Yeah. As if we should lift a finger to help the Front for the Protection of the Syrian People. No, Sarah gets it right: Let Allah sort it out!
Posted on 09/01/2013 2:52:56 PM PDT by kronos77
U.S. President Barack Obama had a huge blow for mutiny in the U.S. military leadership planned military strike against Syria apparently. The soldiers could not see any strategy of the President - and expressed grave concerns against the action. Never before has a president so openly refused to follow by the the soldiers in America.
U.S. President Barack Obama had planned military strike against Syria apparently The surprising over from U.S. President Barack Obama of his plans Syria is apparently due to a massive mutiny in the U.S. Army.
The Washington Post reports that up to the ordinary soldiers could hardly see the benefit of one promoted by Obama military action of the four-star generals.
The Post reports that the soldiers especially lacking a clear strategy, because what would happen after the planned military strikes. Many U.S. soldiers have had bad experiences with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. First of them heroic goals were promised. But no sooner were the interventions in transition, the troops were sent into always new adventures. In both cases there was no exit strategy. The announcements to withdraw from the battle zones were contradictory and retreated to the length.
In the case of Syria, it is not Obama managed to convince the military sense of a military operation.
So far, the U.S. military has always publicly silent and obey the orders of the military-political leadership. The basis for most applications, it was the president managed to convince the soldiers believe that the particular use of "national security" serve. Blow off because of a massive mutiny in the U.S. military leadership. The soldiers could not see any strategy of the President - and expressed grave concerns against the action. Never before has a president so openly refused to follow the soldiers in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de ...
Shocked there isn’t a Downfall parody already..
“Not to worry, I’m sure Obama already has the missiles in the air.”
“Uhhhh, Mein Fuhrer, Obama has punted to Congress.”
Yeah. As if we should lift a finger to help the Front for the Protection of the Syrian People. No, Sarah gets it right: Let Allah sort it out!
I was recently at a meeting where a senior JAG officer made two points:
1) You do not disparage your Commander in Chief. You do not criticize your government leadership. This is long-standing policy.
2) Something new -- you do not speak about political issues. Everyone has an opinion on various policy viewpoints, but you do not talk about that. Expressing your opinion about pending legislation or court cases can get you into trouble.
On the first point, the guy was strong and definite. Nothing new there; it's just the way it is. Sure, it might be a First Amendment thing, but just let it go.
On the second point, he was very nervous. Kept saying it was a new approach. Kept saying that some people disagreed with it. Kept saying that it was started by the current administration. Said more than once that -- in his opinion -- it violated the First Amendment pretty badly. But [big sigh] it's what you should be aware of if you want to stay out of trouble.
In this instance I agree. Failing that though, what option does the military leader have? If he truly thinks the action is outside the law, both nationally and perhaps a war crime type action, then all he can do is resign.
The CIC should never put the military leaders in this position.
The president should have authority to respond to attacks or imminent threats, but this sort of things should be handled by Congress. There’s no justification for Obama taking action here.
If he tries it without Congressional approval, I still advocate resignations rather than a refusal to take action in place.
Perhaps you reject the idea military leaders should refuse if Congress doesn’t approve first.
Frankly, if this story is true (and I do have my doubts...) I'd CHEER our military for openly refusing a direct order from this tyrant-would-be-dictator Barack Hussein Obama.
About time someone put his monkey-playing-with-a-grenade ass back where it belongs.
The chimp in chief dissed again.
Miss Valery gonna put a butt whippin on that boy.
Imagine that, a concern over having to obey unconstitutional orders.
“If he truly thinks the action is outside the law, both nationally and perhaps a war crime type action, then all he can do is resign.”
Again, I disagree. His job, first and foremost, is to serve and protect the American people. He is serving them by forcing Obama to seek congressional approval.
It’s the same Oath that Obama swore, but like any oath, he doesn’t abide by it.
“Perhaps you reject the idea military leaders should refuse if Congress doesn’t approve first.”
We haven’t had a dictator here in America before - someone who has attempted unilateral military action.
If Obama forces the resignation - then it is time to draw up impeachment proceedings.
Is there such a concern among America’s military leadership?
“If Congress won’t take a stand, the leaders of the military need to execute the President’s wishes.”
I would think it would be the same as when I was in the military... We had a standing order not to obey unlawful orders. If there is no congressional approval, it is clearly an unlawful order.
Earlier this week there were some reports that the Military was telling Obama they did not have the money for a major engagement, due to {drum roll} Obama’s sequester cuts of the military budget.
I doubt Obama’s decision was because of a military revolt.
More likely, Obama feared the potential news images and videos of children and women and residential areas being hit and Obama getting the blame.
In this instance I agree. So what happens when a future president issues a command in an imminent danger scenario, and a Lefty General faces him down over it?
IMO, that general should be brought up on charges. It’s a tough call here, because it sets up the Left to be able to refuse action too, although we won’t agree with the reasons.
There is no imminent threat here. The U. S. isn’t under attack or the threat of one. That’s why I totally disagree with action. And if a General were to disagree, I would rather see them resign than set a precedent where some active duty general could refuse the CIC on political grounds.
Members of the U.S. Military under the UCMJ are not only allowed to disobey Unlawful Orders - they are obligated to disobey Unlawful orders... Intervening in a civil war of another country when there is no threat to the USA seems to be to a an unlawful order and should have been used in the Libyan fiasco.
“Okay, a military leader can’t force the President to go back and get Congressional approval. If he remains in his position and defies the President’s orders, he will face charges.”
Then the president can attempt to charge him and remove him.
“Being direct orders from the president, it would be very serious charges.”
Document the exact nature of your objection - ie, Obama failing to seek congressional approval. Then, force him to remove you. We’ll see whether we have a democracy then or not.
This sounds like open insubordination.
/////////////////////////////
Actually, that may be open to debate. The officers’ primary oath of loyalty is to uphold the Constitution, not the President.
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and 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.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blofficeroath.htm
I am intrigued, however, with your idea of a voluntary resignation on the part of Obama and Biden.
Nur einen Monat bis zum Oktoberfest und dem Geburtstag!
It's running a little late but . . . .
Ich bin eine deutsche bagge!
You both seem to be headed in the same direction. Let me pull you in together to discuss this if you don’t mind.
I a real sense, you two are saying that our generals should challenge the president if they don’t what to do what he asks?
When a general does refuse, the President isn’t going to contact Congress and get permission to dismiss him. He’ll dismiss him.
What I don’t want to see, is our top generals having to take action because our damned Congress doesn’t have enough backbone to rein this guy in.
Before the General has to take action, this Congress should put the president on notice, that if he goes against Congressional consensus, he will be impeached at once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.