And someone like Obama needs MORE frank advice than most pollies
who have never served in the military.

Just my HO.

AA

Again, how do you know he hasn't in anything but clear language expressed his opinion about his opposition in private to the President and his leadership? He has in public, it would follow he was behind closed doors as well.

If the President says thanks for your input but shut up and give me targeting options, he gives him targeting options or he retires on the spot.

Falling in your sword is the only way forward. Anybody who has a boss understands you win some and you lose some. Granted the stakes are higher, but the fundamentals remain the same.

I don't like the President much, but he and other leaders should have the expectation that subordinates wil act in an expected manner. In addition to being the appropriate path, it's the one that offers the advantage that his counsel is considered.

Trouble is the do what your told and don't question it attitude didn't work out well for 'itlers mob post war.

When you get to the status of 4 stars you would be a fool not to take onboard their comments and advice, after all a yes man is doing you no favours at all..




..

The general contempt for international law here suggests a rather disturbing trend. One can only hope this attitude predominates only among jaded veterans and is not prevalent among those still serving, especially those with any sort of command responsibility.

Westy,

This is not "Business" where it is a financial loss that is the result of wrong headed thinking.

In the Military the Troops have a legal obligation to refuse Unlawful Orders....at the Four Star level you have a Moral obligation to refuse to carry out patently wrong orders.

As I said....if you are given marching orders by the President and you know in your Heart they shall lead to an ugly end.....you stand up, resign on the spot, Salute, do an About Face and march smartly off to clean out your desk on your way home on your first day of Retirement.

As a Four Star you owe it to the Troops to do the absolute right thing even if it means ending your career on the spot.

Otherwise.....the entire house collapses from Rot.

And it wasn't that long ago that a British general (Mike Jackson) refused to carry
out Wesley Clarkes order to attack the Russians at the airport.

So it is not unheard of.



Re his speaking out in public, in some ways I think frank and forthright
discussion and in some ways opinions should be held behind doors.

His comment at the hearing, the most diplomatic way of handling it
that he could ? Or as someone said, to send a message ?

Nutloose:

It wasn't 4 stars I was talking about...

General Sir Michael Jackson. Not Rose.

Following illegal orders isn't a 4 star issue alone but i disgress. You need to prove this is an illegal order to begin with. That is very much in the air depending on who your favorite politician is. He has a boatload of DoD lawyers available to provide opinion and while not privy to the procedural process I would have to think legally vetting a course of action is standard faire. Anything that's gray is going to fall in the Presidents favor.

I'm sure you see this as illegal, and that's fine. I think we've drug this particular tentacle of the larger argument out as far as it can go.

You did not read the post accurately.

I said the Troops had a legal obligation and the Four Stars....a Moral obligation.

They are hugely different.

Would you have a Four Star not stand up when it was the right thing to do but merely STFU, salute, and carry out those Orders he knew were wrong....and would surely result in grave harm to his troops and his country?

AT this point I do not believe the President has the legal authority to order a military strike against Syria. I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but my understanding of the 1973 War Powers Act and the Constitution, in consideration of the facts of this situation.....the President must seek authority from Congress.

I also question whether Congress can authorize a military strike as envisioned without officially Declaring War on Syria.

That is a separate issue to the what we are talking about. I see Dempsey being in a position that tells him attacking Syria is not the best or correct course of action to take. I also see him realizing 80% of the American People are adamantly opposed to any use of military force against Syria. I would assume, if he does feel the attack is unwise, he has conveyed that to the President in private.

All that being said.....if the Congress refuses the authority....and the President does as he has said he would do.....goes ahead and orders the Attack.....then Dempsey must make the decision I am talking about. Either he believes in what he is telling the President or he does not. If he does....he can only refuse to carry out that order. Whether he gets fired or he Resigns....is the only thing he as to decide really.

By the way what happened to General Ham and that Navy Admiral that got the sudden retirements immediately after Benghazi happened a year ago?

You reckon something along those lines happened?

"By the way what happened to General Ham and that Navy Admiral that got the sudden retirements immediately after Benghazi happened a year ago?"

Didn't general Ham try to launch something - ie refused the order to NOT do something to help rescue and his deputy relieved him ?

A PFC humping a -60 over hill and dale has the same moral obligation. You will not convince me otherwise of this point.


But to the meat of our disagreement...

You state you don't know if this is a legal order or not. Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people. Thus I am not going to pass judgement on the good General short of a definitive answer.

If in the face of a clearly illegal order obvious to even to those of us who don't practice law for a living, then yes, I would agree any service member subject to the UCMJ should balk.

Edited to address General Ham, I hope he writes a New York Times best seller, tell all that sends she Clinton into retirement.

I thought most US decisions were already run past legal people anyway who pass an opinion.

I would think so as well.

And The Shrub's* legal advisers told him that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc weren't torture, and that he could wiretap without warrants.

Both were later found by the actual legal authorities in the US to be verboten, and were shut down.

Sometimes your legal people give very bad advice.



* Shrub = small Bush

Who were those legal authorities?

Other lawyers?

I thought the lawyers in the military were military lawyers.

I doubt Bushy et al would use them, they would be too black and white
for the pollies and not give them the answer they wanted !!!

Watching the crap that this administration gets away with because of a Media that adores him.....is sheer torture as well! That is not a legal opinion but is just as accurate and unbiased as what the lawyers throw out at us.

500

Not true.


Department of the Navy, Office of the General Counsel - Attorney & Lawyer Careers

I looked at POTUS body language when he spoke in Sweden. I'm no expert, but he looked very sheepish when he tried to dilute the red line by the ' it's the worlds red line' thing. He looked like he was testing the water as to how that 'line' would be received.

In the immortal words of Blackadder 'He looks as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo'...