Obama wants only military leaders who will agree to fire on US citizens?

[bwaites]

http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-claim-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens

[carbontetrachloride]

Shouldn't be a problem. They don't have any trouble firing on civilians in other countries.

[ricsmall]

I find this hard to believe in this country, but not with our current pres. If there is any truth to this folks, I have a very bad feeling about the future of this country, though I think the true Americans will prevail.

[Michael]

Shouldn't be a problem. They don't have any trouble firing on civilians in other countries.

I personally take offense to this post. After 5 tours overseas as an ‘officer’, I have never once stated, or heard one of the other officers serving with me, state it is OK to fire on civilians. Those who did, didn't last long in command.

We in the military have taken great pains - unfortunately, sometimes at the expense of that most precious American resource, the American service member’s life - to avoid collateral civilian damages. We never did this lightly or frivolously. We have realized, slowly, that in any counterinsurgency operation (COIN) (and Iraq and Afghanistan were COIN after the initial insertion of forces), the thing you have to win is not terrain, or a city, but the PEOPLE. Trust me, you do not win the people by killing civilians – you create more insurgents when you kill civilians.

Keep in mind, the same officers that you are decrying are from this country, and many of us share your frustration with the current policies and decisions. POTUS would have a rough path to find enough officers who would swear to fire on civilians. To do so would only strengthen the resolve of the PEOPLE.

[stokesrj]

Shouldn't be a problem. They don't have any trouble firing on civilians in other countries.

Are you serious? If you are this is one of the most despicable posts, I've ever seen on this forum.

[montana]

Not all of the military leaders supports the constitution http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/08/forme...s-not-schools/

[Dogue]

I agree with Michael and Stokes.

I am still fighting the urge to become a paranoid 'tin-foil hat' guy, but this POTUS is proving to be the biggest threat our country has seen in generations. I'm not sure our enemys could have planted a better leader in this country if they tried.

[Deer Hunter]

I personally take offense to this post. After 5 tours overseas as an ‘officer’, I have never once stated, or heard one of the other officers serving with me, state it is OK to fire on civilians. Those who did, didn't last long in command.

We in the military have taken great pains - unfortunately, sometimes at the expense of that most precious American resource, the American service member’s life - to avoid collateral civilian damages. We never did this lightly or frivolously. We have realized, slowly, that in any counterinsurgency operation (COIN) (and Iraq and Afghanistan were COIN after the initial insertion of forces), the thing you have to win is not terrain, or a city, but the PEOPLE. Trust me, you do not win the people by killing civilians – you create more insurgents when you kill civilians.

Keep in mind, the same officers that you are decrying are from this country, and many of us share your frustration with the current policies and decisions. POTUS would have a rough path to find enough officers who would swear to fire on civilians. To do so would only strengthen the resolve of the PEOPLE.

Lets hope youre right Michael. Thank you for your service to our country, thats a sentiment that the DemonRats on Capital hill dont share my brother.

[Deer Hunter]

I could be wrong and im trying to read between the lines on the post. I think (and hope) that hes talking about Politicans not soldiers because I dont doubt for a minute that our Politicans would order it and im still in hopes our military would refuse.

[Deer Hunter]

I agree with Michael and Stokes.

I am still fighting the urge to become a paranoid 'tin-foil hat' guy, but this POTUS is proving to be the biggest threat our country has seen in generations. I'm not sure our enemys could have planted a better leader in this country if they tried.

Its very sad that we wonder at all on this subject.

[davidj]

“The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.” Yet he is afraid to have his name mentioned? He can't be much of a hero.I tire of all these alarmist claims by people who don't have the courage to identify themselves.

[hellcat370]

If you look at the policies Obama has been implementing, or trying to implement, it would make sense that he would want military leaders loyal to HIM and not the Constitution per se. He's come right out and said the Constitution is a flawed document, and his remark about needing to "remake" our country follows the trend. He has also said that he wants the U.S. to be at the same levels as other countries, hence why he doesn't care if the price of gas goes up to 5, 6, or even 8 dollars a gallon. His socialist health care, with of course a clause exempting him and Congress, is further proof, in combination of raising taxes. He NEEDS people who will fire on American civilians because there is revolution and civil war on peoples minds. People ask me all the time- when is it going to start, how far are we going to get pushed until we push back!? History repeats itself. What happened in the 1770's and 1850's/60's is happening again. Sheriff's and states are saying they will not enforce nor allow anyone to enforce certain federal regulations. There has also been talk of doing away with the 2 term limit so he can run for president again!

[Michael]

All - I am currently at a university doing the ROTC training gig. Below is what we teach our young future officers as to what the oaths are. Notice the commissioned officer oath is slightly different than the enlisted oath. We teach a fairly comprehensive class that breaks the oath down and we make them read the Constitution and discuss it.

Officer 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; 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.

Enlisted 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.

I bring this up as commissioned officers do not swear to obey the President…that is implied based on our professionalism and the phrase ‘…faithfully discharge the duties of the office…’. Could it be a moral quandary if the President starts issuing orders contrary (or perceived contrary) to our oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution’? You bet. What would happen? I don’t even want to think about the implications or ramifications. We, in the military, don’t surrender our political beliefs and there are a few left leaning folks in the ranks…less than in the rest of society, but there are a few.

Re the article on Gen Mattis being forced out…based on other open sources, it is driven more by his insistence on going against National Strategy in planning for military actions in Iran. What’s the truth? I don’t know. I know there have been several GOs investigated/relieved for not following or openly disagreeing with policy (including Gen McChrystal, cited in the post by montana). I also know Gen Mattis. He is a warrior, but he can also be a bull in the proverbial china shop. Not a trait that would endear him to the more PC crowd in the beltway.

[bwaites]

It's an interesting question. I've known more than a few officers; Naval, Air Force, Army, and even a few Marines. I can't think of a single one who would order his troops to fire on American Citizens.

However, if you look up McArthur, you'll find that he did, when the President ordered it! There was significant confusion, but he did lead a cavalry charge against WWI veterans during the Bonus Marches.

There is precedent, and even the best of the military men can be mislead.

Its a very tough situation to place any officer in.

I posted this because it is becoming a bigger and bigger question, as turnover at the top of the military seems to be at an all time high.

As for the anonymity of the "war hero", I don't think it matters much. It is being discussed, and important people are talking about it. That is scary.

[carbontetrachloride]

Exactly. The Bonus Marches are an excellent example. The Civil War is another. The US military never had a problem with firebombing German and Japanese civilians. I guess the gun camera footage of the helicopter gunship mowing down Iraqi's was photoshopped. Dear Leader gives the OK to drone bomb men, women and children on the other side of the planet on a daily basis. People who are not here trying take my freedoms under the guise of "protecting my freedom". Keep on fighting to prop up those petrodollars.