to 13:00).
He talks about "Twilight Language" where communications are made in the
media and elsewhere that are like secret code where people don't
understand the messaging on a conscious level. He thinks the JFK assassination was likely an occult ritual, and claims
that plenty of researchers have come to this conclusion (Video at 2:39).
Mr. Miller believes that the people at the top of the cabal or the
“pyramid,” who aim to control the world, are not atheists, but are
actually people who have deliberately chosen to follow evil. Those at
the very top know that God exists, and have chosen to fight him (Video at 25:16 to 26:15).
The way people think and the views they hold about the world are
central to what Mr. Miller calls "worldview warfare," akin to
psychological warfare, which is meant to impair your worldview and
understanding of how the world works and could impair your faith-based
views (Video at 17:54 to 19:27).
He believes we are in a spiritual war that exists physically as well as psychologically, philosophically, and theologically (Video at 23:54). Mr. Miller believes there are "evil people" who deliberately seek the
assistance of “evil entities” to operate against good people. He
believes the world is ruled by "the Evil One," and that many or most
Christians think they understand this but don't. In his view, the world
is more evil than we see and we can't see it because of the "worldview
warfare" perpetrated against us as part of the overarching spiritual war (Video at 26:26 to 28:24).
He explains that worldview warfare hinders our ability to challenge our
own assumptions and worldview. One of the things Miller was taught at
the School of Advanced Military Studies was to challenge assumptions, be
a heretic, and go against the orthodoxy. His problem with the school
was that people weren't willing to go far enough in challenging their
worldview, to the point of a psychologically existential moment, like
the moment where he concluded that 9/11 was an inside job (Video at 41:19 to 44:10).
Mr. Miller sums up his "worldview" by stating that there are evil
people who hate God and humanity, communicate with "evil entities," and
use spiritual warfare to engage in "worldview warfare" to degrade our
ability to accurately understand the world and our view of politics (Video at 55:26 to 58:41).
So, why does this worldview trouble me in reference to Mr. Miller
potentially serving in office? Because there are indications that he
would tend to want to require others to adhere to his worldview—that
is, that he would tend toward theocracy. Mr. Miller states that if he were an employer, if a job applicant had taken
the shot, he would have to question their "worldview" and he might not
hire them because of that, though he might—maybe, maybe not (Video at 26:17).
While his hypothetical involves a private company where he would be
free to hire as he saw fit, I have to wonder if this impulse would not
color his decisions in public office given his worldview is first and
foremost in his mind.
He also states that he used to consider himself a "lower case
L" libertarian, but he now considers himself post-libertarian in some ways. He thinks
libertarians might be political allies, but libertarianism can be
fraught with problems as well (Video at 6:42).
He does not specify what problems he detects in a philosophy that
prizes personal sovereignty and liberty over forces that wish to control
individuals.
So why does Mr. Miller's belief in spiritual warfare, evil entities, and men communicating with demonic entities while controlling governments and corporations concern me in the context of a government office? I turn to that next.
C. Religion Is a Bedrock of American Greatness, But Can Be Dangerous
Christianity has been a force multiplier for the greatest moments in
American history. There is a reason the Founders lauded the moral
framework that came from a religious upbringing, with some saying it was
necessary to secure liberty in our young nation. Quakers, in
particular, have been on the right side of nearly every struggle in
America going back to the founding itself. The abolitionist and civil
rights movements relied deeply on a wellspring of faith and religious
organization. But colonial America also suffered from the awful
combination of religion and politics that produced the Salem witch
trials. The learned Founders were fortunately well versed in the
destructive combination of religion and government machinery, so such
events did not typically occur after 1776. (The Klan was Protestant and
anti-Catholic, and adept at infiltrating government office, but they
primarily disgraced public office from non-federal positions, and their
hatred and bigotry was primarily not religious in nature). On the
whole, America after 1776 has reaped the best that religious values have
to offer, while limiting the excesses of religious fervency that have so
frequently led to hatred, torture, and murder through history.
