It is officers' responsibility to disobey unconstitutional orders. If you are an officer and have every intention of using your rank and command to refuse orders that are wrong, stay in. If you're not in command of anyone, and don't have the option of disobeying, leave now.
This is stupid. We want people with conscience and who support the Constitution to stay in the military. If they leave they will be replaced by Proud Boys. We need them inside the institution.
I am not sure what you are saying. They should stay in the army... and do what exactly? Follow orders poorly? Do a bad job at oppressing the population on purpose?
Good people who "support the constitution" have no place in Trump's military. They are simply going to be asked to break the constitution (by being deployed to Chicago, for example. Or in a few months here, to open fire on "enemies of the state" like protestors).
Might as well make your moral stand NOW and not wait until then?
I don't think there are any easy answers to the points that Hamilton is raising, here or in any of his posts. Please, there is a lot of useful discussion going on here and nobody knows whether they're right or not. But it's interesting to see everyone's viewpoint, in order to arrive at one oneself. Nobody's perfect here. And no one is stupid. We are learning to deal with an unprecedented series of circumstances. Thanks - :-)
There's a place for generals to stay and keep a lid on things, to do malicious compliance and leak things and perform their jobs as badly as possible, but consider this.
Mikie Sherill, the Democratic candidate for NJ Governor, was on Democracy Docket the other day, and the interviewer asked her, what's going through the heads of House Republicans, are they actually in favor of dismantling our democracy? And she said, they know it's wrong, but they reason that if they quit, someone worse will take their place.
But they keep voting for Trump's priorities. They keep towing the party line. And as long as they keep doing that, they are the "someone worse." She said they should quit.
And what if having a conscience and supporting the Constitution runs completely counter to continuing to serve this administration? Or did you not read past the headline.
I understand the argument Daniel, but there is an unknown here: what proportion of the armed forces are "with us" and what proportion relish the idea of following Mr Trump's orders?
If the proportions are the same as, say, gays against straights, we know from past experience what has happened to gays in the military. They had to stay quiet about their sexuality, or risk persecution. Maybe there could be 50 per cent gays by now, so it's not such a problem being gay. But very few people are in the military and ostensibly out, and the "good guys" will likely take a similar stance to gays: remain stumm.
So, how do the good guys know who the other good guys are? Because revealing themselves to the other good guys will reveal them also to the bad guys.
Effectively you're advocating a position where the good guys act as a moderating influence without revealing themselves to the point where they become precisely the enemy that the bad guys are instructed to eliminate. A bit like being a police infiltrator in a mafia gang. Because no one ever knows how many gays there are in the military, and so they all keep quiet.
Ah but Hamilton, have you considered [argument you already refuted]? In my head you didn't, and that's the same thing as it being true that you didn't. /s
I disagree as to who should leave. Then who should stay.
Those at the top need to stay. Trump wants them to leave. It was the whole purpose of the spectacle. He meant to insult them to get them to quit. He wants to replace them with more sycophants.
Should young Americans join? No. Those at the bottom should leave if they can or "quiet quit" for now.
Could that room have all walked out? If one had would others have followed? What would that do? It would have helped the dictator.
I told someone years ago that the military would cave to an authoritarian. Not all but most. It is in their cognitive make-up. It is why they are in the military. They are trained to follow orders. To follow authority.
He naively said they would honor the Constitution and their oath. Some will. Most will not.
Rommel stood up. Several years too late.
Trained to follow the laws too. If the laws change they will follow blindly. Write a law saying all LGBTQ should be rounded up and jailed. Sign it into law and they will carry out the law. No matter how un-constitutional. It is their human nature and the current dictator is exploiting the madness of crowds.
Many have jobs, pensions, homes, kids, wives, and more to be concerned about. Quitting means they might lose some or all. It is easy to fall on a sword when there is nothing left. Right now we are at the start.
Midterms matter. How much can not be over-stated. We blew it last November.
Congress can impeach him. Or they can empower him.
Quitting Congress helps him.
When a conservative with honor steps down we get lunatics and sycophants.
Elections are political theater at present. Change will come, the kind of change necessary to shift the policy paradigm away from monied interests towards ‘we the people’, in the streets via protest, civil disobedience, general strikes, and boycotts.
Our only way out of this mess, as has been the case throughout our history.
