Would the military follow the orders of Donald Trump?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:50:27 -0500

I have seen people sharing an article suggesting that "anonymous military leaders" have said they would not take orders from a President Trump. Whether this information is fake or not, why would anyone believe that the military would not follow orders from whoever becomes the Commander in Chief? The military does not sign up to serve one political party or candidate over the other.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 7:53 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:53:55 -0500

The militery will do their duty just as it always has.

The only reason they would not would be if the order was unlawful.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 7:54 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:54:35 -0500

I'm pretty sure I heard these same complaints about Obama...and as far as I know, there has not been wide-spread mutiny in the last eight years. I'm pretty sure the same would hold true for President Trump, President Rubio, President Sanders, or President Clinton II.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Feb 29 at 2016 7:59 AM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:59:13 -0500

We see this every election for each President. It's BS. The military is one of the few Government organizations which understands the national security of our country comes before our political perceptions.

Response by Maj John Bell made Feb 29 at 2016 8:17 AM

Maj John Bell — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:17:12 -0500

Our oath of office is to the Constitution, not the Office of the President, or the person occupying it. If the orders are legal, commissioned officers have three choices obey, resign, or face a court-martial. To answer you question, people would "believe" it because they love the reality show hoopla that follows the Trump candidacy, or because they think that expressing that belief will draw off some of Trump's support. It won't (For the record I don't support him). The last thing in the world anyone wants is a politicized US military.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 8:18 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:18:32 -0500

Yes, if the orders were lawful.

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Feb 29 at 2016 8:37 AM

SCPO Joshua I — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:37:19 -0500

You pretty well covered it. Most likely rumours being spread by activists trying to build some kind of narrative for their own purposes.

Response by LTC Jason Bartlett made Feb 29 at 2016 8:37 AM

LTC Jason Bartlett — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:37:26 -0500

The objective of the article isn't to imply that the military would provoke a coup. The article clearly articulates that the military would not follow an unlawful order and that is what we are obligated to do. All officers serve at the pleasure of the President.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 8:50 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:50:17 -0500

Speaking as a military officer, I don't care how much I loathe Donald Trump as a racist, bullying demagogue. If he were to win the election in November, then come January 20, 2017 at noon, he would, upon taking the oath of office, BE the President. At that point, I would follow ALL lawful orders that came from him.

Why? Because that's what we do as military officers.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Feb 29 at 2016 8:58 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:58:19 -0500

Great question but I think Gen Joe Dunford USMC Chief of the Joint Chiefs may try to filter Trump's orders to the Pentagon...Or convince Trump he hasn't a clue what he is talking about ?????

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Feb 29 at 2016 9:02 AM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:02:54 -0500

If he is elected! They really wont have any choice! They will have to take orders from the Commander-in-Thief!

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Feb 29 at 2016 9:21 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:21:03 -0500

I think some of this is based upon and interview Bill Maher did with the former head of the CIA Michael Hayden. Hayden discussed possible "unlawful orders" that Trump might issue that would potentially not be followed by the military. Two examples he gave were waterboarding prisoners and targeting the families of ISIS leaders during attacks. There would be a lot of discussion with White House legal staff and others before orders were given. I think we all know that.

I don't think any President would have to say target the family of ISIS leaders. What he would say is "I am not as concerned about collateral damage as my predecessor" That would clear the way for attacks of a bolder nature.

On waterboarding, where there is a will, there is a way. We don't have to do it ourselves, there are plenty of people out there that can get information from folks for us.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 29 at 2016 9:25 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:25:39 -0500

Really? After the past seven years someone has the temerity to ask this? The military has been challenged by We the People with the election of many poor Commanders-in-Chief and the military has never hesitated to obey lawful orders, even those that reflected questionable judgement.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Feb 29 at 2016 9:30 AM

Maj Walter Kilar — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:30:05 -0500

This is just another example of the media being bored, and bored people talking about nothing. A more meaningful discussion from the media would be whether the next President would want to re-evaluate the lawfulness of waterboarding, keeping Guantanamo open, our involvement in Syria, and other key issues affecting the military.

Response by GySgt Carl Rumbolo made Feb 29 at 2016 9:44 AM

GySgt Carl Rumbolo — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:44:57 -0500

I think the situation is more complex that that and further we as a nation are reaching an historical inflection point. Consider the following - ( a relatively brief historical background first)

Historically, up until the Civil War the United States relied on a small volunteer army and navy, with militia reinforcement for large crisis until the Civil War which saw the first introduction of a draft (one which was not well received nor fairly applied). After the Civil War the army reverted to a small volunteer force focused primarily on the frontier. The navy quickly atrophied to a small, primarily coastal force with a few ships deployed internationally, primarily for trade protection.

It wasn't until the late 1880s when the US government, alarmed by a growing naval race in South America, decided to increase US naval strength (the army was still small, neglected and volunteer). The Spanish American war saw the first establishment of overseas possessions, and growing naval strength.

It wasn't until the 1st World War that the US saw conscription on a large scale and a rapid expansion of ground forces. Following the end of the WW I conscription lapsed and the army (and marines) reverted to volunteer forces - a professional force but (this is key) - very small. Only the navy stayed relatively large, due to overseas possessions and the idea that oceans isolated America from the rest of the world.