Our military has also benefited greatly from the character that
religion can instill in service members. The story of Desmond Doss is
but one example, and there are no doubt a great many others whose stories have never been told. When it comes to the kind of courage and sacrifice required to storm the beaches of Normandy, to face death and even certain death in the most horrific of circumstances, a strong belief in God is so often present among soldiers that the familiar saying goes, there are no atheists in foxholes. While that saying isn't strictly correct, it points to a larger truth. And yet, there are also excesses and extremes that come
with religious ideology. That is as true of traditional theistic
religions as it is of secular religions that are actively destroying our
nation today (ie Wokeism, Marxism).
Simply put, unconstrained by guardrails that limit the interaction
between religion and government machinery, religious fervor can be
dangerous. Lest you disagree, I am about to give one example of a
military officer whose religious ideology overrode his obligations and
oath as a public servant. The point is to invite the reader to consider
that, while every American has the right to believe as they see fit and
to worship as they see fit, adhering to religious ideology does not always generate good. Religious ideologies can include hateful, superstitious, and un-American values as well and can conflict with the obligations of the public servant.
Disclaimer up front: the example I am about to give
is a violent one, and I am not suggesting that Mr. Miller could or
would commit violence. I have never seen him advocate the use of
violence; in fact he has expressly said he is not advocating violence,
and he has properly discussed the important constitutional right of
self-defense against unlawful violence (Video at 17:20).
I am not suggesting equivalence between Mr. Miller and my example.
I do not bring up this example to suggest that Mr. Miller's views or
potential actions are like my example. Too often today, on all sides of
political aisles, demonization has been used against people with
differing, and especially minority, viewpoints. Mr. Miller accurately
discusses how the term “conspiracy theorist" is problematically weaponized to call into question a person's mental health (Video at 25:04).
It is common to question the mental health of people with differing
views, especially if they are military veterans—where the term PTSD gets
thrown around frequently, at least in my experience. I have been the
target of these tactics from both conservatives and liberals, as well as
other military officers, and by Mr. Miller himself (ironically
in response to a line of questions about his belief that the Twin
Towers were an "occult symbol" along with the numbers nine and eleven) and I want to be clear that I am not doing that here. Again: Mr. Miller’s
views, past actions, or potential future actions are not like my
example’s. The reason for the example is that it invites readers to
consider what happens if we foster governmental structures where an
individual public servant’s worldview can prevail over our public law. You might agree with some or all of Mr. Miller’s worldview, but I doubt you
will agree with my example’s, and therein lies the problem: our public
servants’ actions must be determined and constrained by public law, not
private worldview. For them to be so unconstrained is for them to infiltrate our government with design outside the scope of public service.
My example is a field grade officer who served in the active duty Army.
He had taken an oath to support the Constitution. He was paid by
taxpayers to act in accordance with our laws, whatever his personal
religious beliefs might have been, and, ironically, he swore before God
to do just that. But it was a source of frustration and conflict for
him. He ultimately decided that his conception of his duty to God
overrode any secular oath he swore to the United States (Article, pg 15). He later stated in court (Article, pg 18) :
"I broke an explicit covenant—my oath of office—that I took
voluntarily, not under duress... I ... regret both making a covenant
that had the potential to force me to fight against my religion and I
now regret breaking such an inviolable oath..."
The officer did not grow up overly religious, but over time became deeply religious. His religious views
became the focus of his life, which naturally carries with it a
potential conflict when it comes to public service. Public service
cannot be conducted as if a clergy position for a church. It is a job that requires the public official to execute the will
of the American people, who have differing religious views. If someone
undertakes public office while intending to place their personal
religious values ahead of public law when taking action as a public
servant, then they could accurately be said to have "infiltrated" public office,
because they would in fact have “mental reservations” to supporting and
defending the Constitution, contrary to the oath, and they take office
while motivated by private values.
The officer in my example could be described as such an “infiltrator.” Tragically, this particular Army officer let
his personal beliefs and personal values override the obligations of
his public office in a horrific fashion. He had a theistic worldview, supported theocracy, and he believed that it was justifiable to kill
those who would seek to prevent others from establishing a theocratic
form of government (Article, pg 20).
