Ever since Trump took office, I keep seeing comments along the line of

[The Polack MSgt]

"When will the military stand up and tell him no?"

"He better be careful not to piss off the generals"

"Why is Mattis slamming him now, why didn't he stop Trump while he was Secretary of Defense?"

These comments show an alarming misunderstanding of the role of the military in the American political system.

The Armed Forces are in NO WAY A CO-EQUAL branch of the government - They cannot say no to policies they disagree with.

Their collective duty is to execute the policy of the President to the best of their ability.

Any officer who cannot do so has only one option - To resign their commission and fight that policy as PRIVATE CITIZEN.

If the Armed Forces suddenly began acting in the way some folks advocate on this board - Refusing orders or pushing policy independent of the executive branch? Well then - get on a boat plane or bus out of here.

America would no longer exist from that point on.

Mattis showed exactly how this is supposed to work and thank whatever god you want to it still does work this way.

This is how it went:

The Russian owned sack of Cheese-whiz wanted to withdraw from Syria a year and a half ago.

Mattis tells him it's a bad idea, talks him out of it.

A few months later that sad cheesy sack-o-shit says he's gonna withdraw anyway.

Mattis resigns explaining that he cannot support that policy.

As a retired private citizen Mattis THEN begins ridiculing sack boy.

A few months later, Cheese-whiz gets his marching orders from Putin or a bribe from Edrogan (whatever the trigger was) and orders the with drawl.

Officers that swore an Oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States, obey the orders of the President of The United States.

The fucking end.

If the military starts believing that they can pick and choose what to obey? Well, then America is fucking DONE.

Trump is bad, he is hurting this nation, but we are pushing back.

If we don't quit we will win and begin fixing the damage.

But if the Armed Forces were to suddenly become free agents, then we exist as a nation at their whim.

[tazkcmo]

1. That's the Army I remember.

Well put.

[hlthe2b]

2. All true. It does NOT, however explain why VFW and Americal Legion continue to kowtow to him

and provide Trump cover for his abuse of the military and our allies.

[The Polack MSgt]

5. National Leadership of the older Veteren's Orginizations

Are overwhelmingly Old. White. Conservative. Assholes.

But even in those groups younger and browner voices are pushing back. I believe it's to little too late and the most likely outcome is several smaller orginizations with the old Behemoths remaining - Old. White. Conservative. And dwindling.

My post is about 50% AA/Hispanic and most of us old white guys that remain are Dems. But I am not gonna pretend we represent a common face in the VFW

[sheshe2]

3. Thank you.

[atreides1]

4. Okay

What about the part where we swear to "... 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", or is that just lip service?

So, if the President orders the US military to fire on American citizens...they must obey their orders...as long as they don't become "free agents"!!!

[The Polack MSgt]

6. If.

If the Pres orders the military to violate the constitution they have the moral responsibility to refuse.

So far he has not done that.

ETA - It is not the DoD's responsibility to determine if his civilian policies violate the constitution. That's the Supreme Court's job

[StarfishSaver]

9. This is a great point.

It seems that DoD and individual officers can't on their own decide what is lawful or unlawful. Taking on that prerogative would result in havoc.

[BBG]

28. Actually no

It is unlawful to comply with an unlawful order. Doing so places one in jeopardy themselves. An order to kill without declaration of war would put one at odds with the Geneva Convention and subject to prosecution for war crimes.

[StarfishSaver]

29. True. But except in the most egregious circumstances, like you've described

or where it is unequivocally clear the Constitution, Geneva Convention, etc. are being violated, it's difficult for an individual officer to determine whether an order is lawful or unlawful, unless they have access to all of the information that the commander-in-chief has.

The OP's point is that this isn't nearly as simple as some believe and I agree

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. there are lawful and unlawful orders

The particular circumstances under which a President gives the hypothetical order you put forth will determine how the U.S. military responds.

This does not change the point the OP is making: the President, a civilian, is the Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. military.

[rlexx]

16. Shooting American Citizens is an unlawful order

[The Polack MSgt]

25. Unfortunately that is not always true

We have launched drone missiles at US citizens.

There are several cases of US citizens joining in with people on the other side of a soldier sailor airman or marine's weapon. They shoot anyway

No one was prosecuted when back in the depression General MacArthur routed the Veteran's tent city in DC even though several men died.

Those guys were just trying to receive the bonuses they were promised, but the Courts of the time declined to rule against Hoover.

