let's talk now about the joint chiefs of staff. why were the joint chiefs of staff demoralized by 1969. -- 1969? >> the morale issues within the joint chiefs of staff and the issues of psychological investment of the war. kissinger said it was really easy for the leaders to focus on strategic aspects of the war. and that there was not enough emphasis placed on the fundamental values. he discussed this well on page 34. saying, the military found themselves providing weapons. carrying out strategies in which they do not believe and ultimately conducting a war they did not understand. he points out military leaders were too vulnerable by the external ideas. traditional tactics that were not compatible with this situation of guerrilla warfare that we are actually facing. he says that often times leaders would acquiesce to these ideas. then harbor unspoken resentment. this would just create further can -- we cane morale even more. there were several internal battles and they wanted to move to new systems. there was no real cause behind

i'll talk to the former chair of the joint chiefs, admiral michael mullen, about why a smooth transition is critical to national security. joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news capitol hill correspondent kasie hunt, hugh hewitt, host on the salem radio network, o. kay henderson, news director of the radio iowa network and michael eric dyson of vanderbilt university. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press with chuck todd." >> a good sunday morning, and i hope you're having a safe and enjoyable thanksgiving day weekend. >>> throughout america's covid crisis, there has belong a parade of grim statistics. among them, as of this morning, there have been more than 13.3 million cases and more than 266,000 deaths in the united states alone with little reason to believe things will improve in the short run. but if there is one statistic that stands out above all others, it is this one -- the united states has 4% of the world's population, and somehow, has 19% of the wor

just last night, i joined vice president pence and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to have the soldiers who perished in the middle east. this was a somber and hum bling moment that reminded us of the tremendous sacrifices of the men and women of the united states military of our armed services take an oath to defend the constitution of the united states. they serve not for personal gain but for the protection and well-being of their fellow americans and their homeland. they are champions for peace, liberty and the rule of law and unrelenting when called upon to defend our people and values. we owe them and their loved ones an enormous debt of gratitude. this is why i'm blessed and privilege to stand before you today to outline the next phase of our campaign to defeat terrorists who have prerp traited attacks on our homeland and to prevent future acts of terrorism against our nation. we owe this moment to the many patriots who made the sacrifice and their comrades to carry forward their legacy. we have mourned the loss of 6,900 american troops who gave their lives in afghanistan

and chairman to the joint chiefs of staff, general mark a millie. now presenting the colors is the third united states infantry residents, the old guard, accompanied by the old guard fife and drum corps. the national anthem will be performed by jesse meeks from the united states army band, pershing's own. ♪ ♪ >> present. o say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright fightthrough the perilous oh the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? glare, thekets red bombs bursting in air nightroof through the that our flag was still there o say does that star-spangled waver yet and the land of the free the home of the brave ♪ >> right shoulder. >> delivering the invocation today is chief of chaplains of the army, chaplain major general thomas l soldier. i askies and gentlemen, that you please join me as we mark this occasion in a word of prayer. almighty and everlasting god, as we dedicate the opening of the national museum of the united states army, we humbly requ

[applause] >> general mark milley, the joint chiefs of staff, would like to take this opportunity toank our veterans for their bravery and sacrifice in service to our nation. we remain indebted to the veterans whose service demonstrated the selfless action of the greatest generation who not only served to protect and defend our nation, but were part of the global force to defend peace. ladies and gentlemen, general mark milley, chairman of the joint chief of staff. >> the greatest generation that took up arms to defend freedom against tyranny fought for something. they fought for a better peace, and from the ashes of the destruction of that terrible war, they established a rules-based global order rooted in political and economic liberty that has stood for over seven decades. my father and mother are part of that generation. my father trained here in hawaii, on maui, and from here, made the assault landings at saipan and iwo jima with the fourth marine division while my mother served at a navy hospital in seattle, taking care of the wounded, coming back from the pacific theater. i of