Again, it must be repeated, Mr. Miller is not my example. Again, he
expressly disclaims any advocacy of violence. So again I will ask and
answer, why even bring up the example? I bring it up only to invite the
reader to consider whether there are inherent dangers in welcoming
public officials to guide their actions in a public office according to
varied religious ideologies (secular or otherwise). Mr. Miller appears at
least open to drawing from the lessons of a Christian Empire that
coincided with the Dark Ages to restructure our government. Is that not
dangerous? Not everyone with Mr. Miller’s worldview would have his scruples. If an individual's worldview is that Satan controls evil men to do evil things to others, it
would be a tiny (and logical) step to conclude that it is justifiable to
kill such evil men, because they are doing the will of the source of
all evil. It would be quite reasonable, given those religious assumptions, to justify using the machinery of government at your disposal against enemies in a spiritual war. History is replete with horrific examples of this very thing (witch trials, crusades, even Catholics killing other Catholics over a mere difference of opinion on whether the sacrament was symbolic or literally became flesh and blood in the mouth), something our
Founders knew all too well and labored to prevent in our Republic; labor that frustrates Mr. Miller.
D. Motivations for Public Office
Mr. Miller says that people "joke" sometimes about him being the
Secretary of Defense. He says he thinks that the idea is ludicrous as he was
just a Lt Col, and says he's not lobbying for that position and that he will never
be in that position. Mr. Miller then spends several minutes talking about his
qualifications, or lack thereof, for that particular job (Video at 15:00 to 18:00).
Given the Declaration of Military Accountability, Mr. Miller's statement about considering public office, and his efforts to build an audience on social media, it seems to me that he is attempting to position himself for some kind of future public office. But why?
Again, assigning motivations is fraught. I am merely speculating, but it seems to me that Mr. Miller is interested in public office again because it would in some way, in his mind, restore the identity that was stripped from him by the Army. It would be another government-bestowed (or People bestowed were he elected) title and identity, a badge of excellence and worth. As a civilian in the executive branch, or as a member of the legislature, Mr. Miller would outrank those "cowards and cucks" who stripped him of the prestigious title of "commander" and then ostracized him, made him a pariah, perhaps thought he was a "zealot," and dodged meetings with him and no longer communicate with him.
There are issues with Mr. Miller's current view that the military is too infiltrated, and too far gone, for him to recommend others serve in it (or to serve in it again himself if offered the opportunity) while he considers public office in the larger government that he similarly criticizes for being similarly infiltrated and corrupt. Yet he is considering that very thing. Mr. Miller also gives some indication of another possible motivation. He likely wishes to use public office to further his personal religious "worldview." Mr. Miller explains:
"I want to see our country become the country under God that we have
long purported it to be...that's not an accurate assessment of our
country right now...but I want to change that, but it's going to take a
lot of action, in fact, as a Christian, one of the principles I believe
in is being a man of action, not just talking, not just acting in
theory, but being a man of action (Video at 24:22)."
CONCLUSION: Mr. Miller is Not Currently Fit for Public Office
Mr. Miller has many fine qualities including an excellent understanding
of the Constitution and American history. Given his past substandard
performance in public office, however, and his expression of some values
that potentially deny important Enlightenment values in favor of
theocratic values closer to the Middle or Dark Ages, I do not think Mr.
Miller is currently fit for public office. This is, of course, just a
personal preference and certainly others with a more theocratic frame of
mind, among others, would likely differ with me.
While I do have some questions about Brad's character (and they
are questions, not conclusions), he has shown a greater capacity for
self reflection and study than most people I experience. As such, even
as he approaches middle age, he might continue to develop and improve his thinking, and perhaps eventually be worthy of public office. We humans are
not static creatures.
That being said, it seems to me that after the trauma Brad has
suffered, he would be better served by taking some time to learn and
reflect, rather than to teach and "lead." Instead of seeking another
government-issued identity through a public office or presenting
"answers" to an audience as a teacher (which risks audience-capture at a time when more reflection is needed), Brad might instead consider forty days and forty
nights in the desert to challenge his assumptions, ask questions, and
to reflect further on his past performance and on the honest root motivations
behind any desire he has for public office. Is it about him and his pride? Or is he actually trying to serve others?