Sadly it gets really, really, bad first. I think most on here and of course a minority of others understand this and want to stop damage before it occurs. Sure, we are naive thinking others will listen. It is better to shout fire when the fire is just a spark than to wait until it is a 5 alarm fire and say I could have warned you but I didn't because I knew you would not listen. :)
I respectfully disagree. I think the argument against leaving is the stronger argument. Staying and obeying unconstitutional orders shouldn't be an option that is on the table. What I saw in the footage from Quantico was a roomful of adults who take their oath seriously. These next few weeks are very likely, IMO, to be the crucial test.
I've been hearing about trusting "the adults in the room" since I was a kid, and now as a fully grown adult, I have to say the phrase no longer sways me. Most institutions, and I have no reason to believe the military is different, are full of people who primarily want to cover their asses and not rock the boat. If anything, sycophants and people who don't rock the boat are precisely the people who get promoted in the military.
Scum rises. The main downside to Hamilton's argument is the idea that these are honorable men. But I suspect he is being rhetorical.
I get it. To be clear, what I saw was people acting like the proverbial 'adults in the room'. As I've learned over 50+ years of professional life (yeah, I'm an Old Geezer) having an adult in the room doesn't guarantee that the others in the room won't act like toddlers or worse. And too many of those 'adults in the room' succumb to pressure and either let the toddlers have their way — or, worse, start acting like toddlers themselves.
My confidence isn't great that something like that won't happen — particularly when you have 50-odd Senators and 215-odd Representatives who aren't acting like adults. What weakens my confidence is how the troop deployments to U.S. cities this year have been handled to date.
I really hope nobody listens to Nolan; this is sophomoric in the extreme.
We have no guarantee that the military leadership will defy Trump's lawless authoritarianism. Major law firms, top universities, tech lords and media companies have capitulated to him, as has the Christian right and the entire Republican party. These are pissant nihilists. But I pray the military is made of tougher stuff and better people with more integrity. Because I hate to say it, but they're really our last hope. Clearly, Trump is intent on subverting (if not cancelling) elections. Clearly, this Supreme Court will do everything it can to accommodate him. Clearly, too, nearly half the country is more than happy to live under a dictatorship. A military that refuses to follow lawless orders is the last line of defense. Ezra Klein, Rachel Maddow, Joe Rogan, Joe Marshall or Hamilton Nolan are no defense at all. They're mere spectators. The generals and admirals don't have to engage in politics or openly denounce Trump. I would hope that they wouldn't, for the same reason I would hope they remain apolitical under a Democratic administration. They simply have to stubbornly uphold the constitution. If they quit, as Nolan recommends, they can't do that. They will only be replaced by moral weaklings who don't give a rat's ass about the constitution or the country.
Trump’s “generals speech” was more evidence of a man who is in increasingly in cognitive decline. He at times simply didn’t make sense, he was rambling, had loose associations, was tangential, and at times simply illogical. If it sounds like the mental status of someone who suffers from mental illness, its because it is. But maybe its because the man is 78 y/o old, his schedule and the demands of his office would exhaust anyone 20 years his junior. Some have remarked he didn't have the usual spring in his step, he lacked the usual energy, he seemed tired. This might contribute to him being less effective, but unfortunately even more dangerous.
Opinions by political pundits on both sides have said the speech was not well received by those in the military, specifically those in the audience. Wonder why. You don’t insult your troops and then expect them to cheer for you. (Unless of course you’re losing touch with the real world).
I want to believe the last thing US military leaders want to do is attack their own citizens, and use US cities as training grounds for combat operations. I always believed people joined the US military, at least in theory, to defend democracy, certainly not to attack and declare war on those exercising their civil rights.
Many ways to leave the military. Not saying this is the recommended path; just that leaving is morally principled in the present time, staying is based on material comfort. Individual choice awareness.
Given the political persuasion of the vast majority of members of the US military, I have essentially no faith that when Trump orders them to fire on US citizens, anything other than a very tiny minority will refuse to do so.
I, finally, disagree with something you've said. As others are pointing out, if good people leave the military, they'll get replaced with Proud Boys. This will happen. You address this concern in the 3rd-to-last paragraph, but give the back of the hand to the notion that "armies follow orders."
The best thing that can happen after this fascistic tirade in Quantico is the top brass huddle up on their own and collectively come to the conclusion to not listen to Hegseth and Trump. Let these childmen rant and rage and scream while the military holds the course they've been on.
