Partisan Disparity Of Investigations - A Way Ahead To Speed Conclusion Of Investigation Of General (retired) Milley’s Conduct

Guest post by George Agese

The credibility of the United States military depends not only on its ability to defend the nation but also on the integrity of its leaders. Allegations of misconduct against senior officers must be addressed swiftly and impartially, or else confidence in the institution erodes. The ongoing investigation into General Mark Milley USA (retired), ordered on January 29, 2025, has now dragged on for more than 300 days without resolution. This delay undermines trust in the Department of Defense’s competence and nonpartisan character, raising questions about whether justice is being administered fairly or manipulated for political ends.

The alleged misconduct of General Milley which is under investigation consists of interfering with the chain of command and potentially undermining civilian oversight of the military, along with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice by making politically charged and derogatory public statements about President Trump and his administration while Milley was still serving.¹ This behavior was recorded in Bob Woodward’s book Peril, which was published after the first term of the Trump Presidency and during a time that President Trump was in a political wilderness and the popular thought was that he would never return to power.

In the book Peril Bob Woodward states that in the final months of President Trump’s first presidential term General Milley as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng, to reassure him the U.S. would not launch a surprise attack. The book also alleges that Milley took steps to monitor nuclear launch procedures, instructing senior officers to involve him if President Trump attempted to order military action. This action unlawfully inserted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the chain of command and could have delayed the military response of the United States in a nuclear war. Finally, Woodward asserts that General Milley privately communicated with the Speaker of The House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, who expressed concern about Trump’s mental stability and control of nuclear weapons.² During this alleged conversation Milley reportedly told Pelosi that he agreed with everything she said and that strict procedures governed the launch of nuclear weapons and he would ensure they were followed. Of note, Milley never disputed Woodward’s claims. Instead, Milley has stated that he did indeed speak with the authors, but his actions were misinterpreted.³ Regardless of intent, these allegations are serious and demand timely resolution to preserve civil-military trust. A rapid investigation to determine the truth of these allegations is needed to either clear General Milley’s name or to take corrective measures to prevent future misconduct.

A hasty investigation does not appear to be occurring, and one has to wonder why. Lady justice wears a blindfold as she is supposed to be sightless to things which may bias her as she investigates potential wrongdoing and administers justice. However, if we look at the timeliness of other investigations it may give us the impression that justice is not blind, and investigations are either sped up or slowed down based upon the partisan desires of bureaucrats. For instance, on the 2^nd of April of 2025 an investigation was initiated by the Inspector General into the Secretary of War’s alleged misuse of the Signal messaging application. The investigation took a grand total of 246 days for the investigation to be completed, and its results are available for the American people to see. In another case of some notoriety, Special Counsel Jack Smith officially began investigating former (and soon to be President again) President Donald Trump on the 18^th of November 2022 on allegations of the misuse of classified documents and election interference. The investigation was completed, and charges were filed on the 8^th of June 2023, a mere 202 days to investigate a former President, which was unprecedented, to completing the investigation and pressing charges.

Another investigation which may be more comparable to the investigation into General Milley is the investigation of the actions of General Hamilton USA (retired). General Hamilton was investigated for allegedly engaging in a prohibited relationship with a Soldier of a different grade that caused or perceived partiality or unfairness in violation of Army Regulation (AR) 600-20. This investigation began on the 20^th of March 2024 and was closed in approximately 6 months, approximately 180 days. After this investigation was completed, Hamilton retired as a Lieutenant General.⁴

Conversely the Durham investigation, a review into the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigations Crossfire Hurricane probe and subsequent surveillance of Trumps Presidential campaign and Presidency took approximately four years to complete, a grand total of 1,460 days to complete this investigation and by the time the investigation was completed Trump had been out of office for more than two years. These examples illustrate a troubling inconsistency: some investigations are expedited, while others languish, creating the perception that justice is not blind but influenced by partisan or bureaucratic interests.

Our Secretary of War should not allow this bureaucratic foot dragging to occur with the alleged unprofessional acts of General Milley. A mechanism exists to conduct a rapid investigation and if this investigation substantiates the allegations of wrongdoing, this may be used in conducting an administrative reduction in rank or it may be passed to the appropriate authorities for use in a court martial. This mechanism to conduct a rapid investigation is an AR 15-6 investigation. AR 15-6 investigations normally take 30 to 90 days from appointment to the completion of this investigation, with the investigation’s findings being submitted to the appointing authority. The United States Army uses these AR 15-6 investigations to routinely conduct fact finding investigations into misconduct, accidents, property loss, or command climate issues. AR 15-6 investigators collect statements, documents, and other evidence in a structured report and while the AR 156 report itself is not a criminal investigation, it can provide the initial evidence and witness statements that may be used in a formal criminal inquiry or subsequent court martial. If an AR 15-6 investigation begins to languish or takes longer time than what has been prescribed in the appointing order, the investigator is required to report back to the appointing authority, provide an update on the status of the investigation and ask for additional time to complete the investigation. In addition, the conduct of the AR 15-6 investigation is the primary duty of the investigating officer and therefore should be completed in a timely manner.

Based on this it seems as though the AR 15-6 investigation is a valuable and timely mechanism used to conduct an investigation. Indeed, it is, and AR 15-6 investigations are commonplace in the Department of the Army. However, by policy and practice, allegations against three‑ and four‑star generals are automatically referred to the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG). This is codified in DoD Directive 5106.01 (Inspector General of the Department of Defense), which gives the DoD IG exclusive jurisdiction over investigations of the most senior officers. DoD Directive 5106.01, combined with Army IG policy, mandates referral of allegations against three‑ and four‑star generals to the DoD IG rather than allowing them to be investigated under AR 15‑6. This does seem like a hard stop in going to an AR 15-6 investigation but there is a loophole. This loophole is that DoD Directives can be amended, rescinded or overridden by the Secretary of War.⁵ Based on this, if our Secretary of War desires to override, amend, or rescind DoD Directive 5106.01 he may do so, and then order a more rapid AR 15-6 investigation to quickly ascertain the facts of these serious allegations.

In the end, the credibility of the United States military rests not only on its ability to defend the nation but also on the integrity of its leaders. Allegations of misconduct against General Milley strike at the heart of civil-military trust, and any delay in addressing them risks eroding the faith of both senior officers and the American public. By employing the AR 15‑6 process—a mechanism designed for impartial, fact‑based inquiry—the Army can demonstrate its commitment to fairness, transparency, and accountability. A rapid investigation under this framework ensures that the matter is resolved with both timeliness and rigor, preserving the public confidence of the military’s most senior leaders and reinforcing the principle that no one, regardless of rank or past service, is above scrutiny. In doing so, the institution safeguards its honor and strengthens the trust upon which its legitimacy depends.

BIO

This article is published under the pseudonym George Agese. The author completed more than 33 years of military service and continues to follow developments within the Department of Defense.