Brad has fine qualities but he does have, at least as it appears to me, some challenges when engaged in actual conversation or debate, rather than delivered soliloquy; defensiveness, somewhat of a propensity for insult and ad hominem, projection, and even demonization. These responses to his viewpoint being questioned may well indicate the kind of insecurity that comes from incomplete thinking and unchallenged assumptions and, ultimately, a weak worldview. Notwithstanding this observation, it should be remembered that Brad is processing some serious trauma and discussion over on Twitter, and other social media avenues, which is a bit of a wild west that invites something akin to "road rage" rather than sober discussion. I am not convinced that Brad is best defined by some of his social media interactions. That is a space in which we modern humans rarely put forward our best foot.
An incomplete worldview is a guarantee for the entirety of our existence and a weak worldview is also a requirement of our shared human condition. None of us are born with a correct roadmap of this increasingly complicated world. It is inevitable and necessary that we be wrong, and even vocally wrong, about things we feel passionately right about. The undying love for a girl that parents don't understand because even they never knew a "love" so real, a friendship so bonded that disloyalty was never a question until it was, adherence to a political party or cause that turned out to be wrong, association with a particular religious institution or ideology that turned out more of the world than merely in it; these are just some of the ways we are commonly wrong about things we feel so very right about and I have been pretty much wrong about all of them at some point in my own imperfect life.
My favorite question when examining an adult's credibility is to ask, "what were you wrong about, that you passionately and strongly believed you were right about, something vitally important to you." Those who can't point to something meaningfully real that they were wrong about are simply not serious about searching for truth. Having the ability to challenge our worldviews, give up false assumptions even while risking our psychological safety blankets and built up identities and self esteem in the quest for truth, is a hellfire that most people could not even fathom crossing. Have no doubt, the minority of us who actually, truly, sincerely care about truth, must walk through torture to embrace it. It is not an easy task as though choosing an opinion like selecting from a salad bar. There is a reason why propaganda and social conformity are so powerful for the vast majority of people. Most people are truly, permanently, weak and they do not have the desire, let alone the strength of character, to seek the truth when it means going against social comforts.
But Brad does have that strength of character in some measure. While he failed to demonstrate it to his superiors out of concern about what they would think of him, he undeniably demonstrated it when he refused the shot and risked the disapproval of not just his peers, but of those he idolized -- commanders. That is no small thing. In fact, I think it may well be the most important human character trait ever. To be wrong is unavoidable, but to care about being right in the first place is rare. It requires a courage that few can muster in any measure. We will all be wrong, that is inescapable, but having the fortitude to risk something meaningful in the pursuit of being right is a precious characteristic. And one that I believe Brad and I share in some degree.
Our Many Similarities, Some Differences, and My Bias
Earlier in this long blog post I promised to lay out some similarities
and differences between Brad and myself to hopefully lay bear my biases
for the reader's consideration. I do have a strong bias and it is relevant to this discussion. I'll begin with our great many
similarities.
There are the cosmetic similarities. We were both military officers
and we both resigned our commissions. We both greatly value our library of books which
likely have some significant overlap in areas of study as we are both interested in
the topics of religion and philosophy. My undergraduate degree was in
Religion and I have a minor in Philosophy. We are both theists. We
both consider (or used to) ourselves libertarian. We both have an uncommon appreciation for the Constitution of the United States, even among our peers who also took the oath to support and defend it with true allegiance.
The similarities do not end there. Brad and I both think the shot was the product of evil intention. We both think there are
groups that control governments and the world, including corporations,
that fight among themselves and that perpetrate evil against humanity
and we agree that these groups are comprised of people who are not
incompetent. We agree they operate in the shadows and supersede
political parties and state actors and we see little to no difference between Democrats and Republicans. We both agree that government loves to lie and deceive.
Brad and I both admire the Founding
Fathers, especially Ben Franklin, and have a distaste for Hamilton.
