Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

[pismoe]

Even if some officers thought his orders were illegal or unethical.

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

He has suggested carpet-bombing Syrian cities, assassinating the families of Islamic State fighters and torturing detainees, all illegal under international or U.S. law. He has proposed withdrawing troops from South Korea (a similar troop withdrawal helped ignite the 1950 Korean War), advocated disengaging from NATO, and declared that Japan would be “better off” with its own nuclear weapons. And he has famously bragged, “I know more about ISIS than the generals!”

The U.S. military prides itself on scrupulous adherence to strict moral and ethical values. While some in the ranks may be passionate Trump supporters, for others, the idea of actually carrying out his more bizarre ideas is unthinkable.

“I cannot imagine active-duty troops doing what Trump is stating,” said Paul Eaton, an Army two-star general who resigned in 2006 in protest against Bush administration military policies. “I believe we would have outright defiance,” Eaton told The Huffington Post. Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency, is even more blunt. Given an order to kill families of suspected terrorists, “the American armed forces would refuse to act,” he said.

Trump has fired back. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he boasted at a March 3 GOP presidential debate. “Believe me ― If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.”

Trump may be right. Despite its occasional disagreements with presidents and civilian officials, the military doesn’t have an especially proud record of refusing orders. Military officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the commander in chief. Nevertheless, the top brass, despite deep misgivings about the conduct of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, quietly went along with what the White House wanted. In 11 years of war in Vietnam, 58,220 Americans were killed; 4,520 Americans have died in the still-raging Iraq War so far.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers.
--U.S. Army Doctrine, Army Values​

The record suggests that the United States military, which takes pride in its strong professional ethics, nevertheless is no bulwark against military fiascos.

“It’s hard for military officers to disobey orders,” said Peter Mansoor, a historian and retired Army colonel who was the top aide to Gen. David Petraeus during the Iraq War troop surge in 2007-2008. “It’s a career-ending move that likely will get you court-martialed. One has to be willing to put one’s future on the line.”

The legal lines are clear. Waterboarding, used on detainees during the Bush administration as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or torture, is illegal under international and now U.S. law. The deliberate targeting of war-zone civilians, whether or not they are related to ISIS fighters or other terrorists, is a war crime under international law.

Nevertheless, Trump has asserted that both are necessary and, if he’s president, would be part of his war on ISIS.

“You have to take out their families,” Trump said three times during a phone interviewwith Fox News last December, brushing aside the issue of civilian casualties as “political correctness.”

These and other Trump pronouncements may be impulsive bluster, but they clash hard against the military’s values of personal courage, honor, integrity and loyalty, among others. At its core, the military’s value system is its commitment to use lethal violence only when legally and morally justified.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers. “Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

More: Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

This is yet another reason why I find the thought of a President Trump very dangerous and repugnant - because I agree with the OP that most soldiers would likely obey illegal, immoral and/or unethical orders from the president.

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

 

[pismoe]

and the pajama boy military of mrobama that don't like practical and efficient war fighting where the goal is the killing of enemies and the destruction of infrastructure can RESIGN if their beliefs are valid in their minds .

 

[rightwinger]

President Trump would not require the military to scavenge parts for their equipment.

Why would Trump procure parts for 40 year old airframes?

The democrat answer is to ground the air force.

Our air force is the most powerful in the world under the Dems

??

Care to name a better air force anywhere in the world?

 

[rightwinger]

Even if some officers thought his orders were illegal or unethical.

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

He has suggested carpet-bombing Syrian cities, assassinating the families of Islamic State fighters and torturing detainees, all illegal under international or U.S. law. He has proposed withdrawing troops from South Korea (a similar troop withdrawal helped ignite the 1950 Korean War), advocated disengaging from NATO, and declared that Japan would be “better off” with its own nuclear weapons. And he has famously bragged, “I know more about ISIS than the generals!”

The U.S. military prides itself on scrupulous adherence to strict moral and ethical values. While some in the ranks may be passionate Trump supporters, for others, the idea of actually carrying out his more bizarre ideas is unthinkable.

“I cannot imagine active-duty troops doing what Trump is stating,” said Paul Eaton, an Army two-star general who resigned in 2006 in protest against Bush administration military policies. “I believe we would have outright defiance,” Eaton told The Huffington Post. Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency, is even more blunt. Given an order to kill families of suspected terrorists, “the American armed forces would refuse to act,” he said.

Trump has fired back. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he boasted at a March 3 GOP presidential debate. “Believe me ― If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.”

