Obama wants only military leaders who will agree to fire on US citizens?

[BjornF16]

All - I am currently at a university doing the ROTC training gig. Below is what we teach our young future officers as to what the oaths are. Notice the commissioned officer oath is slightly different than the enlisted oath. We teach a fairly comprehensive class that breaks the oath down and we make them read the Constitution and discuss it.

Officer Oath: I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

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

I bring this up as commissioned officers do not swear to obey the President…that is implied based on our professionalism and the phrase ‘…faithfully discharge the duties of the office…’. Could it be a moral quandary if the President starts issuing orders contrary (or perceived contrary) to our oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution’? You bet. What would happen? I don’t even want to think about the implications or ramifications. We, in the military, don’t surrender our political beliefs and there are a few left leaning folks in the ranks…less than in the rest of society, but there are a few.

Re the article on Gen Mattis being forced out…based on other open sources, it is driven more by his insistence on going against National Strategy in planning for military actions in Iran. What’s the truth? I don’t know. I know there have been several GOs investigated/relieved for not following or openly disagreeing with policy (including Gen McChrystal, cited in the post by montana). I also know Gen Mattis. He is a warrior, but he can also be a bull in the proverbial china shop. Not a trait that would endear him to the more PC crowd in the beltway.

Thanks for posting this. I NEVER once took an oath to obey the president. My oath was/is to protect and defend the Constitution.

We also stressed to officers and enlisted alike, that orders had to be lawful orders. Lawful meaning within the confines of the Constitution and (if engaged in hostile actions) within the law of armed conflict (aka the law of warfare).

The Constitution is supposed to protect US citizens by virtue of the Bill of Rights (primarily)...an order that breaks one of these (e.g. 4th Amendment) would be an unlawful order. In overseas conflicts, LoAC applies because the Constitution doesn't speak to this case and we are signatories to various Treaties (thus have the weight of law of the land).

I don't know of anyone who would a. Fire upon American citizens based upon an order of president or military leaders; b. Purposely and knowingly fire upon innocent civilians (a violation of LoAC).

Now that is not to say that innocent civilians never get hurt/killed...the rule is to use just enough force to accomplish the objective while minimizing collateral damage. You should see the number of lawyers involved in targeting and go/no go decisions...disgusting.