We are both aware of the very real stress that comes from not going with the flow in the context of a military career. We both agree that the vast majority of those
in government do not care about
the Constitution. Brad provides valuable video discussions of our Constitution, and accurately discusses it in social media including discussion of the right of secession; so also have I for many years. While I did not make videos about the Constitution, I did personally run and fund cadet essay contests focused on constitutional topics with
the goal of preparing cadets for their oaths of office; writing $1000 checks to essay winners from the Air Force Academy and several ROTC programs.
But Brad and I also have some differences. I do not share his view that 9/11 was inflicted upon the American people by our government. I do not believe in "evil entities" communing with humans and think humans are more than capable of being incredibly evil without any assistance.
The most glaring difference between us, however, is how we approached our military service; not our voiced views, but rather our demonstrated action.
Brad was a careerist who greatly valued the title and
status of "commander" and his desire to "achieve" that status affected
how he interacted with his superiors. He gives one example of this when
contemplating whether to "challenge [his] boss... pretty overtly" and discusses
his concern that this might sabotage his chance of becoming a
battalion commander although it wouldn't prevent him from being promoted (Video at 7:14). In a second related example as a battalion commander, he
explains that he did not tell his superiors why he thought the shot
mandate was treasonous or unconstitutional because they would have thought he was an "absolute nut
case" at a time when he still had hope he would be reinstated into command and make it to
retirement.
My approach to the military profession could not have been any more different than Brad's approach. From the very beginning I spoke truth to, and challenged, power in the military and happily suffered for it. I had
long rejected the idea that you could "make a difference" if you
"played the game" and "picked your battles" and got to the right position of influence. Despite my father making the highest enlisted rank in the Air Force, I never considered rank or title to be hallmarks of achievement (and I'm married to an O-6 in the USAFR). Rather, I graduated from Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT), got my wings, and thereafter considered my career expendable. I
sought to serve rather than to achieve titles like rank or position. I shared the service philosophy made famous by the great fighter pilot, John Boyd, who made clear that you can "be" or you can "do." And that bias is one I readily recognize and present to the reader here. In my view, as shared by Boyd, those who seek and achieve command in our military are almost always those who serve themselves rather than the American people. They want to "be" something rather than "do" something. There are, of course, exceptions but I am unquestionably biased against careerists.
Brad sought to be a commander. He performed in the military such that supervisors promoted him and offered him command. In an organization as distant from constitutional principles as the one Brad accurately now describes, those "men of action" who labor for their oaths of office while in the service do not typically advance, just as Serpico did not get offered the position of Chief of Police. If an organization is bad, then advancing in that organization is an indictment. Brad got offered a command position and received glowing evaluations. He prides himself greatly on what he sees as a "huge accomplishment." We differ in what we label an accomplishment.
I did not prioritize promotion or position. I never wrote my own performance report for the boss to sign (something all careerists do) and I was the only person on my thirteen man crew who refused to put in for the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) during the hit night Al Faw invasion (as I felt, and still feel, my personal inexperienced performance that night did not merit one--I was awarded the medal anyway). So also, I did not quibble when the Wing Commander told me he thought I had little chance of promotion to Major. I simply chuckled, shook his hand, and told him "thanks for giving it to me with the bark on, sir" and left the meeting he scheduled me to attend with him. When my squadron commander in my
Special Operations squadron brought me in for regular career counseling as a Captain and asked me what I wanted out of the military, I told him that
my only goal was to look myself in the mirror and respect myself and that I didn't care about promotion or career advancement. I lived that and my
career was filled with battles and scars as a result. One thing the military and I agreed upon early on, was that I was not going to be given command of anything more than an aircraft and crew.
Unburdened by thoughts of promotion or career, I set out to do what I could do to make the service better and to defend our Constitution.
Consider, as a young Captain AC-130U Aircraft Commander, that I informed my
squadron leadership that if I got a call from law enforcement, while
flying a local training mission, to participate in a manhunt, that I
would refuse to participate as such action violated the law (these
requests were infrequent but did occur). My leadership had no issue
with my stance, although some other pilots strongly disagreed with my
decision.