Trump may be right. Despite its occasional disagreements with presidents and civilian officials, the military doesn’t have an especially proud record of refusing orders. Military officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the commander in chief. Nevertheless, the top brass, despite deep misgivings about the conduct of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, quietly went along with what the White House wanted. In 11 years of war in Vietnam, 58,220 Americans were killed; 4,520 Americans have died in the still-raging Iraq War so far.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers.
--U.S. Army Doctrine, Army Values​

The record suggests that the United States military, which takes pride in its strong professional ethics, nevertheless is no bulwark against military fiascos.

“It’s hard for military officers to disobey orders,” said Peter Mansoor, a historian and retired Army colonel who was the top aide to Gen. David Petraeus during the Iraq War troop surge in 2007-2008. “It’s a career-ending move that likely will get you court-martialed. One has to be willing to put one’s future on the line.”

The legal lines are clear. Waterboarding, used on detainees during the Bush administration as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or torture, is illegal under international and now U.S. law. The deliberate targeting of war-zone civilians, whether or not they are related to ISIS fighters or other terrorists, is a war crime under international law.

Nevertheless, Trump has asserted that both are necessary and, if he’s president, would be part of his war on ISIS.

“You have to take out their families,” Trump said three times during a phone interviewwith Fox News last December, brushing aside the issue of civilian casualties as “political correctness.”

These and other Trump pronouncements may be impulsive bluster, but they clash hard against the military’s values of personal courage, honor, integrity and loyalty, among others. At its core, the military’s value system is its commitment to use lethal violence only when legally and morally justified.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers. “Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

More: Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

This is yet another reason why I find the thought of a President Trump very dangerous and repugnant - because I agree with the OP that most soldiers would likely obey illegal, immoral and/or unethical orders from the president.

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

 

[pismoe]

Even if some officers thought his orders were illegal or unethical.

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

He has suggested carpet-bombing Syrian cities, assassinating the families of Islamic State fighters and torturing detainees, all illegal under international or U.S. law. He has proposed withdrawing troops from South Korea (a similar troop withdrawal helped ignite the 1950 Korean War), advocated disengaging from NATO, and declared that Japan would be “better off” with its own nuclear weapons. And he has famously bragged, “I know more about ISIS than the generals!”

The U.S. military prides itself on scrupulous adherence to strict moral and ethical values. While some in the ranks may be passionate Trump supporters, for others, the idea of actually carrying out his more bizarre ideas is unthinkable.

“I cannot imagine active-duty troops doing what Trump is stating,” said Paul Eaton, an Army two-star general who resigned in 2006 in protest against Bush administration military policies. “I believe we would have outright defiance,” Eaton told The Huffington Post. Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency, is even more blunt. Given an order to kill families of suspected terrorists, “the American armed forces would refuse to act,” he said.

Trump has fired back. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he boasted at a March 3 GOP presidential debate. “Believe me ― If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.”

Trump may be right. Despite its occasional disagreements with presidents and civilian officials, the military doesn’t have an especially proud record of refusing orders. Military officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the commander in chief. Nevertheless, the top brass, despite deep misgivings about the conduct of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, quietly went along with what the White House wanted. In 11 years of war in Vietnam, 58,220 Americans were killed; 4,520 Americans have died in the still-raging Iraq War so far.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers.
--U.S. Army Doctrine, Army Values​

The record suggests that the United States military, which takes pride in its strong professional ethics, nevertheless is no bulwark against military fiascos.

“It’s hard for military officers to disobey orders,” said Peter Mansoor, a historian and retired Army colonel who was the top aide to Gen. David Petraeus during the Iraq War troop surge in 2007-2008. “It’s a career-ending move that likely will get you court-martialed. One has to be willing to put one’s future on the line.”

The legal lines are clear. Waterboarding, used on detainees during the Bush administration as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or torture, is illegal under international and now U.S. law. The deliberate targeting of war-zone civilians, whether or not they are related to ISIS fighters or other terrorists, is a war crime under international law.

Nevertheless, Trump has asserted that both are necessary and, if he’s president, would be part of his war on ISIS.

“You have to take out their families,” Trump said three times during a phone interviewwith Fox News last December, brushing aside the issue of civilian casualties as “political correctness.”

These and other Trump pronouncements may be impulsive bluster, but they clash hard against the military’s values of personal courage, honor, integrity and loyalty, among others. At its core, the military’s value system is its commitment to use lethal violence only when legally and morally justified.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers. “Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

More: Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

This is yet another reason why I find the thought of a President Trump very dangerous and repugnant - because I agree with the OP that most soldiers would likely obey illegal, immoral and/or unethical orders from the president.