The WW II saw the return of conscription and a national mobilization - which radically changed society and the way the military was perceived. At the end of WW II, while there were significant cut backs, conscription remained enforce and compared to previous wars, the military remained fairly large. A professional military class began to form, and there was a series of incidents in which military officers challenged civilian leadership - the revolt of the admirals, McArthur's contempt for Truman, etc.

Following Vietnam the military under went a significant evolutionary change - with the end of the draft the military became a profession - it was marketed as such and over the almost 50 past years it has evolved into a wholly professional caste - and I use the world caste because today's military is certainly more conservative, with values that are different in many respects from the civilian world.

What has changed is the military has developed it's own interests and a growing political awareness. During both the Clinton and Obama administrations there was a sense of contempt for both presidents and their political party (anyone remember the fax issue with Rep Schroeder?) - a number of senior officers were relieved (in both administrations) for comments or writings about the president.

What is concerning is that the military is becoming politically aware - and therein is the problem. Eventually we will reach a point where the military will outright defy a civilian order and leave us with a constitutional crisis that will make the hanging chad question trival.

Consider the extremes - Donald Trump is elected President, a terrorist attack on US soil that kills a couple of hundred people. The attack is traced to Iran, Trump tells the military 'nuke em' and the military counsels a more proportioned response and Trump tells the Joint Chiefs "your fired' and the military says 'no..you are fired"

It can happen here

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 9:45 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:45:36 -0500

This is just unprofessional people pouting over something that they can't control. Whether we like who is in office or not we have to have the understanding that POTUS and Congress will do whatever they think is best for the country. Even if we don't believe it. If Trump decides to build a dome around the US so immigrants cant get in, it still has to go through congress so hopefully we should be safe from any of his shenanigans.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 10:15 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:15:49 -0500

As a member of the Armed Forces, you MUST follow the orders of the Commander-In-Chief. It's no different for the next President as it is for the current one.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 10:43 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:43:50 -0500

If he is elected, they better. Is he the best choice? I'm not too sure, but they'll be more apt to follow his, then let's say, Killary! I often wonder why so many followed Obama's... C'est la vie

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Feb 29 at 2016 10:45 AM

COL Jon Thompson — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:45:41 -0500

The military will follow the orders of whomever is the next president regardless of how much they may not like them or their political views. I would hope that if a President Trump issues orders that they fundamentally disagree with, senior leaders will make a statement by resigning. But otherwise, we have all had to deal with things with which we disagreed and that will continue.

Response by PO1 Nathan Watts made Feb 29 at 2016 11:00 AM

PO1 Nathan Watts — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:00:20 -0500

Why is this even a question?
-----
0 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment oath
(a)Enlistment Oath.—
Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following 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.” (Cornell Law School, "LII / Legal Information Institute")
-----

*...I will obey the orders of the President of the United States..." is pretty cut and dry.
If you allow personal politic beliefs to determine whether or not to follow lawful orders, thereby willfully acting in a manner directly opposed to your Oath of Enlistment, please turn in your uniform because you have simply lost your way.
We hear the same bs rhetoric every election. This is nothing new.

Reference

"10 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment Oath: Who May Administer."
LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School.
Web. 29 Feb. 2016. .

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 11:37 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:37:17 -0500

I don't like Trump at all but the moment he's sworn in as president my personal opinions become irrelevant. The American people have made their choice and I'm bound to honor that. The military's role is apolitical we stand ready defend the nation regardless of who is in office.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Feb 29 at 2016 11:37 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:37:53 -0500

'What if' the military was ordered to round up all undocumented migrants, Muslims, unemployed, and BLM-types and concentrate them in internment camps until they got straight? What if Trump ordered the military to round up and otherwise dispose of all newly born infants else they grow up and pose a threat to his reign. The extent to which these inane hypotheticals go is also shocking to say the least. I have heard and read recently from MR and TC that DT is on the payroll of the Mafia and Mexican Cartels who all launder their drug money in his real estate holdings, and also engages in human trafficking on the side. GMAB.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Feb 29 at 2016 12:35 PM

PO3 David Fries — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:35:20 -0500

Why would you not? My Oath of Enlistment didn't include a " as long as I like the CIC or people appointed over me" clause. If you can't separate yourself from that, you need to grow up or get out.

Response by SPC Richard White made Feb 29 at 2016 1:00 PM

SPC Richard White — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:00:06 -0500

I believe that leaders would follow orders until they were deemed illegal and from what I have seen on this topic it has to do with international law.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 2:45 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:45:32 -0500

I don't see why it would be an issue. There really aren't any candidates that fit the bill for a perfect military leader; Sanders was an objector during Vietnam, Clinton showed her lack of skill in Benghazi and no one else really has any experience. It doesn't matter- we uphold and defend the Constitution, not a president.

Response by SFC Bryson Amaral made Feb 29 at 2016 6:34 PM

SFC Bryson Amaral — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:34:29 -0500

I believe we are bound by UCMJ to follow all orders unless illegal or immoral

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Feb 29 at 2016 11:21 PM

SGT Tyler G. — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:21:21 -0500

If he were to win the election, the very moment he was sworn in all my personal opinions of him would be irrelevant. The people of the United States of America would have spoken, and it would be my sworn duty to obey any and all lawful orders given. It isn't our place as the military to decide whether or not someone should be president, that is up to the public during election time, and protesting their decision by refusing to follow a lawful order would be nothing short of treason.