Weeks after a controversial video surfaced featuring Democrats like Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, the discussion continues to simmer. The video suggested military personnel might refuse orders from the President deemed ‘illegal’ – a proposition that struck many as unprecedented and deeply unsettling.
The core strategy behind the Democrats’ move appears straightforward: to fracture the relationship between the U.S. military and its Commander in Chief. This tactic, sowing discord within the ranks, echoes methods historically employed by intelligence agencies during political upheavals in other nations, a realm Slotkin herself knows well from her past with the CIA.
The question of origin has lingered. Where did this idea truly come from? It felt too calculated, too precise to simply emerge organically from a Democratic strategy session. The notion of encouraging defiance within the military felt…imported.
A potential answer emerged roughly a month before the Democrats released their video. A column penned by Tom Nichols, a vocal critic of the former President, appeared in a prominent magazine. It reads almost as a detailed plan for the very scenario that unfolded.
Nichols’ article warned of an impending “civil-military crisis,” arguing that authoritarians gain control by dominating intelligence, the justice system, and, crucially, the military. He claimed the former President was making strides in seizing these institutions, leaving the armed forces as the last bastion of constitutional loyalty.
The assertion that the military remained outside the President’s control was, and is, debatable. As Commander in Chief, the President inherently holds authority over the armed forces. But Nichols’ writing took a more ominous turn, predicting a deliberate effort to transform the military into a “personal and partisan army.”
He lamented the absence of restraining forces – figures like James Mattis and Mark Milley – who had previously tempered the President’s impulses. Nichols then posited a chilling scenario: top military commanders being forced to choose between obeying potentially unlawful orders and upholding their oath to the Constitution, framing it as an unprecedented crisis.
The parallels between Nichols’ column and the Democrats’ video are striking. It appears someone within the Democratic party may have seized upon his ideas, recognizing a potential avenue to undermine the former President by fostering dissent within the military.
To further fuel speculation, Nichols followed up with another article, suggesting Mark Kelly as a suitable candidate for Secretary of Defense. The confluence of events raises questions about whether these occurrences are merely coincidental.
Nichols’ background adds another layer to the story. For over two decades, he held a faculty position at the U.S. Naval War College. Notably, despite his extensive academic credentials and years spent analyzing military affairs, he has never served in the military himself.
The sheer number of coincidences surrounding this sequence of events warrants further scrutiny. The connection between Nichols’ warnings, the Democrats’ video, and his subsequent suggestions demands a closer look from those in positions of power.
