Is there a way for the US Generals to defy Trump regarding Syria?

[KentuckyWoman]

Keep on keeping on until someone in Washington is able to step in and stop the madness?

I dunno, just say "we are working on it" and then 2 years from now "we are still working on it".

[MineralMan]

1. No, not really.

Not direct defiance. That is a serious crime under the UCMJ.

[thucythucy]

5. Not to mention it would set a dangerous precedent.

I very much like the idea of civilian control of the military. A move like this would be one more giant step away from anything like a constitutional democracy.

The only exception I would make is if Trump decided to launch an actual nuclear attack. At that point I would hope the 25th amendment would be invoked, and immediate steps taken to remove and confine the Orange Dullard.

Short of that, we have always to remember this is supposed to be a nation of laws.

[MineralMan]

6. Yes, that, too.

The military oath of office for commissioned officers reads:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[Girard442]

2. Coup.

Mattis might have actually done this for the nuclear chain of command. What's in place now, who knows?

[nycbos]

3. No. They would be court marshaled for refusing a direct order from the president.

I believe the only thing they can do is resign if they feel they can't carry out an order.

[KentuckyWoman]

9. That's my understanding on why Mattis is leaving.

Not wanting to be associated with the results of the Syria decision. I thought that's really the only option for the Generals but wasn't sure if there was a legal option. Or perhaps stalling just long enough without really defying orders.

I want us to have civilian control over the military but we are kind of in a situation where no one is being a check to the civilian authority... not Congress, not the Senate. We need the judiciary to step in but that is not happening either.

With the president openly doing the bidding of a foreign power I'm not sure what options we really have....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Court-martialed.

[atreides1]

4. Not really!

Once the orders are given, there isn't much that commanders on the ground can do! The Pentagon could slow things down, but even that would be for only a short period of time!

By regulations, the only orders that commanders are not obligated to obey, are those that could be defined as being illegal!

[Girard442]

8. If an order to make a nuclear first strike isn't illegal, what is?

[LuckyCharms]

7. The Pentagon should just tell Trump that the troops were pulled out...

while leaving the troops in place.

He'll never know the difference.

[marble falls]

10. Why would we want the military defying civil authority????? ...

Trump will be gone soon enough.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

12. Trump will be gone soon enough?

I fear we are stuck with him for another two years.

People have been predicting ever since November 8, 2016, that Trump will be gone in the very near future. Maybe, just maybe if he were to try to order an attack, especially a nuclear attack on any country, either the people actually running the military would rise up and refuse to carry out the order, or Congress would finally understand he needs to be removed. Maybe.