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

-------------------------------- everyone has an OPINION on whats needed and many of those opinions differ RWinger . We will see what the Trump does when Trump is elected if he gets elected.

 

[Faun]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

There was no way of saving the ambassador.

"Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that—they couldn’t." - Republican, Trey Gowdy

what about the others ?

I believe Smith may have died before Stevens, so there was no way of saving him either. Doherty and Woods were members of a rescue team that went in. They died while trying to fight off the attack. As far as I can tell, the only way they could have been saved is if they didn't go in in the first place.

 

[pismoe]

also need to keep in mind that Trump has real military men as advisers RWinger .

 

[pismoe]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

There was no way of saving the ambassador.

"Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that—they couldn’t." - Republican, Trey Gowdy

what about the others ?

I believe Smith may have died before Stevens, so there was no way of saving him either. Doherty and Woods were members of a rescue team that went in. They died while trying to fight off the attack. As far as I can tell, the only way they could have been saved is if they didn't go in in the first place.

--------------------------------------------- point is that they were just left in place waiting to die while hilary and others just let them die and to be raped Faun .

 

[Faun]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

There was no way of saving the ambassador.

"Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that—they couldn’t." - Republican, Trey Gowdy

what about the others ?

I believe Smith may have died before Stevens, so there was no way of saving him either. Doherty and Woods were members of a rescue team that went in. They died while trying to fight off the attack. As far as I can tell, the only way they could have been saved is if they didn't go in in the first place.

--------------------------------------------- point is that they were just left in place waiting to die while hilary and others just let them die and to be raped Faun .

You're fucking nuts. Ya know that, right? No one was left to die, they (Stevens & Smith) were killed before help could arrive. And none of them were raped. Seriously, you're fucked in the head to think that. What backwards thinking webites are you getting this twisted information from?

 

[jillian]

Even if some officers thought his orders were illegal or unethical.

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

He has suggested carpet-bombing Syrian cities, assassinating the families of Islamic State fighters and torturing detainees, all illegal under international or U.S. law. He has proposed withdrawing troops from South Korea (a similar troop withdrawal helped ignite the 1950 Korean War), advocated disengaging from NATO, and declared that Japan would be “better off” with its own nuclear weapons. And he has famously bragged, “I know more about ISIS than the generals!”

The U.S. military prides itself on scrupulous adherence to strict moral and ethical values. While some in the ranks may be passionate Trump supporters, for others, the idea of actually carrying out his more bizarre ideas is unthinkable.

“I cannot imagine active-duty troops doing what Trump is stating,” said Paul Eaton, an Army two-star general who resigned in 2006 in protest against Bush administration military policies. “I believe we would have outright defiance,” Eaton told The Huffington Post. Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency, is even more blunt. Given an order to kill families of suspected terrorists, “the American armed forces would refuse to act,” he said.

Trump has fired back. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he boasted at a March 3 GOP presidential debate. “Believe me ― If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.”

Trump may be right. Despite its occasional disagreements with presidents and civilian officials, the military doesn’t have an especially proud record of refusing orders. Military officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the commander in chief. Nevertheless, the top brass, despite deep misgivings about the conduct of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, quietly went along with what the White House wanted. In 11 years of war in Vietnam, 58,220 Americans were killed; 4,520 Americans have died in the still-raging Iraq War so far.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers.
--U.S. Army Doctrine, Army Values​

The record suggests that the United States military, which takes pride in its strong professional ethics, nevertheless is no bulwark against military fiascos.

“It’s hard for military officers to disobey orders,” said Peter Mansoor, a historian and retired Army colonel who was the top aide to Gen. David Petraeus during the Iraq War troop surge in 2007-2008. “It’s a career-ending move that likely will get you court-martialed. One has to be willing to put one’s future on the line.”

The legal lines are clear. Waterboarding, used on detainees during the Bush administration as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or torture, is illegal under international and now U.S. law. The deliberate targeting of war-zone civilians, whether or not they are related to ISIS fighters or other terrorists, is a war crime under international law.

Nevertheless, Trump has asserted that both are necessary and, if he’s president, would be part of his war on ISIS.

“You have to take out their families,” Trump said three times during a phone interviewwith Fox News last December, brushing aside the issue of civilian casualties as “political correctness.”

