Mark Milley navigates minefield of ‘Trumpian politics’

America’s top military leader sitting down with Afghanistan’s militant Taliban leadership may seem highly unusual.

But for Gen. Mark A. Milley, the covert meetings in Qatar this week represent just another entry in what’s been a norm-shattering 2020, a year that’s seen the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and seasoned Army officer navigate a seemingly never-ending barrage of strategic challenges, cultural controversies and politically perilous moments.

Now the 62-year-old, 40-year Army lifer must navigate the tricky handoff from President Trump to President-elect Joseph R. Biden, working with a new boss at the Pentagon — Defense Secretary nominee Lloyd Austin Jr. — who once served alongside him as an Army general before retiring in 2016.

Analysts and military insiders say Gen. Milley, who assumed his current post in September 2019, has routinely demonstrated the savvy and instincts needed to navigate issues ranging from racial justice in the ranks, a contentious and emotionally charged election cycle that threatened to ensnare the armed forces, and private disagreements between the Pentagon and White House over President Trump’s decision to pull thousands of troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters.

He’s not above sending barely coded messages when defending the neutrality and professionalism of the military forces he represents.

At last month’s opening of the new Museum of the U.S. Army, with the presidential election still in the balance and President Trump’s just-named acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller sitting nearby, Gen. Milley pointedly noted the U.S. armed forces are “unique among militaries.”

“We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator,” he said. “We do not take an oath to an individual. We do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or a religion. We take an oath to the Constitution.”

Thursday’s revelation that Gen. Milley has met twice with Taliban leaders to discuss the future of Afghanistan further illuminated just how unique his tenure has been. Such meetings typically have been led by diplomats, such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo or Washington’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad.

And the very idea of America’s top general sitting down face-to-face with the leaders of an insurgent group toppled by a U.S. military invasion in October 2001 is incredible in its own right.

In the two meetings — the first of which was held in June, the second on Tuesday — Gen. Milley seems to have been serving as both a military representative and de facto diplomat, delivering a stern message that Taliban insurgents must reduce violence if a high-stakes peace deal between the two sides is to hold.

“The most important part of the discussions that I had with both the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan was the need for an immediate reduction in violence,” Gen. Milley told a handful of reporters who accompanied him on the trip.

“Everything else hinges on that,” said Gen. Milley, whose military service includes deployments to Iraq, Somalia, Colombia, Egypt and elsewhere.

Gen. Milley also deployed multiple times to Afghanistan, where he served as the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces stationed there. After his meeting with Taliban leaders in Qatar, Gen. Milley returned to Afghanistan this week to discuss the ongoing peace process with top officials of the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.

The U.S.-Taliban peace deal struck in February calls for the eventual withdrawal of all American troops in exchange for a reduction in violence, a guarantee of no safe haven for terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, and firm peace negotiations between the Taliban and U.S.-backed government in Kabul. Gen. Milley’s previous boss, Mark T. Esper, was relieved of his duties by President Trump shortly after the November election, in part because of his skepticism of the president’s desire to draw down troops in conflicts such as Afghanistan. While top military officials warn that the Taliban is not doing enough to cut down on attacks, Mr. Trump has ordered the Pentagon to continue with an accelerated drawdown in the coming weeks, while making a number of other high-profile moves at the Pentagon targeting critics of his policies.

The U.S. troop deployment, which stood at nearly 13,000 combat forces at the beginning of 2020, is expected to drop to 2,500 by Jan. 15, five days before Mr. Biden is sworn in.

’Trumpian politics’

Analysts say the Taliban talks underscore the scope of challenges Gen. Milley has had to contend with during a whirlwind year, which began with the U.S. nearly going to war with Iran, saw sometimes violent racial protests engulf cities across the country in the summer, and ended with wild speculation that the military ultimately may need to intervene in the presidential election.

“There is no question Milley has had to deal with an unusually wide variety of civilian-military issues,” said Mark Cancian, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former official in both the Defense Department and White House Office of Management and Budget.

“There were riots in the summer, there was all of the discussion about the military and the election, plus the difficulty in dealing with a president who routinely intruded on civilian-military boundaries. And now this,” said Mr. Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel.

Mr. Cancian was quick to argue, however, that the stakes have been “relatively low” for Gen. Milley, at least compared to the kinds of clashes and distrust between civilians and the military seen during the Kent State shootings and other chaotic moments of the Vietnam War era.

Gen. Milley went out of his way throughout the summer and fall to ensure such unrest and instability never erupted, and that the military stayed as far away from domestic politics as possible.

During heated racial justice protests outside the White House in June, Gen. Milley appeared alongside Mr. Trump while dressed in his battle uniform. But the chairman quickly apologized for taking part in the president’s polarizing walk to St. John’s Episcopal Church to be photographed at the vandalized church holding a Bible.

Gen. Milley did not appear with Mr. Trump at the church itself — Mr. Esper did — but said his mere presence sent the wrong message.

“I should not have been there,” he said in remarks to the graduating class of the National Defense University on June 11.

“My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics,” Gen. Milley said. “As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it.”

In the months afterwards, he faced constant pressure to ensure that the military would not be dragged into the presidential election — perhaps, as some theorized, to escort a defeated but defiant Mr. Trump from the White House, or to put down social unrest across the country.

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill seemed to want assurances that Gen. Milley would not allow the president to use the armed forces to maintain his grip on power in the event of a Biden victory.

Analysts say Gen. Milley deserves credit for handling such a delicate situation as well as any military leader could.

“As for the U.S. and Trumpian politics, yes, I think he’s done well. Not perfectly, but well,” said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. “And about as well as can be expected, in fact. I’m not really sure it’s even possible to be perfect — or realistic to try to hold oneself to such a standard. The key point is to stay flexible in tactics, and to roll with the punches, but also to remain rock solid in principles and ethics.”

“I think he’s generally done that,” Mr. O’Hanlon said.

Gen. Milley also has embraced efforts to end discrimination in the armed forces and has backed efforts to sever military associations with the Confederacy.

That issue, too, has often put him at odds with Mr. Trump, who is threatening to veto a massive defense spending bill in part over provisions to strip the names of Confederate generals from Army bases across the country.