So, much as I'd like to say that it's cut and dried. That there is a shining line between what is lawful and constitutional and what is not - Well that ain't necessarily so

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

17. The Military and the individual members

are under NO obligation to follow illegal orders...…….

[StarfishSaver]

8. This makes a lot of sense

Thanks for explaining it.

[Mister Ed]

10. Thank you.

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2019, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I've tried before to explain on this board that mutiny or military coup d'etat are not something to be wished for, and have been told that's just my "spin" on the topic.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. They are nothing to be wished for

But, hypothetically, what if they're the only chance we've got?

[Mister Ed]

21. Hypothetical questions have only hypothetical answers.

But yes, hypothetically speaking, if a coup d'etat by the U.S. military were the last and only chance to prevent the hypothetical Second Coming of Hitler and save the world from being immolated in a hypothetical World War III, then I would be in favor of that hypothetical coup d'etat on the grounds that it would be by far the lesser of two hypothetical evils.

But out here in the non-hypothetical world, I take great comfort in the knowledge that military personnel can generally be relied on to ignore anonymous internet posters like us when we urge them to overthrow the government.

[The Polack MSgt]

24. Exactly

If this became a b-movie apocalyptic "save the world" scenario, I believe that the US military intervening is a better option.

Look, we have a corrupt and incompetent POS pushing and pulling the levers of power with little thought or concern for the outcomes.

And don't get me wrong this SUCKS but - There are hearings being held and people are taking back power from the Trump party every election cycle.

Guess what we don't have though?

There are no tanks at intersections monitoring the movement of citizens.

No rifle squads enforcing the whims of those in power.

Because our military is NOT a part of the political power calculus that it is in far too many nations.

Many of which were once almost Democracies

[OldBaldy1701E]

26. No, but that is because

the powers that be have basically created another army in our civilian police force. They don't need what you suggest because they already have that 'political power calculus' and thanks to alarmist voices telling everyone that our civilian police have to be as armed as our military... then, you get two armed forces which are not going to be working for the same objectives. Or, are you thinking that the push to make the police as armed and as legally able to do whatever they want (a'la Special Forces and the like) as the military is nothing more than 'spreading the tech'?

[llashram]

11. true and

always there. Ubiquitous. Coupled with the Consitution, without reservation, an option.

Wielded with malice and personal avarice, unconstitutional.

[malthaussen]

12. True enough, but of course...

... there are many perfectly honorable ways to delay and obfuscate if one receives a stupid order. But that's all: one may delay and become suddenly unbelievably incompetent, but he can't tell his boss, "No, I won't do that." (Unlawful orders aside, but that's another can of worms)

Officers have it better than enlisted in this respect, since enlisted don't get the option to resign.

-- Mal

[The Polack MSgt]

13. All true Mal, but this OP was wordy already -

And if I tried to touch on all the nooks and crannies of of the UCMJ, Laws of Armed Conflict, Customs and Regulations I would basically have to write and publish a master's thesis.

And that would mean I'd have to edit out the F-Bombs. Unacceptable.

[malthaussen]

14. It must be VERY hard for a senior NCO...

... to edit out the F-Bombs.

-- Mal

[The Polack MSgt]

15. I still work in the DOD and routinely brief senior leaders.

I often pause while speaking so that I can include the F-Bombs silently. It's as close as I can get to deleting them.

[Karadeniz]

18. I know you're right. I was just hoping that since Trump's retreat order could be seen by

An idiot to result in inhumane treatment of the Kurds, that could be used as a reason to stay with our allies.

[McKim]

20. Important to Remember: We Are Not a Banana Republic!

Please, we must keep customs respectful traditions, decorum and the rule of law! We are not a banana republic, though our “president” is a dictator wannabe!

[NCLefty]

22. However, if Trump "tries to stay" after his term, as many keep suggesting, I expect military to put

things right, back the way they were, with Trump out. That expectation I DO have of them.

[The Polack MSgt]

23. That would clearly be justified, although my guess would be that the DoD would simply stop listening

To the Trump Admin and work with the properly elected administration - That seems more likely than a platoon of Rangers frog marching Donnie out of the WH.

As much as I want to see that sack of shit in custody...

[leftieNanner]

27. Excellent Thread

I remember an episode of Lawrence O'Donnell where he said if The Orange One refuses to leave our White House, then immediately after the new President is sworn in, the US Marshalls would escort him out.

I remember also during Nixon, that his Sec. of Defense (Schlesinger, I think) told the guys in the silos that if the Football was activated, that they should not obey. Did we ever think we would be in this kind of situation again??