I do not believe a military coup is a desirable thing.
People keep telling me the good soldiers are gonna stand up and save us by refusing to follow orders. Still waiting for any evidence of that. I strongly suspect that will not happen.
Nor do I. A hypothetical: if a military takeover to oust a fascist happened, how soon would that military be willing to cede authority to the civilians who twice demonstrated that they cannot be trusted not to elect a fascist?
Just saying when the illegal orders come to attack US civilians or Congress that they respectfully refuse and order their soldiers to stand down.
We also need civilians to not force soldiers to respond.
All protests must be peaceful and non threatening.
The Jan 6th insurrectionists met a group of law enforcement that practiced unbelievable restraint.
If it happens again many might shoot to kill right off that bat.
Or if complicit open the doors and let the mob take over.
We do need police and soldiers but they are only as good as the laws and the restraints our society puts on them.
The soldiers in the South thought they were fighting an honorable war against the North. Years of propaganda by the rich there. Only a few southerners owned slaves. So millions died for no reason.
The French, British, Russians and Germans fought WW1. Just following orders on all sides. So millions died for no reason.
Today many in ICE think they are upholding the law by going after illegals. Not all of them but more than enough. As the moral homeland security workers leave they will recruit more thugs that will ignore the laws. SCOTUS actually gave them more of a reason to ignore the Constitution. Allowing racial profiling and arrests without warrants. Catch and release in 2025. While in prison find something to charge the person with.
I don't think it's desirable either, but there are no good options. I'm also not optimistic that it will happen. But I would disagree looking at it as a "military coup." They're not using the military to take over the government. In fact, they're using the military to NOT take over the government.
It's all definitely chilling and something (else) to watch closely.
Military coups are driven by the prospect of gain, regardless of the purity or otherwise of the intentions of the coup's leader. There are exceptions, as there exceptions to everything, but nothing quite incites like financial reward. Following orders for the sake of it is a career soldier's mantra. Following orders in order to preserve your own life, demonstrate your loyalty where not doing so could mean your dishonourable discharge, or, even better, in order to win favour (like John Churchill won Blenheim Palace) alters the viewpoint.
The Art of the Deal is the gameplay here, not "I was only following orders". Trump will get soldiers to follow orders for which that hackneyed defence will simply not apply, and he knows it. Soldiers will break the law for material benefit. Those who don't will be discharged or "Code Redded" in some other way. And, afterwards, some will build palaces.
Yes please leave while you have some soul intact. But after they’re done with the rest of us I can’t imagine any decent people still left in the ranks are all that safe either. So keep your bodies intact too.
I think you are wrong, unfortunately. They are not his army, navy, air force nor marines and to surrender to fools and clowns in the face of your nation's time of trouble is not in their nature. That is not why those people invested their lives and careers getting to the positions they are now in to just simply throw it away in the face of adversity. Besides, to do so would create a massive power vacuum which they will well know, being some of America's best trained war gaming strategists.
Please Mr. Nolan, may I offer a couple of viewpoints from a pair of elders who are able to see through the eyes of those who were seated among the audience?...
*edit* The 800 Senior officers and NCOs need to remain in place to be able to refuse the possible/potential upcoming illegal orders for the US military to engage with/fire upon the civilian population. They too have sworn oaths.
Since when can members of the military 'just leave'?
When I enlisted, I signed a six-year contract; four year active and two years inactive reserve.
If I didn't show up for duty, I would by considered AWOL, Absent Without Leave. The punishment for that ranges from fines, reduction of rank, to prison time. If I disappeared long enough that would change the charge to Desertion. In war-time they can shoot you for that.
Commissioned Officers can resign their Commission, and they can retire, but I strongly doubt they can just walk away from their commands and it's all good.
I remember an incident in the '2000s where a commissioned officer had finished their service and someone tried to order them to show up for a formation, evidently to press-gang them into a deployment. They wisely declined to show up, and there were no consequences. But they could have ended up with two military policemen on their front porch 'escorting' them to 'work'.
What they can do is make sure everyone in their command understands what an illegal order is, and that illegal orders will be ignored. They also have the ability to coordinate--agree together what an illegal order is and that everyone will ignore them.