as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, on behalf of every soldier, sailor, air marine and coastd war ii veterans for granting us the gift of freedom. we renew our commitment to p appreciate the values you worked so hard to preserve. >> we're honored to have one of our blue ribbon leader co-chairs with us today, admiral philip davidson, pacific command, america's oldest and largest military combatant command. as a surface air force officer, admiral davidson has been in destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers. he is responsible for all u.s. military activities in the indopacific covering 40 nations, 14 time zones and over a fifth of the world's population. ladies and gentlemen, admiral phil davidson. [ applause ] >> aloha and good morning. i would like to begin by thanking all members of the 75th world war ii commemoration committee for safely bringing these phenomenal events together in this environment. we are honored today to have the secretary of defense here with us to help commemorate the occasion as well as his wife leah. thank you, mr. secretary. we're grateful that you

that is the one right there. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the 20th joint chiefs of staff, mark a. millie. as the 40th chief, what a great day for the united states army to be celebrating the opening of this museum. there are thousands of hands who put this together. i want to say particular thanks to acting secretary chris miller for being here today. tracy, you are here somewhere, but thank you so much for what you have done pulling all of it together. and of course, general sullivan, who we just saw on the screen, he was the chief in our early years when we were lieutenants and captains in chief, you are still our chief. you were a great chief then and you are a great chief now. thank you for your inspiration and vision to bring this all to fruition. and, of course, thanks also, on the passing of general hartzog, another great general officer of the united states army. thanks for your leadership and putting all of this together. i do want to thank sergeant nakinola for being the soldier of the year. we will see him in a few minutes, but thanks for being a good example of

milley, the 20th chairman of the joint chief of staffs would like to take this opportunity to pay tributefice to the service of our nation. we remain indebted to the veterans whose service demonstrated the selfless action of the greatest generation. ladies and gentlemen, general mark milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. >> the greatest generation that took up arms to defend freedom in the second world war fought for something. they fought for a better peace and from the ashes of the destruction and bloodshed of that war, that terrible war, they established a rules-based global order, rooted in liberty that has stood for over seven decades. my father and mother are part of that generation. my father trained here and hawaii on maui and from here made the assault landings in saipan and iwo jima while my mother served at a navy hospital in seattle caring for the wounded. i reflect on my parents' service to this nation and the lessons i take from their example have shaped my views on this nation's role and place in the world. my parents instilled in me a service sense of service, how

know you can see the defense secretary toddling off to me by then your dad the chairman of the joint chiefs going off to meet biden. that would create the aura the trump lacks legitimacy beaten he has to go the interesting thing is george is that. constitutional scholars and in really good historians of america the year 1800 is a very important year the presidential election because that was the 1st time 2 opposing. politicians with radically different ideas about the country they explain handed to put on to the next ok they get they relinquish the presidency to their ideological and they sat down as gentlemen and that was 1900 was the time that we said the republic can take compose competing ideas so that precedent that was set in 1900 is that is intentionally as we speak to be become null and void and it's because of the lack of trust in democracy not because of. outside meddling it's because they don't trust the people deem and go ahead we're up rapidly running out of time well i would say that here is their prescription for the more than time she will war here is how it was in ukraine f

cia the pentagon i mean you know magic you had the defense secretary you had the chairman of the joint chiefs criticizing trump when he made his use won't grow some lafayette park these people then are going to do what trump tells them we should there be riots and whatever into any from say if i want order brought back into the city it's better than just say you know the digit would present at any moment. you know we consider biting to be the legitimate president and again we can see what might well happen where biden will then have the aura of the digital missy and you know you can see the defense secretary toddling off to meet by then your dad the chairman of the joint chiefs. going off to meet biden. that would create the aura the trump lacks legitimacy beaten he has to go the interesting thing is george is that. constitutional scholars and in really good historians of america the year 1800 is a very important year the presidential election because that was the 1st time 2 opposing. politicians with radically different ideas about the country they explain handed to put on to the next ok the

the chairman of the joint chiefs all the way down through the joint chiefs of staff, all of our leadersey will follow the law. they will protect the constitution. regardless who the secretary of defense is. regardless of who the president is. they are schooled in how to do that. and if they object to an order, what is the process? i'm not too concerned about any of that. i think esper's comments are comments that should be taken seriously. as a matter of fact, mark esper worked for me in the senate. but i think any secretary of defense would probably approach it the same way esper did and what he said yesterday with those remarks. but i have confidence in our system, our people, the enterprise that we will be ok regardless of who the president is. . it might be messy. it could be messy. it could result in a constitutional crisis. but our military leaders will not let anything happen in this country. steve: one of the other things that occurs to me, someone has just died from covid, and so it puts the spotlight back on the fact that nothing has been achieved in terms of the palestinian s