These and other Trump pronouncements may be impulsive bluster, but they clash hard against the military’s values of personal courage, honor, integrity and loyalty, among others. At its core, the military’s value system is its commitment to use lethal violence only when legally and morally justified.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers. “Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

More: Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

This is yet another reason why I find the thought of a President Trump very dangerous and repugnant - because I agree with the OP that most soldiers would likely obey illegal, immoral and/or unethical orders from the president.

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

I understand what you're saying. And I'm actually one of those people who thinks Hiroshima/Nagasaki ultimately saved lives. However, I think the general consensus is that the firebombing of Dresden was an act of cruelty which had no real strategic purpose. Ultimately, however, something as extreme as a carpet bombing, is counter productive and should just be rejected as not within our values. Water boarding is ineffective and we don't torture or shouldn't. We shouldn't violate the geneva conventions. If we do it it reflects on us and the way other countries deal with us. Acts of war should always, in any event. be a last resort and not a first resort, IMO.

 

[pismoe]

Even if some officers thought his orders were illegal or unethical.

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

He has suggested carpet-bombing Syrian cities, assassinating the families of Islamic State fighters and torturing detainees, all illegal under international or U.S. law. He has proposed withdrawing troops from South Korea (a similar troop withdrawal helped ignite the 1950 Korean War), advocated disengaging from NATO, and declared that Japan would be “better off” with its own nuclear weapons. And he has famously bragged, “I know more about ISIS than the generals!”

The U.S. military prides itself on scrupulous adherence to strict moral and ethical values. While some in the ranks may be passionate Trump supporters, for others, the idea of actually carrying out his more bizarre ideas is unthinkable.

“I cannot imagine active-duty troops doing what Trump is stating,” said Paul Eaton, an Army two-star general who resigned in 2006 in protest against Bush administration military policies. “I believe we would have outright defiance,” Eaton told The Huffington Post. Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency, is even more blunt. Given an order to kill families of suspected terrorists, “the American armed forces would refuse to act,” he said.

Trump has fired back. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he boasted at a March 3 GOP presidential debate. “Believe me ― If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.”

Trump may be right. Despite its occasional disagreements with presidents and civilian officials, the military doesn’t have an especially proud record of refusing orders. Military officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the commander in chief. Nevertheless, the top brass, despite deep misgivings about the conduct of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, quietly went along with what the White House wanted. In 11 years of war in Vietnam, 58,220 Americans were killed; 4,520 Americans have died in the still-raging Iraq War so far.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers.
--U.S. Army Doctrine, Army Values​

The record suggests that the United States military, which takes pride in its strong professional ethics, nevertheless is no bulwark against military fiascos.

“It’s hard for military officers to disobey orders,” said Peter Mansoor, a historian and retired Army colonel who was the top aide to Gen. David Petraeus during the Iraq War troop surge in 2007-2008. “It’s a career-ending move that likely will get you court-martialed. One has to be willing to put one’s future on the line.”

The legal lines are clear. Waterboarding, used on detainees during the Bush administration as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or torture, is illegal under international and now U.S. law. The deliberate targeting of war-zone civilians, whether or not they are related to ISIS fighters or other terrorists, is a war crime under international law.

Nevertheless, Trump has asserted that both are necessary and, if he’s president, would be part of his war on ISIS.

“You have to take out their families,” Trump said three times during a phone interviewwith Fox News last December, brushing aside the issue of civilian casualties as “political correctness.”

These and other Trump pronouncements may be impulsive bluster, but they clash hard against the military’s values of personal courage, honor, integrity and loyalty, among others. At its core, the military’s value system is its commitment to use lethal violence only when legally and morally justified.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers. “Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

More: Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

This is yet another reason why I find the thought of a President Trump very dangerous and repugnant - because I agree with the OP that most soldiers would likely obey illegal, immoral and/or unethical orders from the president.

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

I understand what you're saying. And I'm actually one of those people who thinks Hiroshima/Nagasaki ultimately saved lives. However, I think the general consensus is that the firebombing of Dresden was an act of cruelty which had no real strategic purpose. Ultimately, however, something as extreme as a carpet bombing, is counter productive and should just be rejected as not within our values. Water boarding is ineffective and we don't torture or shouldn't. We shouldn't violate the geneva conventions. If we do it it reflects on us and the way other countries deal with us. Acts of war should always, in any event. be a last resort and not a first resort, IMO.

----------------------------------------------- 2 wars in the 1940s in 2 seperate theatres of war and we beat them both using values from old style people called the Greatest American Generation . I think that my Parents and Grandparents values are MY and possibly Trumps values Jillian .

 

[rightwinger]

Even if some officers thought his orders were illegal or unethical.

