The section on January 6th and National Guard deployment in the discussion with Casey Wardynski highlights several critical aspects, including confusion, delayed decision-making, and political considerations that influenced the events of that day. Here's an expanded analysis:
The Context and Key Players- General Overview: Casey Wardynski, as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs at the time, was closely involved in the discussions surrounding the deployment of the DC National Guard during the January 6th events. The DC National Guard is unique because it reports directly to the President of the United States (as there is no governor in Washington, D.C.) but operates under the chain of command, including the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army.
- General William Walker: The commander of the DC National Guard, Walker, was in communication with law enforcement on the ground, including the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department, as events unfolded. He was prepared and eager to deploy his forces to assist.
Preparedness and Anticipation- President Trump's Authorization: Wardynski notes that President Trump gave a directive as early as January 3rd, anticipating the need for up to 10,000 National Guard troops to ensure safety during the large-scale events expected on January 6th.
- Tightened Deployment Protocols: Despite this directive, the Pentagon implemented stricter deployment criteria for the DC Guard. These changes significantly reduced the Guard's ability to respond quickly to emergent situations, as their usual discretion to deploy a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) had been removed.
Delayed Deployment and Chain of Command Issues- Confusion in the Chain of Command: During the riots at the Capitol, Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund urgently requested National Guard assistance through the chain of command, which involved the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and Senate. However, the request faced delays, reportedly because leadership, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was concerned about the "optics" of deploying military personnel at the Capitol.
- Role of Army Leadership: Senior Army leaders, including General Mark Milley (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and General James McConville (Chief of Staff of the Army), were described by Wardynski as hesitant and overly concerned with political optics rather than operational necessity. Milley, in particular, was said to have advised against deploying troops near the Capitol, claiming it would look bad.
- VTC Call on January 6th: Wardynski was part of a secure video teleconference (VTC) call involving senior Pentagon officials, including General Walker. During the call, it became apparent that state National Guard units from Virginia and Maryland were already preparing to deploy to the Capitol. However, no decisive action was taken at that time, as higher-level Pentagon officials, including McConville and Milley's subordinates, hesitated to act.
National Guard's Role and Frustration- DC Guard Preparedness: The DC National Guard had teams ready, including a Quick Reaction Force stationed at Andrews Air Force Base and another team at the Armory. These forces were equipped, briefed, and capable of deploying immediately to assist law enforcement at the Capitol.
- Delayed Arrival: Despite being ready, the Guard was not deployed until late in the evening, after significant damage had already been done and the Capitol had been breached. By the time the National Guard arrived around 5:30 PM, the situation had largely been brought under control by federal law enforcement and police tactical units.
Political and Institutional Dynamics- Concerns About Optics: Wardynski attributes the delay to a political culture within senior Army leadership, where decisions were made based on how actions would appear publicly rather than on operational requirements. This aligns with reports that Pelosi and others in Congress were hesitant to request the Guard due to concerns about the military presence being perceived as authoritarian or escalating tensions.
- Millie's Role: General Milley is described as highly political and not aligned with President Trump, despite assurances to the contrary. According to Wardynski, Milley was more focused on avoiding political fallout than ensuring operational readiness.
- Contradictory Statements by Officials: Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and Milley later made conflicting statements about whether President Trump had directed National Guard deployment. While Miller's book suggests he acted on his own authority, he testified under oath that the President had authorized troop deployment.
The Broader Context of Military Hesitancy- Cultural and Leadership Issues: Wardynski criticizes the politicization of the Army's senior leadership and suggests that a culture of risk aversion and political alignment with Democratic leadership influenced their decisions. This broader cultural shift, which included a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, was seen by Wardynski as undermining the Army's traditional meritocratic and apolitical stance.
- Impact on Operational Effectiveness: The hesitancy and confusion in deploying the National Guard, combined with changes in deployment protocols, highlight what Wardynski sees as a breakdown in the Army's ability to respond effectively to crises. This, he argues, was a result of both institutional inertia and deliberate policy changes under the leadership of Milley and others.
ConclusionThe events of January 6th revealed significant shortcomings in the coordination and decision-making processes for deploying the National Guard. Wardynski argues that these failures were rooted in a politicized military culture, overly cautious leadership, and a focus on optics over operational needs. While the DC Guard was ready and capable of responding, their delayed deployment underscored systemic issues that need to be addressed to ensure similar situations are handled more effectively in the future.
The discussion on
broader military and political issues in Casey Wardynski's interview points to systemic challenges within the U.S. military and government, highlighting the intersection of politics, military culture, leadership, and policy decisions. Here is an expanded analysis:
1. Politicization of the Military- Erosion of Civilian Control: Wardynski argues that senior military leadership, including General Mark Milley, displayed a disregard for the principle of civilian control over the military. Milley allegedly inserted himself into areas outside his legal purview, such as nuclear command and international diplomacy, which Wardynski and others perceive as undermining the constitutional role of the President as Commander-in-Chief.
- Milley's reported communication with China during the final months of the Trump administration, promising to warn them of any U.S. military action, is cited as an egregious overstep.
- His role in shaping military decisions based on "optics" rather than operational needs is seen as prioritizing political calculations over constitutional duties.