all away down to the joint chiefs of staff, all our leaders. they will follow the law. they will protect the constitution regardless who sent the sector defenses, regardless who the president is. and they are school in how to do that, if they jack to an order, what's the process? so, i'm not too concerned about any of that. i think estrus comments are comments that should be taken seriously, and that matter of fact, mark s. for work for me in the senate. but i think it any secretary of defense would, would probably approach it the same way. ask for again in ways what he said yesterday in those nos remarks, but i have confidence in our system, our people, the enterprise that will be ok regardless of who the president is. it might be messy, it could be messy, it could result in a constitutional crisis. but our military leaders are not going to let you think happened in this country. you know, one of the other things that occurs to me because cyber erekat, whom you knew well, has just died from coded. and so it puts, at least for a moment, you kno

about the joint chiefs of staff. by were they demoralized 1969. the morale issues within the joint chiefs of staff and the issues of psychological of the war. onwas easy for them to focus strategic aspects of war. they are placed on the concepts of fundamental values. he discussed this well on page 34. strategies and ultimately conducting a war they did not understand. vulnerable were too by the ideas. traditional tactics that were not compatible with this relationship. leaders would acquiesce to these ideas. this would just create further division and we can morale even more. there were several internal movees and they wanted to to new systems. there was no real cause behind it. remedy theyas to had been making throughout the 60's. thaty, kissinger described we were disappointed in both members of the joint chiefs and himself by feeling these challenges. kissinger describes that quote -- anyone of which he was able to defend was the impact that he could not really justify himself. prof. allitt: that is right. he is one of those world war ii veter

we don't even know if the chairman of the joint chiefs has recently spoken to the president. we don't know if christopher miller, the new acting defense secretary, has recently spoken to the president. mark esper was fired by tweet and it was only the chief of staff mark meadows at the white house that was available to give him essentially a five-minute heads up this was coming. so this has been a week of -- there's no way around it -- political turmoil at the pentagon. when they come back from veterans day i think everybody wants to see it calm down but that be will up to the president whether he wants to continue these current atmospherics. >> dan, that's one of the great moments of uncertainty. we have one president at a time. that is the stated policy. on any big national security question the next several weeks, that's president donald trump. and the bigger question, you see the first lady arriving now, troop withdrawals, troop deployments, big decisions with the nato alliance, if any, normally the outgoing team would be in contact with the incoming team comparing notes.

this is a chilling statement by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, in my opinion.eems like a cry to say command and control is very much threatened in our nation's military, in our nation. this, as i said, per resultous days. -- perilous days. despite all of the challenges and threats he faces, president trump remains, of course, a fighter. a fighter without precedent. the president insists once the legal votes are counted, he will be declared the winner of the 2020 election. joining us tonight is kayleigh mcenany, trump campaign senior adviser, and it's great to have you with us, kayleigh. -- >> good to have you. lou: let's first start with these court decisions today and your thoughts about what are the next steps for the campaign. where do we go from here? >> really good to join you today, lou. we've put forward significant evidence of irregularities in michigan, 234 pages of affidavits. that case continues. it's significant, it's detailed, and the claims of those voters are real, and those poll watchers. and then we have pennsylvania litigation that is very str

most people say he is nonpartisan as chairman of the joint chiefs, but milly is the guy left behind. he is now the guy the president will ultimately turn to for military advice and will he be able to convince the president, you know, not to have a period of turmoil in national security for the 70 plus days ahead of us until inauguration. brianna? >> hard to imagine, i want to bring kaitlan back in, for someone like mark milley to look at this decision and say that is the right thing for the country that i am sworn to protect, and kaitlan, one of the things you mentioned was this may not be a one off thing, that there are other folks on the chopping block here. so what's going on here? the president clearly at this point in time, should be aware of this, at this point in time in a lame duck presidency, this is where the lame duck president sort of fades into the background. their power is certainly diminished at this point in time and eyes start to focus on the transition of the new administration coming in. it seems like the president with his kind of typical attention seeking behavi