As the daughter of a former 101st Airborne Army Captain, who de-enlisted and left his career after Kent State happened (though very much "served" in Vietnam for three years), thank you for writing this to all the servicemembers who should have left a long time ago, but MUST leave NOW.
"Obsessed with revenge above all." But exacted against whom?
Trump wants to get his own back against those who pursued him in court, in politics, those who failed to send him a Christmas card. Probably he is hatching a plan to get back at the microphone operator who knocked his head in an outside broadcast interview.
But here we have a "revenge" that isn't personal; it's institutional. To get back at the "radical left", regardless of whether they're the radical left who caused the problems, assuming the problems even exist.
It's not unlike the Israel/Gaza situation. Israel wants to get its own back for the Holocaust, and is wreaking revenge against the Palestinians, even though they didn't cause the Holocaust. That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who caused the source of the irritation: revenge is sought against anyone who's within range. Like school shooters who got bad marks in the school from teacher A and go in and kill small children and teacher B. What's important is the revenge, and not the persons from whom it is exacted. Am I close?
In Gaza, Israel shot dead 3 of its own people who were emerging from rubble with a white flag, calling out in Hebrew. It didn't matter. What mattered was the revenge. Even if those against whom it was taken had nothing to do with whatever it was that the revenge was being taken against.
When you read about Nazi Germany, there is a presumption, albeit never confirmed, that, once Adolf Hitler had eradicated all the Jews, and achieved his pure, Aryan race, he'd have closed the concentration camps (assuming he had won the war). With Donald Trump, one now gets the feeling that his thirst for revenge will never be sated. If you give him every last thing he asks for, he'll simply ask for more.
Tell the generals that. Tell them that, if they think they can satisfy his hunger for revenge by committing a couple of unconstitutional military acts for him, they are very much mistaken. They will be embarking on the thin end of a very substantial wedge.
It is officers' responsibility to disobey unconstitutional orders. If you are an officer and have every intention of using your rank and command to refuse orders that are wrong, stay in. If you're not in command of anyone, and don't have the option of disobeying, leave now.
This is stupid. We want people with conscience and who support the Constitution to stay in the military. If they leave they will be replaced by Proud Boys. We need them inside the institution.
The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house
I am not sure what you are saying. They should stay in the army... and do what exactly? Follow orders poorly? Do a bad job at oppressing the population on purpose?
Good people who "support the constitution" have no place in Trump's military. They are simply going to be asked to break the constitution (by being deployed to Chicago, for example. Or in a few months here, to open fire on "enemies of the state" like protestors).
Might as well make your moral stand NOW and not wait until then?
No, you're stupid.
I don't think there are any easy answers to the points that Hamilton is raising, here or in any of his posts. Please, there is a lot of useful discussion going on here and nobody knows whether they're right or not. But it's interesting to see everyone's viewpoint, in order to arrive at one oneself. Nobody's perfect here. And no one is stupid. We are learning to deal with an unprecedented series of circumstances. Thanks - :-)
There's a place for generals to stay and keep a lid on things, to do malicious compliance and leak things and perform their jobs as badly as possible, but consider this.
Mikie Sherill, the Democratic candidate for NJ Governor, was on Democracy Docket the other day, and the interviewer asked her, what's going through the heads of House Republicans, are they actually in favor of dismantling our democracy? And she said, they know it's wrong, but they reason that if they quit, someone worse will take their place.
But they keep voting for Trump's priorities. They keep towing the party line. And as long as they keep doing that, they are the "someone worse." She said they should quit.
And what if having a conscience and supporting the Constitution runs completely counter to continuing to serve this administration? Or did you not read past the headline.
I understand the argument Daniel, but there is an unknown here: what proportion of the armed forces are "with us" and what proportion relish the idea of following Mr Trump's orders?
If the proportions are the same as, say, gays against straights, we know from past experience what has happened to gays in the military. They had to stay quiet about their sexuality, or risk persecution. Maybe there could be 50 per cent gays by now, so it's not such a problem being gay. But very few people are in the military and ostensibly out, and the "good guys" will likely take a similar stance to gays: remain stumm.
So, how do the good guys know who the other good guys are? Because revealing themselves to the other good guys will reveal them also to the bad guys.