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

He has suggested carpet-bombing Syrian cities, assassinating the families of Islamic State fighters and torturing detainees, all illegal under international or U.S. law. He has proposed withdrawing troops from South Korea (a similar troop withdrawal helped ignite the 1950 Korean War), advocated disengaging from NATO, and declared that Japan would be “better off” with its own nuclear weapons. And he has famously bragged, “I know more about ISIS than the generals!”

The U.S. military prides itself on scrupulous adherence to strict moral and ethical values. While some in the ranks may be passionate Trump supporters, for others, the idea of actually carrying out his more bizarre ideas is unthinkable.

“I cannot imagine active-duty troops doing what Trump is stating,” said Paul Eaton, an Army two-star general who resigned in 2006 in protest against Bush administration military policies. “I believe we would have outright defiance,” Eaton told The Huffington Post. Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency, is even more blunt. Given an order to kill families of suspected terrorists, “the American armed forces would refuse to act,” he said.

Trump has fired back. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he boasted at a March 3 GOP presidential debate. “Believe me ― If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.”

Trump may be right. Despite its occasional disagreements with presidents and civilian officials, the military doesn’t have an especially proud record of refusing orders. Military officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the commander in chief. Nevertheless, the top brass, despite deep misgivings about the conduct of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, quietly went along with what the White House wanted. In 11 years of war in Vietnam, 58,220 Americans were killed; 4,520 Americans have died in the still-raging Iraq War so far.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers.
--U.S. Army Doctrine, Army Values​

The record suggests that the United States military, which takes pride in its strong professional ethics, nevertheless is no bulwark against military fiascos.

“It’s hard for military officers to disobey orders,” said Peter Mansoor, a historian and retired Army colonel who was the top aide to Gen. David Petraeus during the Iraq War troop surge in 2007-2008. “It’s a career-ending move that likely will get you court-martialed. One has to be willing to put one’s future on the line.”

The legal lines are clear. Waterboarding, used on detainees during the Bush administration as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or torture, is illegal under international and now U.S. law. The deliberate targeting of war-zone civilians, whether or not they are related to ISIS fighters or other terrorists, is a war crime under international law.

Nevertheless, Trump has asserted that both are necessary and, if he’s president, would be part of his war on ISIS.

“You have to take out their families,” Trump said three times during a phone interviewwith Fox News last December, brushing aside the issue of civilian casualties as “political correctness.”

These and other Trump pronouncements may be impulsive bluster, but they clash hard against the military’s values of personal courage, honor, integrity and loyalty, among others. At its core, the military’s value system is its commitment to use lethal violence only when legally and morally justified.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers. “Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

More: Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

This is yet another reason why I find the thought of a President Trump very dangerous and repugnant - because I agree with the OP that most soldiers would likely obey illegal, immoral and/or unethical orders from the president.

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

-------------------------------- everyone has an OPINION on whats needed and many of those opinions differ RWinger . We will see what the Trump does when Trump is elected if he gets elected.

Americans do not torture

 

[rightwinger]

also need to keep in mind that Trump has real military men as advisers RWinger .

Who doesn't?

Problem is the CoC has no clue as to military practice and no desire to learn

 

[pismoe]

also need to keep in mind that Trump has real military men as advisers RWinger .

Who doesn't?

Problem is the CoC has no clue as to military practice and no desire to learn

------------------------ the Trump will be fine , his first order might be to start the carpet bombing and his advisers will tell him the best way to do it . mrobamas 'pj' military plus jen psaki , marie harf and others will have been booted long before the first Trump carpet bombing decisions are made by real military men RWinger .

 

[pismoe]

Even if some officers thought his orders were illegal or unethical.

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

He has suggested carpet-bombing Syrian cities, assassinating the families of Islamic State fighters and torturing detainees, all illegal under international or U.S. law. He has proposed withdrawing troops from South Korea (a similar troop withdrawal helped ignite the 1950 Korean War), advocated disengaging from NATO, and declared that Japan would be “better off” with its own nuclear weapons. And he has famously bragged, “I know more about ISIS than the generals!”

The U.S. military prides itself on scrupulous adherence to strict moral and ethical values. While some in the ranks may be passionate Trump supporters, for others, the idea of actually carrying out his more bizarre ideas is unthinkable.

“I cannot imagine active-duty troops doing what Trump is stating,” said Paul Eaton, an Army two-star general who resigned in 2006 in protest against Bush administration military policies. “I believe we would have outright defiance,” Eaton told The Huffington Post. Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency, is even more blunt. Given an order to kill families of suspected terrorists, “the American armed forces would refuse to act,” he said.