fdr, macarthur, nimitz and admiral leahy who is almost always forgotten but is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, local figure who was immensely important in this period of american history. >> the greatest number of the pacific war and roosevelt memory. get to the strategic talks. before we move away from the politics, tell us about macarthur, there was a move to make them president. how badly did he wants to get to the oval office in 1944? >> macarthur flirted with the presidency many times beginning in 1920s, his name had been floated and as you say in 1944 he allowed supporters in the states, powerful members of congress in the republican party, media owners and various other figures on the american right who saw macarthur as their only chance to defeat fdr in a wartime election so they started this dark horse campaign with macarthur's implicit - the reason is essentially the governor of new york locked up the nomination early in the primary process but yes, the question has been asked and they have debated did macarthur want to run for president and would he have liked to become pr

the chairman of the joint chiefs striding across lafayette square in the middle of those protests and the way that image sort of punctuated this longstanding frustration of many of the top general who's have privately seethed and perhaps spilled out into public view, when jim mattis resigned and then made that extraordinary public statement. how does what is going on here with esper fit into that? you've covered the pentagon for a long time. how does the way things are now between the commander in chief and the cheefls , the chiefs of his armed forces, what is that like in our longer history? >> so there has been, that's another relationship that has been under tension. remember back to summer of 2017. what has become this infamous tank meeting in july 2017 where the president came in and they were really doing a worldwide wrap up of threat assessment. one of the things they talked about was afghanistan. the president called the then commander of the war in afghanistan, general nicholson a loser. he said we should fire him. and that was the beginning of what we know anyway of a time w

thave become president, was this just a withdraw of exerting pressure on the president and the joint chiefs to do what he wanted to do in the pacific which essentially involveed sending more assets. the pacific was divided, as you know, the northern half was essentially under the control of the navy, and then in the southwest pacific you had mcarthur whose divion of the -- macarthur, awe than mouse theater commanding was very controversial and was regarded as, essentially, a way of settling this rivalry between the army and the navy, satisfying macarthur i -- but leaving the navy in charge of -- [inaudible] and so this question of, you know, would macarthur entually gain supreme command of the pacific which was his goal, and secondly are, could he insure that our route back to tokyo e went tough the philippis and that he would get the green light to liberate the philippines including, critically, the northn island. so these were his goals. and this kind of dark horse campaign for predent may simply have been a way of exerting pressure in order to fulfill those goals. >> how about fdr? you w

even more than winning the war and the navy in many of those powerful internal planners of the joint chiefs of staff were organization washington so a major role for china was in the last stage of the campaign and they wanted to flip the coast of china and wanted that [inaudible] they wanted potential to drop on chinese infantry manpower and the invasion of japan if that were to take place in the destruction of japanese armies over the asian mainland. byman 1944 i think it's fair to say we were going to take one of those two islands first, either the northern island of the philippines or the island of the capital city manila or what we cultivate taiwan, one of these two islands. that was the immediate decision fdr and his military chiefs faced in mid 1944. beyond that there was a question of can be forced japanese to surrender without invading their homeland and that played very much into the thinking they were confronting at this time as well? >> let me try to pin him down to eight what if because we love what if's, don't we? i think our listeners know interviewers know that of course [ina

. >> now, we do have below the defense secretary, we have the joint chiefs of staff, the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, the chiefs themselves of the various military branches and the generals who would do anything. and there's no talk amongst anybody of the military doing something to keep donald trump either in power or in the white house as he's determined to have lost the election. >> right. contrary -- to the contrary the military leaders have come out. for example, general milly has said there's no role to play in this transition process. and he's made it very clear. and in my conversations with the various leaders, uniform leaders of the military, they have said the exact same thing. and in fact, i received a message from secretary mcarthur, the secretary of the army today saying that they will be in full support of the transition process, a peaceful and smooth transition process as possible. but that said the president of the united states firing the defense secretary this soon after the election, this soon after a major transition destabilizes our national security. there

