Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont think you can compare the military to a normal job though.. where you can answer back or walk off the job.
Indeed.
Once, a command gave an extra 30 minutes at lunch for sailors to work out. One sailor said she would spend that extra 30 minutes getting a nap in her room.
It doesn't work that way. If the military gives you extra time to do a specific thing, you will do that specific thing or not use that extra time at all.
Further, in a different direction, if a superior approves your operation, that operation better be carried out unless you have a damn good reason why it wasn't. Once it is approved, it is ordered; you don't have the option to cancel because you changed your mind even if it is your operation.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 04-06-2021 at 07:57 AM..
And... the logistics train just keeps on rolling in this scenario? I'm not talking about the 'glamorous' stuff like bombs and bullets, either. All the fuel and oil and spare parts and the endless list of non-sexy items that every unit needs in order to operate? The intelligence just keeps flowing, from satellite to sigint and humint? The rest of the coalition, which may be small but some of which (particularly British and French, but others as well) are playing key rolls on the ground, in the air, and at sea), just shrug their shoulders and play along? Schwarzkopf and his command existed at the end of a long tether over which he had no control. And without it, he can't do squat - at least, not for long.
"We're invading Iraq! At least for the next 48 hours until we grind to a halt when the materiel stops arriving!"
That's the rallying cry that's going to convince Stormin' Norman's staff to fall in line behind him?
Very significant point, because all those other commanders will know that their orders to subordinates supporting an illegal invasion would be illegal orders, subjecting each of them to prosecution.
I dont think you can compare the military to a normal job though.. where you can answer back or walk off the job.
Ninety percent of the time--100 percent of the time for most military people--it's not a day-to-day challenge.
When I retired from active duty and began a civilian career, "answering back" or "walking off the job" was technically possible, but still wasn't an easy decision. Bills had to be paid. I had a daughter in high school. Day to day, there wasn't much difference.
My main point of this ridiculous scenario is to highlight that civilian control of the military only works because the military brass allows it to work.
Well, technically, sure. It's not like the prez has a back up army he can use if his generals decide they don't like following his orders. But I don't think that would ever happen. We all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution dictates civilian control over the military. That was inculcated in me from day one. I think military commanders at all levels take that very seriously. To stop following the president's orders would mean violating their oaths. That's no small thing.
A great movie about that possibly happening is Seven Days in May, with Burt Lancanster and Kirk Douglas. Great movie. I heartily recommend it if you haven't seen it.
So I have a question for those who might be interested in answering.
How do some just ‘follow’ orders? Is it taught or is ingrained in personality ?
For example...can a general disagree ‘internally’ but just follow orders?
It’s something that has always impressed me. What would stop General Patton from disagreeing with orders while he commanded the 7th Army?
It's taught and ingrained. We all take an oath to "follow the orders of the officers above us." That's what we do.
But they have to be LAWFUL orders. It is incumbent on us to DISobey orders that are not lawful. But lawful and unlawful is not always clear.
I was the Supply Officer on a Navy ship. The CO of the ship brought an outside contractor onboard to teach a class on TQL to the wardroom. He told me to pay for it. That was, technically, an illegal order, because it violated regs. There is a very specific way this kind of thing should be contracted and paid for. And we didn't do it.
I could have said "no," I'm not going to do it. I could have asked the CO to write a letter ordering me to do it. Either COA would have had an adverse impact on my career. What did I do? I directed the disbursing clerk to prepare the voucher, and I signed the check. I paid the bill. It was a violation of the regs, and I could have gotten dinged for it on an audit. (No inspector ever said anything about it, as far as I know.)
It was $1500. It was a drop in the bucket. It wasn't done for nefarious purposes. It wasn't theft. The CO meant well. So I made the decision to follow that order (and got a good FITREP).
No, it wasn't Patton commanding the 7th Army, but it gives you an idea of how tricky it can get sometimes when "following orders."
Well, technically, sure. It's not like the prez has a back up army he can use if his generals decide they don't like following his orders. But I don't think that would ever happen. We all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution dictates civilian control over the military. That was inculcated in me from day one. I think military commanders at all levels take that very seriously. To stop following the president's orders would mean violating their oaths. That's no small thing.