Trump has fired back. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he boasted at a March 3 GOP presidential debate. “Believe me ― If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.”

Trump may be right. Despite its occasional disagreements with presidents and civilian officials, the military doesn’t have an especially proud record of refusing orders. Military officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the commander in chief. Nevertheless, the top brass, despite deep misgivings about the conduct of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, quietly went along with what the White House wanted. In 11 years of war in Vietnam, 58,220 Americans were killed; 4,520 Americans have died in the still-raging Iraq War so far.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers.
--U.S. Army Doctrine, Army Values​

The record suggests that the United States military, which takes pride in its strong professional ethics, nevertheless is no bulwark against military fiascos.

“It’s hard for military officers to disobey orders,” said Peter Mansoor, a historian and retired Army colonel who was the top aide to Gen. David Petraeus during the Iraq War troop surge in 2007-2008. “It’s a career-ending move that likely will get you court-martialed. One has to be willing to put one’s future on the line.”

The legal lines are clear. Waterboarding, used on detainees during the Bush administration as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or torture, is illegal under international and now U.S. law. The deliberate targeting of war-zone civilians, whether or not they are related to ISIS fighters or other terrorists, is a war crime under international law.

Nevertheless, Trump has asserted that both are necessary and, if he’s president, would be part of his war on ISIS.

“You have to take out their families,” Trump said three times during a phone interviewwith Fox News last December, brushing aside the issue of civilian casualties as “political correctness.”

These and other Trump pronouncements may be impulsive bluster, but they clash hard against the military’s values of personal courage, honor, integrity and loyalty, among others. At its core, the military’s value system is its commitment to use lethal violence only when legally and morally justified.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers. “Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

More: Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

This is yet another reason why I find the thought of a President Trump very dangerous and repugnant - because I agree with the OP that most soldiers would likely obey illegal, immoral and/or unethical orders from the president.

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

-------------------------------- everyone has an OPINION on whats needed and many of those opinions differ RWinger . We will see what the Trump does when Trump is elected if he gets elected.

Americans do not torture

----------------------------------------- water boarding ain't torture RWinger !!

 

[jillian]

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

-------------------------------- everyone has an OPINION on whats needed and many of those opinions differ RWinger . We will see what the Trump does when Trump is elected if he gets elected.

Americans do not torture

----------------------------------------- water boarding ain't torture RWinger !!

I'm going to guess you'd feel differently if it were done to you.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm pretty sure that absent something really crazy the military will always obey their commander in chief.

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

-------------------------------- everyone has an OPINION on whats needed and many of those opinions differ RWinger . We will see what the Trump does when Trump is elected if he gets elected.

Americans do not torture

----------------------------------------- water boarding ain't torture RWinger !!

Ain't torture for the one doing it
The guy receiving it sure thinks it is

 

[pismoe]

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

-------------------------------- everyone has an OPINION on whats needed and many of those opinions differ RWinger . We will see what the Trump does when Trump is elected if he gets elected.

Americans do not torture

----------------------------------------- water boarding ain't torture RWinger !!

Ain't torture for the one doing it
The guy receiving it sure thinks it is

---------------------------------------- such is life RWinger .

 

[pismoe]

------------------------------------ agree , and carpet bombing , see Dresden Germany . Carpet bombing is similar to nuking , see nagasaki and hiroshima . Waterboarding is just common sense , leaves no marks and is sometimes needed Jillian .

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

-------------------------------- everyone has an OPINION on whats needed and many of those opinions differ RWinger . We will see what the Trump does when Trump is elected if he gets elected.

Americans do not torture

----------------------------------------- water boarding ain't torture RWinger !!

I'm going to guess you'd feel differently if it were done to you.

--------------------------------- sure , course i ain't a terrorist and terrorists deserve water boarding if it is deemed to be needed Jillian .

 

[rightwinger]

Due to GPS led targeting, Carpet bombing is no longer a necessary strategy

Torture has never been an effective strategy

-------------------------------- everyone has an OPINION on whats needed and many of those opinions differ RWinger . We will see what the Trump does when Trump is elected if he gets elected.

Americans do not torture

----------------------------------------- water boarding ain't torture RWinger !!

I'm going to guess you'd feel differently if it were done to you.

--------------------------------- sure , course i ain't a terrorist and terrorists deserve water boarding if it is deemed to be needed Jillian .

Most people who engage in torture justify it by saying they deserve it