he also said that based on his knowledge of the joint chiefs and the way things work, they would not be able to pull it off. >> yeah, look, i don't discount that at all. i take the general very seriously when he says that because he's not a man who plays lightly in this space. he does not assume things or take them for granted. he's very deliberate in his words and i think we should pay attention to that. and to be honest with you, i've kind of thought about that myself where you start to step back and look at okay, so he's targeting the department of defense, the cia, the intelligence agencies for the immediate firing of individuals. he's, you know, stacking with people without a direct report but to him. so yeah, there is a reason i think for us to be very, very concerned about that and yeah, to raise if not a yellow flag, maybe hit an alarm button or two and i suspect that there are people doing that. there is not much we can do about it from where we sit. so we have to trust that the general is right, that those people within the intelligence community, within the joint chiefs un

. >> and this week we saw the joint chiefs chairman, mark milley, during a ceremony at the opening of the army national museum. take a look at this. >> we are unique among armies. we are unique among militaries. we do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. we do not take an oath to an individual. >> ambassador gaspard, you know transitions, and you also know that there's been a lot of nervousness about what went on at the pentagon, the firing of mark esper on twitter, then the housecleaning of top officials at the pentagon, the civilian officials, replaced by people loyal to the president and devin nunes and others who have been actively claiming that the russian intelligence was wrong and trying to declassify it under the new dni, relatively new dni ratcliffe. a lot of concern that the intelligence will be disclosed as well as possible moves in afghanistan and iraq, precipitous withdrawals. that was quite an extraordinary statement from the chairman of the joint chiefs. >> an extraordinary statement, but this is an extraordinary time, where what we're experien

and becca, let's talk about the joint chiefs of staff.why the joint chiefs of staff, where are they more demoralized by 69. >> yes hope kissinger attributes a great not to the chiefs of staff, and the military command at this time, and his psychological investment in the war. he said it was really easy for leaders to focus on only these sort of strategic goals, and aspects of preparing for war. there was not enough emphasis placed on the concepts of fundamental values and he describes this as saying the military themselves design weapons on the basis of abstract criteria. hearing in strategies they did not believe, and conducting a war that they do not understand. he pointed out that they were too vulnerable to being enslaved by external ideas such as being swayed towards tactics that were not compatible with the sick shoe asian with they were actually facing. he also says that oftentimes we acquiesce to these ideas, but then have spoken resentment. so this would be make morale even more down. he also explains that there were internal bat

but how sad that the chair of the joint chiefs is a standout for saying the obvious. doesn't it just expose what is not being said by those in power right now? this is america, lest we forget. not long ago the head prosecutor at trump's impeachment trial told republicans, if you find the courage to stand up to him, to speak the awful truth to his rank falsehood, your place will be among the davids who took on goliath. if only you will say enough. that was chairman and congressman adam schiff, chairman of the house intel committee. he joins us now. welcome back to "prime time." >> thank you, chris. >> so you foresaw something like this. but what do you make of so many members of the republican party in your ranks in congress holding up a baseless assessment of this election? >> well, it's shameless and it does, as president obama said, put us on a very dangerous path. but it's the culmination of four years of this. the president was really only able to attack, for example, the independence of the justice department because the republicans stood mute or went along with

. >> and you report after secretary of state pompeo and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, generalescribed the potential risk of escalation to the president. they left the meeting believing a missile strike was toff the table. do you know why they believed that? >> well, it's hard to tell with this president because he frequently raises issues. it's hard, sometimes, to know how seriously he is taking them. then, sometimes, he seems to dismiss it. and then, as we've seen, at moments, he comes back at it. we've also saw a moment where he ordered a strike against iran, more than a year ago, and then pulled back from it. so, it's a little bit hard to tell whether this is really over. what is clear is that the iranians, now, have about 12 times the acceptable limit under the iran nuclear deal for nuclear fuel. that's enough for them to build about two weapons. but it would take them at least six months or so, anderson, in order to be able to build them. so, it's not like he's facing an imminent problem, right here. if he did take military action, i think it's fair to say it would make i