A great movie about that possibly happening is Seven Days in May, with Burt Lancanster and Kirk Douglas. Great movie. I heartily recommend it if you haven't seen it.
--
A general getting everyone in uniform all the way down the line and across the services and commands to disregard their oath would be some trick, not likely to happen.
It's taught and ingrained. We all take an oath to "follow the orders of the officers above us." That's what we do.
But they have to be LAWFUL orders. It is incumbent on us to DISobey orders that are not lawful. But lawful and unlawful is not always clear.
I was the Supply Officer on a Navy ship. The CO of the ship brought an outside contractor onboard to teach a class on TQL to the wardroom. He told me to pay for it. That was, technically, an illegal order, because it violated regs. There is a very specific way this kind of thing should be contracted and paid for. And we didn't do it.
I could have said "no," I'm not going to do it. I could have asked the CO to write a letter ordering me to do it. Either COA would have had an adverse impact on my career. What did I do? I directed the disbursing clerk to prepare the voucher, and I signed the check. I paid the bill. It was a violation of the regs, and I could have gotten dinged for it on an audit. (No inspector ever said anything about it, as far as I know.)
It was $1500. It was a drop in the bucket. It wasn't done for nefarious purposes. It wasn't theft. The CO meant well. So I made the decision to follow that order (and got a good FITREP).
No, it wasn't Patton commanding the 7th Army, but it gives you an idea of how tricky it can get sometimes when "following orders."
--
And then there was Air Force Lt Col (Doctor) Terry Lakin who refused deployment orders to Afghanistan because he did not recognize Barack Obama as being the valid and legal president.
Except that his deployment orders were signed by a general, and the general's commission (as well as all officers' commissions) are by the authority of Congress, not the president. The president fills the slot, but the authority of that commission stems from Congress.
So regardless of the validity of the president (a question that would never, ever be considered by a court-martial), those deployment orders signed by that general were fully legal and valid. Somehow, Lt Col Lakin did not understand that.
Well, technically, sure. It's not like the prez has a back up army he can use if his generals decide they don't like following his orders. But I don't think that would ever happen. We all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution dictates civilian control over the military. That was inculcated in me from day one. I think military commanders at all levels take that very seriously. To stop following the president's orders would mean violating their oaths. That's no small thing.
A great movie about that possibly happening is Seven Days in May, with Burt Lancanster and Kirk Douglas. Great movie. I heartily recommend it if you haven't seen it.
--
I’m not sure you guys understand what is going on today. There is a large percentage of Americans who want the constitution torn up. In fact, many think it’s a racist document. I’d put that number close to 40% of Americans and it’s only going to grow.
The current military brass in the Pentagon is left leaning, so I think they are satisfied with Biden. But let’s say that in 2024, a hardline right wing guy becomes the President and goes against what the Pentagon wants.
These current times aren’t like before when the military was immune to politicization. Those days are gone, the Pentagon is hyper politicized right now, in the bag for one party.
I don’t think it’s much of a stretch for them to tell the opposing party (Republicans) to get bent someday.
Perhaps I’m way early on this, and a scenario like this won’t play out for half a century when we are all long an buried. But surely you recognize that things today aren’t like they used to be?
I’m not sure you guys understand what is going on today. There is a large percentage of Americans who want the constitution torn up. In fact, many think it’s a racist document. I’d put that number close to 40% of Americans and it’s only going to grow.
I rather think it's the people who raided the Capitol who want the Constitution torn up. Or at least ignored when they want to ignore it.
Quote:
The current military brass in the Pentagon is left leaning,
Bravo Sierra
Quote:
so I think they are satisfied with Biden. But let’s say that in 2024, a hardline right wing guy becomes the President and goes against what the Pentagon wants.
If he's "hardline right wing" what he wants from the military will probably not be Constitutional.
Quote:
These current times aren’t like before when the military was immune to politicization. Those days are gone, the Pentagon is hyper politicized right now, in the bag for one party.
Bravo Sierra
Quote:
I don’t think it’s much of a stretch for them to tell the opposing party (Republicans) to get bent someday.
Uniformed military leaders are in for the long haul. They expect their careers to span five or six presidents of either or any party. They're not going to be "in the bag" for any particular short-timer in the White House or his party.
I found it pretty much like a regular job. Nothing dynamic, come to work, do your job, that is that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
