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

[bwaites]

http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-cl...s-citizens

[carbontetrachloride]

Shouldn't be a problem. They don't have any trouble firing on civilians in other countries.

[ricsmall]

I find this hard to believe in this country, but not with our current pres. If there is any truth to this folks, I have a very bad feeling about the future of this country, though I think the true Americans will prevail.

[Michael]

Shouldn't be a problem. They don't have any trouble firing on civilians in other countries.

I personally take offense to this post. After 5 tours overseas as an ‘officer’, I have never once stated, or heard one of the other officers serving with me, state it is OK to fire on civilians. Those who did, didn't last long in command.

We in the military have taken great pains - unfortunately, sometimes at the expense of that most precious American resource, the American service member’s life - to avoid collateral civilian damages. We never did this lightly or frivolously. We have realized, slowly, that in any counterinsurgency operation (COIN) (and Iraq and Afghanistan were COIN after the initial insertion of forces), the thing you have to win is not terrain, or a city, but the PEOPLE. Trust me, you do not win the people by killing civilians – you create more insurgents when you kill civilians.

Keep in mind, the same officers that you are decrying are from this country, and many of us share your frustration with the current policies and decisions. POTUS would have a rough path to find enough officers who would swear to fire on civilians. To do so would only strengthen the resolve of the PEOPLE.

[stokesrj]

Shouldn't be a problem. They don't have any trouble firing on civilians in other countries.

Are you serious? If you are this is one of the most despicable posts, I've ever seen on this forum.

[montana]

Not all of the military leaders supports the constitution http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/08/former-ge...t-schools/

[Dogue]

I agree with Michael and Stokes.

I am still fighting the urge to become a paranoid 'tin-foil hat' guy, but this POTUS is proving to be the biggest threat our country has seen in generations. I'm not sure our enemys could have planted a better leader in this country if they tried.

[Deer Hunter]

I personally take offense to this post. After 5 tours overseas as an ‘officer’, I have never once stated, or heard one of the other officers serving with me, state it is OK to fire on civilians. Those who did, didn't last long in command.

We in the military have taken great pains - unfortunately, sometimes at the expense of that most precious American resource, the American service member’s life - to avoid collateral civilian damages. We never did this lightly or frivolously. We have realized, slowly, that in any counterinsurgency operation (COIN) (and Iraq and Afghanistan were COIN after the initial insertion of forces), the thing you have to win is not terrain, or a city, but the PEOPLE. Trust me, you do not win the people by killing civilians – you create more insurgents when you kill civilians.

Keep in mind, the same officers that you are decrying are from this country, and many of us share your frustration with the current policies and decisions. POTUS would have a rough path to find enough officers who would swear to fire on civilians. To do so would only strengthen the resolve of the PEOPLE.

Lets hope youre right Michael. Thank you for your service to our country, thats a sentiment that the DemonRats on Capital hill dont share my brother.

[Deer Hunter]

I could be wrong and im trying to read between the lines on the post. I think (and hope) that hes talking about Politicans not soldiers because I dont doubt for a minute that our Politicans would order it and im still in hopes our military would refuse.

[Deer Hunter]

I agree with Michael and Stokes.

I am still fighting the urge to become a paranoid 'tin-foil hat' guy, but this POTUS is proving to be the biggest threat our country has seen in generations. I'm not sure our enemys could have planted a better leader in this country if they tried.

Its very sad that we wonder at all on this subject.

[davidj]

“The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.” Yet he is afraid to have his name mentioned? He can't be much of a hero.I tire of all these alarmist claims by people who don't have the courage to identify themselves.

[hellcat370]

If you look at the policies Obama has been implementing, or trying to implement, it would make sense that he would want military leaders loyal to HIM and not the Constitution per se. He's come right out and said the Constitution is a flawed document, and his remark about needing to "remake" our country follows the trend. He has also said that he wants the U.S. to be at the same levels as other countries, hence why he doesn't care if the price of gas goes up to 5, 6, or even 8 dollars a gallon. His socialist health care, with of course a clause exempting him and Congress, is further proof, in combination of raising taxes. He NEEDS people who will fire on American civilians because there is revolution and civil war on peoples minds. People ask me all the time- when is it going to start, how far are we going to get pushed until we push back!? History repeats itself. What happened in the 1770's and 1850's/60's is happening again. Sheriff's and states are saying they will not enforce nor allow anyone to enforce certain federal regulations. There has also been talk of doing away with the 2 term limit so he can run for president again!

