Trump Bombed Iranian Nuclear Site Fordo Today. Are We in WW 3?

[Chap]

... the alternative of having military officers deciding for themselves whether to obey lawful orders from elected civilian leadership isn't something we’d want either.

My bolding added.

With respect, you are missing the point that the military have the duty to decide whether the orders given to them by the civilian leadership are or are not lawful. There is no way round that, is there?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I remember when Hyten said that now.

I’d say his comments were accurate and apply today.

Whatever the view of Trump, the alternative of having military officers deciding for themselves whether to obey lawful orders from elected civilian leadership isn't something we’d want either.

The fact that an order is lawful doesn’t automatically make it wise, moral, or deserving of unquestioning support.

Democracies need civilian control of the military, but they also need military leaders with enough judgment and integrity to challenge decisions they believe would cause unnecessary harm. Blind obedience isn’t the only alternative to military insubordination.

Take the genocide in Gaza, for example. It may be legal within Israeli society to do that, but military officers have the moral obligation to decline participating in it. That’s why The Hague exists, because a country’s legal system sometimes is broken and morally bankrupt.

[Limnor]

Chap and Doc,

I’m not sure we are that far from each other’s viewpoints. There is a lawyer at STRATCOM who reviews targets and options for legality. We review for compliance with Law of Armed Conflict principles, which include things like proportionality and military necessity. The CDR will obey those legal orders—or he could resign under protest. That would be my selection at my level if I determined something went too far astray from my conscience.

I wouldn’t say unwise decisions or courses of action are something a CDR can choose to ignore or disobey. He or she can challenge those things, but at the end of the day the saying is we “serve at the pleasure of the President.”

Senior officers deciding for themselves which lawful orders from civilian leadership they will obey is troubling to me. I wouldn’t want a set of Caesars ruling individually under their own areas of control.

Maybe there is a distinction here that I am missing. If a leader resigns over conscience, I suppose he or she would be choosing to disobey an order. I’d concede that point. But to ignore or refuse a lawful order and remain in command is something I’d have trouble wrapping my head around.

[Chap]

Senior officers deciding for themselves which lawful orders from civilian leadership they will obey is troubling to me. I wouldn’t want a set of Caesars ruling individually under their own areas of control.

Indeed. A general officer who thinks he has been given an order which is legal but in his view disastrous should resign and say why.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[Chap]

Yup. That sums up the disaster that has been Trump's war. The US, and indeed the world as a whole, is actually in a much worse position than it was in before, in ever single damned respect. The damage will be irreparable.

Trump will no doubt be heavily punished for this in the midterms. Let us hope he loses the Senate as well as the House, so that his ability to do further damage is as restricted as possible. How the hell anybody can continue to support him after this cataclysm I cannot guess.

Ajax - please cheer us all up by telling us why you still back President Donald J Trump after he has done all this to your country, let alone to the world.

[Some Schmo]

Ajax - please cheer us all up by telling us why you still back President Donald J Trump after he has done all this to your country, let alone to the world.

Obama is black: bad.

Trump is orange: good.

That's all the explanation you'll get.