Effectively you're advocating a position where the good guys act as a moderating influence without revealing themselves to the point where they become precisely the enemy that the bad guys are instructed to eliminate. A bit like being a police infiltrator in a mafia gang. Because no one ever knows how many gays there are in the military, and so they all keep quiet.
Can you train a rattlesnake to not bite? If it doesnt bite it doesnt eat.
Exactly my point too. (Without the stupid though)
Ah but Hamilton, have you considered [argument you already refuted]? In my head you didn't, and that's the same thing as it being true that you didn't. /s
Honnest Question: Shouldnt we be urging military personnel with democratic moral values to stay? Stay and do damage control?
I cannot imagine the damage an army void of its people with integrity could do.
I disagree as to who should leave. Then who should stay.
Those at the top need to stay. Trump wants them to leave. It was the whole purpose of the spectacle. He meant to insult them to get them to quit. He wants to replace them with more sycophants.
Should young Americans join? No. Those at the bottom should leave if they can or "quiet quit" for now.
Could that room have all walked out? If one had would others have followed? What would that do? It would have helped the dictator.
I told someone years ago that the military would cave to an authoritarian. Not all but most. It is in their cognitive make-up. It is why they are in the military. They are trained to follow orders. To follow authority.
He naively said they would honor the Constitution and their oath. Some will. Most will not.
Rommel stood up. Several years too late.
Trained to follow the laws too. If the laws change they will follow blindly. Write a law saying all LGBTQ should be rounded up and jailed. Sign it into law and they will carry out the law. No matter how un-constitutional. It is their human nature and the current dictator is exploiting the madness of crowds.
Many have jobs, pensions, homes, kids, wives, and more to be concerned about. Quitting means they might lose some or all. It is easy to fall on a sword when there is nothing left. Right now we are at the start.
Midterms matter. How much can not be over-stated. We blew it last November.
Congress can impeach him. Or they can empower him.
Quitting Congress helps him.
When a conservative with honor steps down we get lunatics and sycophants.
Elections are political theater at present. Change will come, the kind of change necessary to shift the policy paradigm away from monied interests towards ‘we the people’, in the streets via protest, civil disobedience, general strikes, and boycotts.
Our only way out of this mess, as has been the case throughout our history.
Sadly it gets really, really, bad first. I think most on here and of course a minority of others understand this and want to stop damage before it occurs. Sure, we are naive thinking others will listen. It is better to shout fire when the fire is just a spark than to wait until it is a 5 alarm fire and say I could have warned you but I didn't because I knew you would not listen. :)
I respectfully disagree. I think the argument against leaving is the stronger argument. Staying and obeying unconstitutional orders shouldn't be an option that is on the table. What I saw in the footage from Quantico was a roomful of adults who take their oath seriously. These next few weeks are very likely, IMO, to be the crucial test.
I've been hearing about trusting "the adults in the room" since I was a kid, and now as a fully grown adult, I have to say the phrase no longer sways me. Most institutions, and I have no reason to believe the military is different, are full of people who primarily want to cover their asses and not rock the boat. If anything, sycophants and people who don't rock the boat are precisely the people who get promoted in the military.
Scum rises. The main downside to Hamilton's argument is the idea that these are honorable men. But I suspect he is being rhetorical.
I get it. To be clear, what I saw was people acting like the proverbial 'adults in the room'. As I've learned over 50+ years of professional life (yeah, I'm an Old Geezer) having an adult in the room doesn't guarantee that the others in the room won't act like toddlers or worse. And too many of those 'adults in the room' succumb to pressure and either let the toddlers have their way — or, worse, start acting like toddlers themselves.
My confidence isn't great that something like that won't happen — particularly when you have 50-odd Senators and 215-odd Representatives who aren't acting like adults. What weakens my confidence is how the troop deployments to U.S. cities this year have been handled to date.
I really hope nobody listens to Nolan; this is sophomoric in the extreme.
