"...do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

"For the good of the Air Force, for the good of the armed services and for the good of our country, I urge you to reject convention and careerism..."
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Maxwell AFB, April 21, 2008

"You will need to challenge conventional wisdom and call things like you see them to subordinates and superiors alike."
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, United States Air Force Academy, March 4, 2011

Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Former Army Lt Col Brad Miller: An Ineffective Voice for Military Accountability

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-à-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).


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.


  1. We all have been lied to. Instead of sitting back and sulking Brad has been honest about his journey and discovery of information. Much of this has been heavily censored and those of us who worked so hard to get it out were silenced, attacked, mocked. What exactly have you done about the mandate situation, you seemed to have hid yourself and now want find some attention by obsessively psycho analyzing another human being trying to compare yourself. Get the plank out of your own eye.

    1. What I have done, or have not done, about the mandate situation is irrelevant to the criticisms of Mr. Miller.

      If you want to be in an accountability movement to hold others in the military accountable, you must have moral standing. A failed military officer who refused to speak up while he was in the military, and refused to do right by the troops in his charge, is not a credible voice for accountability for other failed officers.

      This shouldn't be a difficult concept.

  2. Doubt you’ll approve any comments because you sit back like a teenage girl obsessing about how to make yourself appear better than others

  3. You can’t sit back on the sidelines creating your own echo chamber and call it battle. The battle right now is with yourself Richard. You seem to want some glory and your catching attention for all the wrong reasons.

    1. That sounds deep. Besides your commentary about what you imagine about me and my motivations, do you have any commentary about the substance of the blog post? If you're going to lash out against anybody who criticizes somebody you like or identify with, rather than engage in actual substance, you're going to reap the benefits of all tribal efforts. Bad politicians depend on people to do exactly that.

      If you want to be represented by principled people rather than the usual politicians (in uniform or not), a first step is being a person of principle yourself.

    2. “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)
      directly followed by “and I challenged him anyway”

    3. Thanks for quoting the blog post. Was there are larger point that quote was meant to support?

    4. Yes the fact that your point is mute. As Brad challenge stated he challenged him anyway… So much for someone being allowed to have an honest internal dialogue during a difficult time. It’s sort of sad you misinterpreted that reality we all go through as an opportunity to weaponize and attack someone for doing the harder, right thing. Not sure what you’re trying to prove here 🤔

    5. The fact that Miller once challenged his boss despite thinking it might affect his ability to command, makes my point moot? How does him challenging his boss about some unknown issue have any relevance to Miller failing to order his troops not to take a vax that he says he knew was part of a treasonous plot (before there was any mandate), or have any relevance to the fact that Miller admits he never brought up the illegality of the mandate to his superiors (even when he realized it was unlawful)? How was that Miller doing the harder, right thing?

      It's simple. Brad once challenged his boss over some unknown issue. Good. But he failed massively later in a position of responsibility, and he is not a credible voice to now demand accountability of other failed military officers. A guy who said he would not publicly trounce the Army's position when he was a commander and who never once brought up the illegality of the mandate to his superiors, is not a credible voice for accountability. It is what it is.

    6. Yes the point is moot. You’re the one trying to give relevance to it, by citing it as some example on how he cared about his career. So….okay? Many of us cared about our careers and faced sacrifices. Brad said clearly he did not agree with the shots, he would not concede that they were safe or effective, he stated that multiple times and it is why he resigned. To prove treason there needs to be an investigation and evidence which many have been working on despite those coming against them. The bait and switch with the EUA was also a heavy investigation that took multiple people collecting screenshots and evidence to disseminate amongst the troops who were working to try and resist this.

    7. Well, I certainly don't think the point is moot. Brad has said he knew it was "treason" at the time the shot came out. Yet he didn't order his troops not to take the treasonous shot, even before there was a mandate.

      Let's say the Army were to hand out "morale challenge coins" force wide to those who wanted them. Let's say Brad knew that these coins were made in China with lead that would leak and poison them. Brad knew this was a treasonous plot to harm his troops. But he doesn't order his troops not to accept the challenge coins?

      Then he doesn't even elevate his argument for this unlawful treasonous actions to his superiors?

      And that is a guy you think has credibility to hold others accountable? Because one time he challenged his boss on some undisclosed disagreement? Really?