Also consider my disagreement with a different squadron commander in
that same unit, while deployed, over a chaplain showing up to every
single mission crew brief and leading a public prayer; something that violated
Air Force regulation at the time. The commander (a principled and devout Christian man) disagreed with my take, which was
unpopular in the squadron to say the least, but he actually defended me from his superiors who wanted me punished, in order to
give me space to make the argument to him (which included me contacting the head chaplain at the Pentagon). During that process I convinced my commander and the public prayers before missions ceased. The chaplain offered to avoid the briefs after that, and I suggested the chaplain could have a voluntary meeting minutes before the brief so that my crew members could attend without coercion. Many years later, I invited that same squadron commander to give the invocation at my
retirement ceremony and he did so. He was the best commander I have ever worked for, without question, and I say that while acknowledging that my community had no shortage of truly great combat commanders. That community was not, in my view, representative of the service or military as a whole. It was an exception, not the rule.
The real demonstration of my approach to public service, however, was after this
when I volunteered to be an instructor pilot in our Air Education and
Training Command (AETC) as a Major. While in that position, I started
this blog with all of its criticisms of Air Force policy, met with
an Air Force Times reporter over a challenge I was mounting against an Air
University anti-free speech action in order to pressure a general
officer in my command to do the right thing. That general officer did finally do the right thing as a result. I suspect he wasn't pleased with my efforts though.
Separate from that action, I filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint on my squadron commander, Operations Group Commander,
Wing Commander, two-star 19th Air Force commander, and the four-star
AETC commander. I was warned before I did this by my squadron
commander (again, in the training command, not a commander from the Special Operations community) that I would get a "screw up [my] ass" if I filed the
complaint. As part of that complaint I covertly recorded a staff
meeting that gave me the evidence I needed for my complaint. The civilian in that meeting who worked for the four-star and provided me that information informed me "oh my, I think you have made a problem for us both." My
complaint went all the way to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) level
before being dismissed. But the regulation change I requested in that complaint was
made nonetheless very shortly after.
Also while in that non-combat training command, I filed a lawsuit against an oath-breaking police officer, and another lawsuit against
oath-breaking Border Patrol agents. I spent about $100,000 of my own
money in those two failed lawsuits. Both the police officer and the Border Patrol agents contacted my military leadership. And during that time period I had the privilege of showing
up in blues to my Operations Group (OG) commander's office to get verbally
reprimanded (escorted by my squadron's Director of Operations) where
that O-6 commander (the equivalent of Brad's Brigade Commander) told me that I should have voiced no objection to the police
officer's orders even knowing them to be unconstitutional. To
which I responded by telling that O-6 (and later two-star general officer) to his face, in front of my squadron DO, that he was "un-American." In response to that, he tried to turn off my assignment back to the Special Operations community. He failed. But that training command did ensure I would not be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and they nearly got me removed from service during a subsequent Reduction in Force (RIF).
Ironically, despite lucking out of their designs for my departure from service, there was the time, after leaving that careerist non-combat command
and going back to my combat command, that I was ordered to assassinate an American citizen outside of a war zone who was no
imminent threat, refused that order, and tendered my resignation
at the fifteen year point. This resulted in the Air Force investigating me and, in a rare example of justice in our military, finding for me and issuing an opinion about my fidelity to the Constitution. My resignation was not accepted.
Unlike Brad, I approached public service as a means to serve the
American people and did not concentrate on promotion or career. I had few "red lines" which is why my blog is titled as it is, as so many would advise me to pick my battles. I would ask them to name a battle they had picked and, of course, they came up empty. In the business of conflict, military officers should not shy away from doing what is right for the nation and should be happy to give up their career at the drop of a hat. Somebody handing
me a stick with a flag on it did not make me a worthy military officer
and public servant, but rather, my actions did. And those actions almost
certainly do not come with promotion as John Boyd famously explained. That is the cost of being a
faithful public servant rather than an image on a chain of command
display on the wall.
End Transmission — You Still Here?
I have a bias as we all do and I have provided my thoughts on Brad's fitness to represent the military accountability cause or to occupy public office according to my lights. None of us are perfect, but we have to up our standards for public service or we will continue to get the same people in office who are not up to the task. The cause of government accountability, military or otherwise, has never been more important in American history than it is today. May God help us achieve it.
Posts