We have no guarantee that the military leadership will defy Trump's lawless authoritarianism. Major law firms, top universities, tech lords and media companies have capitulated to him, as has the Christian right and the entire Republican party. These are pissant nihilists. But I pray the military is made of tougher stuff and better people with more integrity. Because I hate to say it, but they're really our last hope. Clearly, Trump is intent on subverting (if not cancelling) elections. Clearly, this Supreme Court will do everything it can to accommodate him. Clearly, too, nearly half the country is more than happy to live under a dictatorship. A military that refuses to follow lawless orders is the last line of defense. Ezra Klein, Rachel Maddow, Joe Rogan, Joe Marshall or Hamilton Nolan are no defense at all. They're mere spectators. The generals and admirals don't have to engage in politics or openly denounce Trump. I would hope that they wouldn't, for the same reason I would hope they remain apolitical under a Democratic administration. They simply have to stubbornly uphold the constitution. If they quit, as Nolan recommends, they can't do that. They will only be replaced by moral weaklings who don't give a rat's ass about the constitution or the country.
Trump’s “generals speech” was more evidence of a man who is in increasingly in cognitive decline. He at times simply didn’t make sense, he was rambling, had loose associations, was tangential, and at times simply illogical. If it sounds like the mental status of someone who suffers from mental illness, its because it is. But maybe its because the man is 78 y/o old, his schedule and the demands of his office would exhaust anyone 20 years his junior. Some have remarked he didn't have the usual spring in his step, he lacked the usual energy, he seemed tired. This might contribute to him being less effective, but unfortunately even more dangerous.
Opinions by political pundits on both sides have said the speech was not well received by those in the military, specifically those in the audience. Wonder why. You don’t insult your troops and then expect them to cheer for you. (Unless of course you’re losing touch with the real world).
I want to believe the last thing US military leaders want to do is attack their own citizens, and use US cities as training grounds for combat operations. I always believed people joined the US military, at least in theory, to defend democracy, certainly not to attack and declare war on those exercising their civil rights.
Many ways to leave the military. Not saying this is the recommended path; just that leaving is morally principled in the present time, staying is based on material comfort. Individual choice awareness.
https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/aaron-bushnell-burned-himself-alive?utm_source=publication-search
Given the political persuasion of the vast majority of members of the US military, I have essentially no faith that when Trump orders them to fire on US citizens, anything other than a very tiny minority will refuse to do so.
I, finally, disagree with something you've said. As others are pointing out, if good people leave the military, they'll get replaced with Proud Boys. This will happen. You address this concern in the 3rd-to-last paragraph, but give the back of the hand to the notion that "armies follow orders."
The best thing that can happen after this fascistic tirade in Quantico is the top brass huddle up on their own and collectively come to the conclusion to not listen to Hegseth and Trump. Let these childmen rant and rage and scream while the military holds the course they've been on.
I do not believe a military coup is a desirable thing.
People keep telling me the good soldiers are gonna stand up and save us by refusing to follow orders. Still waiting for any evidence of that. I strongly suspect that will not happen.
Nor do I. A hypothetical: if a military takeover to oust a fascist happened, how soon would that military be willing to cede authority to the civilians who twice demonstrated that they cannot be trusted not to elect a fascist?
No coup.
Just saying when the illegal orders come to attack US civilians or Congress that they respectfully refuse and order their soldiers to stand down.
We also need civilians to not force soldiers to respond.
All protests must be peaceful and non threatening.
The Jan 6th insurrectionists met a group of law enforcement that practiced unbelievable restraint.
If it happens again many might shoot to kill right off that bat.
Or if complicit open the doors and let the mob take over.
We do need police and soldiers but they are only as good as the laws and the restraints our society puts on them.
The soldiers in the South thought they were fighting an honorable war against the North. Years of propaganda by the rich there. Only a few southerners owned slaves. So millions died for no reason.
The French, British, Russians and Germans fought WW1. Just following orders on all sides. So millions died for no reason.
Today many in ICE think they are upholding the law by going after illegals. Not all of them but more than enough. As the moral homeland security workers leave they will recruit more thugs that will ignore the laws. SCOTUS actually gave them more of a reason to ignore the Constitution. Allowing racial profiling and arrests without warrants. Catch and release in 2025. While in prison find something to charge the person with.
Bad leaders = bad outcomes.
I don't think it's desirable either, but there are no good options. I'm also not optimistic that it will happen. But I would disagree looking at it as a "military coup." They're not using the military to take over the government. In fact, they're using the military to NOT take over the government.
It's all definitely chilling and something (else) to watch closely.
This is what they say about every military coup.