[Michael]

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.

[bwaites]

It's an interesting question. I've known more than a few officers; Naval, Air Force, Army, and even a few Marines. I can't think of a single one who would order his troops to fire on American Citizens.

However, if you look up McArthur, you'll find that he did, when the President ordered it! There was significant confusion, but he did lead a cavalry charge against WWI veterans during the Bonus Marches.

There is precedent, and even the best of the military men can be mislead.

Its a very tough situation to place any officer in.

I posted this because it is becoming a bigger and bigger question, as turnover at the top of the military seems to be at an all time high.

As for the anonymity of the "war hero", I don't think it matters much. It is being discussed, and important people are talking about it. That is scary.

[carbontetrachloride]

Exactly. The Bonus Marches are an excellent example. The Civil War is another. The US military never had a problem with firebombing German and Japanese civilians. I guess the gun camera footage of the helicopter gunship mowing down Iraqi's was photoshopped. Dear Leader gives the OK to drone bomb men, women and children on the other side of the planet on a daily basis. People who are not here trying take my freedoms under the guise of "protecting my freedom". Keep on fighting to prop up those petrodollars.

[rick458]

Any such orders would be illegal, and following an illegal order put you under full force of the law when all the smoke clears

[Grendel-Gene]

even if an officer did issue the order, i have a feeeling that all of a sudden more than one rifle would jam or have awful accuracy.... mine would!!!! ha ha!!! Damned ARs!!!!

[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.

[BjornF16]

Exactly. The Bonus Marches are an excellent example. The Civil War is another. The US military never had a problem with firebombing German and Japanese civilians. I guess the gun camera footage of the helicopter gunship mowing down Iraqi's was photoshopped. Dear Leader gives the OK to drone bomb men, women and children on the other side of the planet on a daily basis. People who are not here trying take my freedoms under the guise of "protecting my freedom". Keep on fighting to prop up those petrodollars.

1. German and Japanese population centers were bombed because that is where the war industry was located, civilians were a part of that war industry, and the "precision" bombing of the day wasn't really precise at all. As technology advances, there have been less and less collateral damage.

2. What helicopter gunship footage are you referring to? The one where the reporter was killed? If so, there were clearly AKs in the crowd and the helicopter crew could not differentiate the camera from a weapon. There was no LoAC violation here because they acted in good faith that they were engaging hostiles.

3. The vast majority of "mujahadeen" are illegal combatants and have no standing in LoAC (because they don't meet the uniform or distinguishing clothing criteria)

4. al Awlaki got his just dues. He had an opportunity to produce himself for justice, he declined; additionally there was a court proceeding challenging the legality of his name on a High Value Target list...his side lost. I call that due process for a citizen, particularly one abroad (beyond the reach of the law) actively planning/directing actions against innocent American civilians.

5. Your comment on "petrodollars" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of our vital national interests. I don't think any US company is in Iraq making money pumping oil. Those contracts went to non-US companies IIRC. We didn't go into Iraq the second time for money or oil. There was strong evidence Hussein was re-activating programs (and strong suspicion he already had weaponized) of various WMD, including nukes. Turns out it was all a "dis-information campaign" the Iraqi's were engaging in directed at deterring Iran. Unfortunately, a good portion of our intel bought into it. I won't even mention the total disregard for the 17 UN Security Council Resolutions Hussein was in violation of...for many years.

[Deer Hunter]

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.

Im hoping our Military men and women follow suit on your most honorable oaths fellas but im afraid we are treading on new grounds in dangerous and perilous times. I hope this time next year y'all can point your finger at me and laugh at me for being wrong and giving me a hard time about being so paranoid.