King or Country?

[Turboswede]

I would like to hear from military and ex-military folks. As the President is the elected commander in chief of the armed forces, do you think that a portion of the military would support the president against congress?

Suppose a standing President were to offer compelling evidence that massive voter fraud had led to illegitimate election results, refused to step down and declared martial law after congress and the senate ratified his successor.

Would you accept the orders of the standing President, President elect or Congress?

 

[jodylee]

note the absence of comment, military types ex or current are not taught to think. anyway the only martial law you are likley to see is that of the state against its people.

 

[Diuretic]

I have to disagree. Military types are taught to think, they couldn't do their job if they couldn't. And not to forget that the military types are told by their political masters what the broad objectives of a military campaign are. The political types make the declaration, they expect the military to achieve the political objectives they have identified. That takes thinking.

 

[editec]

I suspect under those circumstances as described, there wouldn't be much doubt the POTUS was pulling a coup d etat, and I seriously doubt the military brass would support him.

Were the situation less obvious, however?

Then I could see top brass breaking up into partisan postions, some taking side with the POTUS and others with Congress.

My basic belief about our military is that it will support whomsoever it feels has the legitimate claim to office.

AS to whether the troops on the group would fire on civilians on the streets if they were thought to be in defiance of legitmate authority?

I have absolutely no doubt most would.

Some rank and file soldiers might not fire on citizens, of course, but I think they're be relatively rare.

It takes real stones to stand up to chain of command authority when you're in at the end of that chain of command.

It's about transference of responsibility.

Most people, if pressured by what they think is the authority with command responsibility, even if they have doubts about the legality or morality of an order will carry out their orders.

History proves this to us over and over again.

When people are convinced that their obligation is to the authorities, they absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions even if they disagree with those orders.

Under those circumstances most people will do things that they would not do if they were going to be held personally responsible for their actions.

 

[jodylee]

its called chain of command and totally neggates thinking, my younger brother was a royal marine commando and they gave them excersices that were completly pointless in order for them to stop thinking about the order, and just take it, no matter how ridiculous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If our Military were forced to chose it would break up along the same lines the Country would. Some would follow the Current President some would not. The idea that Officer and SNCO's much less the troops are going to blindly follow orders JUST because they were given is hilarious.

They would play along till they had their weapons and ammo issued that is for sure.

Troops firing on civilians would depend on the justification for the mission and the action of the civilians. I seriously doubt many American troops would fire on unarmed civilians that were not threatening them in some way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

its called chain of command and totally neggates thinking, my younger brother was a royal marine commando and they gave them excersices that were completly pointless in order for them to stop thinking about the order, and just take it, no matter how ridiculous.

You are an idiot.

 

[Diuretic]

its called chain of command and totally neggates thinking, my younger brother was a royal marine commando and they gave them excersices that were completly pointless in order for them to stop thinking about the order, and just take it, no matter how ridiculous.

No. He was given exercises to help him understand that he was no longer a civilian.

Your brother was introduced to one of the more elite units of the British armed forces (I know RM are RN but they get all funny about terminology) and he was immediately separate from civilian life.

 

[editec]

If our Military were forced to chose it would break up along the same lines the Country would. Some would follow the Current President some would not. The idea that Officer and SNCO's much less the troops are going to blindly follow orders JUST because they were given is hilarious.

They would play along till they had their weapons and ammo issued that is for sure.

Troops firing on civilians would depend on the justification for the mission and the action of the civilians. I seriously doubt many American troops would fire on unarmed civilians that were not threatening them in some way.

History doesn't bear you out in that assumption.

I'd like to believe it, but I don't.

 

[Sunni Man]

I seriously doubt many American troops would fire on unarmed civilians that were not threatening them in some way.

Does Kent State in the 1960's ring a bell?

 

[strollingbones]

note the absence of comment, military types ex or current are not taught to think. anyway the only martial law you are likley to see is that of the state against its people.

you are so full of shit. if they do not think then why have ROE's.

you obviously know little history ...d day...americans had devastating loses...but the men regrouped place e2 in charge..the highest ranking man alive got to lead and did...while the germans waited for high command to tell them what to do..it was the thinking men who regrouped and fought on....you fucking idiot..learn your damned history.

btw my father was an e9 and retires with 30 yrs. you are an insult to him and the men who fought with him.

 

[strollingbones]

You are an idiot.

didnt realize you had already been told you were an idiot.

 

[strollingbones]

Does Kent State in the 1960's ring a bell?

kent state was untrained nation guard. try to review your history

 

[strollingbones]

for one thing kent state was in 1970 not the sixites...get it right

 

[CSM]

note the absence of comment, military types ex or current are not taught to think. anyway the only martial law you are likley to see is that of the state against its people.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

There are few comments from military or ex military because it is a purely hypothetical question and many of us are tired of being denigrated over hypotheticals particularly from idiots like you.

 

[Sunni Man]

kent state was untrained nation guard. try to review your history

Untrained?

We have National Guard in Iraq. Are they also untrained?

 

[strollingbones]

Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

There are few comments from military or ex military because it is a purely hypothetical question and many of us are tired of being denigrated over hypotheticals particularly from idiots like you.

i thank any man or women willing to serve. taking time from their families..risking all they have...and then to be questioned like this?

 

[Sunni Man]

for one thing kent state was in 1970 not the sixites...get it right

Sorry, those times were lost in a smoky haze............

 

[CSM]

Untrained?

We have National Guard in Iraq. Are they also untrained?

Different times...the military (especially the National Guard) is a very different organization than it was then. The Guardsmen that were at Kent State were indeed largely untrained. The soldiers in today's Guard are trained as well as their active duty counterparts.

I suppose that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions but htere ya go.

 

[strollingbones]

no, you are simply an idiot who does not know history