Military coups are driven by the prospect of gain, regardless of the purity or otherwise of the intentions of the coup's leader. There are exceptions, as there exceptions to everything, but nothing quite incites like financial reward. Following orders for the sake of it is a career soldier's mantra. Following orders in order to preserve your own life, demonstrate your loyalty where not doing so could mean your dishonourable discharge, or, even better, in order to win favour (like John Churchill won Blenheim Palace) alters the viewpoint.
The Art of the Deal is the gameplay here, not "I was only following orders". Trump will get soldiers to follow orders for which that hackneyed defence will simply not apply, and he knows it. Soldiers will break the law for material benefit. Those who don't will be discharged or "Code Redded" in some other way. And, afterwards, some will build palaces.
How few are a few good men?
Yes please leave while you have some soul intact. But after they’re done with the rest of us I can’t imagine any decent people still left in the ranks are all that safe either. So keep your bodies intact too.
I think you are wrong, unfortunately. They are not his army, navy, air force nor marines and to surrender to fools and clowns in the face of your nation's time of trouble is not in their nature. That is not why those people invested their lives and careers getting to the positions they are now in to just simply throw it away in the face of adversity. Besides, to do so would create a massive power vacuum which they will well know, being some of America's best trained war gaming strategists.
Please Mr. Nolan, may I offer a couple of viewpoints from a pair of elders who are able to see through the eyes of those who were seated among the audience?...
https://open.substack.com/pub/luciantruscott/p/trumps-speech-to-the-generals-and?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
https://open.substack.com/pub/dearlstephens/p/red-alert?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
*edit* The 800 Senior officers and NCOs need to remain in place to be able to refuse the possible/potential upcoming illegal orders for the US military to engage with/fire upon the civilian population. They too have sworn oaths.
Since when can members of the military 'just leave'?
When I enlisted, I signed a six-year contract; four year active and two years inactive reserve.
If I didn't show up for duty, I would by considered AWOL, Absent Without Leave. The punishment for that ranges from fines, reduction of rank, to prison time. If I disappeared long enough that would change the charge to Desertion. In war-time they can shoot you for that.
Commissioned Officers can resign their Commission, and they can retire, but I strongly doubt they can just walk away from their commands and it's all good.
I remember an incident in the '2000s where a commissioned officer had finished their service and someone tried to order them to show up for a formation, evidently to press-gang them into a deployment. They wisely declined to show up, and there were no consequences. But they could have ended up with two military policemen on their front porch 'escorting' them to 'work'.
What they can do is make sure everyone in their command understands what an illegal order is, and that illegal orders will be ignored. They also have the ability to coordinate--agree together what an illegal order is and that everyone will ignore them.
As the daughter of a former 101st Airborne Army Captain, who de-enlisted and left his career after Kent State happened (though very much "served" in Vietnam for three years), thank you for writing this to all the servicemembers who should have left a long time ago, but MUST leave NOW.
"Obsessed with revenge above all." But exacted against whom?
Trump wants to get his own back against those who pursued him in court, in politics, those who failed to send him a Christmas card. Probably he is hatching a plan to get back at the microphone operator who knocked his head in an outside broadcast interview.
But here we have a "revenge" that isn't personal; it's institutional. To get back at the "radical left", regardless of whether they're the radical left who caused the problems, assuming the problems even exist.
It's not unlike the Israel/Gaza situation. Israel wants to get its own back for the Holocaust, and is wreaking revenge against the Palestinians, even though they didn't cause the Holocaust. That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who caused the source of the irritation: revenge is sought against anyone who's within range. Like school shooters who got bad marks in the school from teacher A and go in and kill small children and teacher B. What's important is the revenge, and not the persons from whom it is exacted. Am I close?
In Gaza, Israel shot dead 3 of its own people who were emerging from rubble with a white flag, calling out in Hebrew. It didn't matter. What mattered was the revenge. Even if those against whom it was taken had nothing to do with whatever it was that the revenge was being taken against.
When you read about Nazi Germany, there is a presumption, albeit never confirmed, that, once Adolf Hitler had eradicated all the Jews, and achieved his pure, Aryan race, he'd have closed the concentration camps (assuming he had won the war). With Donald Trump, one now gets the feeling that his thirst for revenge will never be sated. If you give him every last thing he asks for, he'll simply ask for more.
Tell the generals that. Tell them that, if they think they can satisfy his hunger for revenge by committing a couple of unconstitutional military acts for him, they are very much mistaken. They will be embarking on the thin end of a very substantial wedge.