- "Illegal Orders" Debate: Wardynski highlights how some senior leaders, like Milley and McConville, publicly stated they would disobey "illegal orders" without clarifying what those orders might be. This created ambiguity about their willingness to carry out lawful directives from the President, especially related to events like January 6th or the Insurrection Act.
- Political Bias: Wardynski describes the Army's leadership as "partisan" and aligned with Democratic policies. He points to the resistance to President Trump's policies and the embrace of politically driven initiatives, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, as evidence of this alignment.
2. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives- Impact on Military Culture: Wardynski is critical of DEI programs, describing them as divisive and undermining the military's historical focus on meritocracy. He cites examples like the removal of photos from officer promotion files to prevent racial or physical biases but notes how this inadvertently revealed systemic issues, such as some services reportedly relying on photos to promote diversity.
- Critical Race Theory (CRT) in Military Education: Wardynski recounts discovering that CRT was being taught at institutions like West Point, where cadets were reportedly indoctrinated rather than educated in a balanced way. This, he argues, fosters resentment and division within the ranks, as seen in the "West Point Manifesto" authored by cadets accusing the institution of systemic racism.
- He attributes the spread of these ideas to civilian academics embedded in military academies, a shift initiated by Congress in past decades. These faculty members allegedly imported ideological agendas that clashed with the military's core mission.
- Operational Readiness vs. Ideology: Wardynski contends that the focus on DEI and CRT distracts from the military's primary purposedefending the nation. He warns that these initiatives, coupled with politicized leadership, risk degrading the military's effectiveness and cohesion.
3. The Deep State and Institutional Inertia- Permanent Bureaucracy: Wardynski highlights the persistence of the "Deep State," a network of entrenched bureaucrats and technocrats in Washington, D.C., who remain in government regardless of administration changes. These individuals allegedly prioritize their own agendas over the directives of elected officials.
- He notes that many military and government leaders "never leave Washington" and cycle between roles in different administrations, reinforcing institutional inertia and resistance to change.
- Military-Industrial Complex: Echoing President Eisenhower's warning, Wardynski argues that the military-industrial complex has become deeply embedded in U.S. defense policy. He suggests that the "forever wars" (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan) benefited military leaders through promotions, budgets, and relevance, making them reluctant to pursue strategies that would end these conflicts.
4. Declining Standards and Systemic Problems in Leadership- Officer Pipeline Issues: Wardynski describes a decline in the quality and preparedness of officers entering the Army, stemming from changes in recruitment and promotion practices during the post-9/11 wars. For example:
- Officer Candidate School (OCS) became a primary pipeline for commissioning officers, including many with only 90 days of training ("90-day wonders").
- This trend resulted in less experienced and less prepared officers advancing through the ranks, creating long-term leadership challenges.
- General Officer Promotions: Wardynski criticizes the lack of transparency and oversight in the promotion of generals. He recounts how even as Assistant Secretary of the Army, he was denied access to general officer files, revealing a lack of civilian control over the process.
- Promotions were influenced by informal networks ("tribes") within the Army, where individuals aligned with senior leaders, like Milley, were more likely to advance. This created an insular system where loyalty to the leadership mattered more than merit or performance.
5. Challenges with Recruitment and Retention- Cultural Shifts: Wardynski argues that politicization and ideological initiatives like DEI are discouraging potential recruits, particularly those from more conservative or traditional backgrounds. This could exacerbate the Army's existing challenges with meeting recruitment goals.
- Generational Decline: He warns that systemic problems in leadership and training have created a situation where less qualified officers are advancing, ultimately weakening the institution. The cumulative effect of these issues, combined with politicization, is a military that may struggle to compete with near-peer adversaries like China or Russia.
6. The Role of the Army in Domestic and International Affairs- Domestic Deployment and the Insurrection Act: Wardynski discusses the reluctance of Army leadership to engage in domestic operations, such as deploying the National Guard during riots or invoking the Insurrection Act. He attributes this to political fears and a lack of clarity about the military's role in such situations.
- International Strategy: The Army's relevance in great-power competition (e.g., with China) is also questioned. Wardynski notes that the Navy and Air Force are more suited to addressing threats in the Pacific, raising concerns about the Army's long-term strategic focus.
7. Recommendations for Reform- Restore Meritocracy: Wardynski advocates for eliminating ideological programs like DEI and returning to a merit-based system that prioritizes competence and performance.
- Accountability for Senior Leaders: He calls for greater oversight of senior military leadership, including the promotion process for generals, to ensure alignment with the Constitution and civilian control.
- Reduce Politicization: Wardynski stresses the need to depoliticize the military by fostering a culture that prioritizes operational effectiveness over political or ideological considerations.
- Civilian Oversight and Leadership: He recommends appointing strong civilian leaders who understand the military's role and can assert control over entrenched bureaucratic interests.
ConclusionWardynski's insights paint a concerning picture of the U.S. military as an institution increasingly influenced by political and ideological forces, which he believes undermine its effectiveness and core mission. He warns that these issues, if left unaddressed, could have far-reaching implications for national security and the military's ability to respond to both domestic and international challenges. To reverse these trends, he calls for a renewed focus on accountability, meritocracy, and the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military.
