Posted on Nov 3, 2015
Could you serve under a Commander-in-Chief you don't respect?
13.6K
206
111
14
14
0
COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Bill Maher Interviewes Tulsi Gabbard on Real Time LIVE (10/31/2015)
Bill Maher tonight spoke with Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard about an issue they agree on: the frustrating refusal of President Obama to accept “Isla...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unsdKAvTq9o
Once upon a time we had two political parties that shared common goals though disagreed on the best strategy to achieve them. Regardless of who was elected, we could at least respect them. Sadly, an ideology that appears to some/many/me to be at odds with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution has emerged and taken root in the established leadership of one of the major American parties. The President appears to be one of its leading proponents and I can honestly say that if I were serving today, I would have resigned my commission rather than serve under him.
As I viewed the video of Bill Maher interviewing Representative Tulsi Gabbard I was relieved to find that the true heart of the Democratic Party may still be beating. I suspect that I would have no difficulty serving under her Administration, or at least respecting her in my current role of a mere citizen. How about you? Does she exemplify the type of Democrat you wished would drive that party today?
I can't help but also observe how screwed up things have become when Bill Maher begins to sound reasonable...
Once upon a time we had two political parties that shared common goals though disagreed on the best strategy to achieve them. Regardless of who was elected, we could at least respect them. Sadly, an ideology that appears to some/many/me to be at odds with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution has emerged and taken root in the established leadership of one of the major American parties. The President appears to be one of its leading proponents and I can honestly say that if I were serving today, I would have resigned my commission rather than serve under him.
As I viewed the video of Bill Maher interviewing Representative Tulsi Gabbard I was relieved to find that the true heart of the Democratic Party may still be beating. I suspect that I would have no difficulty serving under her Administration, or at least respecting her in my current role of a mere citizen. How about you? Does she exemplify the type of Democrat you wished would drive that party today?
I can't help but also observe how screwed up things have become when Bill Maher begins to sound reasonable...
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Leadership
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 49
15
15
0
I served under two (Clinton and Obama) but have gone through a lot of angst in the past 6 years. I served because I still felt it was my duty to the nation and it was something that I fully enjoyed doing. As much as I have hated to see the direction in which the DoD is going, I did my best to make a difference with the people that I served alongside.
(15)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
PO2 Mark Saffell - This is a tricky situation. What I do not like is when they retire, they write a book about how they disagreed with policy and what it is doing to the military. If they felt that strong, why didn't they say something when they could affect change. I am always reminded of during the Vietnam War, the Army Chief of Staff, Harold J. Johnson, was going over to the White House to resign because of the conduct of the war. He said he had his stars in his hand. At the last minute, he had a change of heart. Who knows how his resignation may have affected the prosecution of the war.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
That is what we took the oath for. I commend you for your service and doing the "right" thing. No matter what the circumstances, I always respected the uniform or the office even if I hated their guts.
(1)
(0)
CDR Brian Rinaldi
COL Thomson, I agree with you completely. I felt the same way and will never be sorry that I served my country.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
I wish I could share this discussion with the world at large. I wish that everyone could see as I do the dedication and devotion of those who serve. Although it appears that most who have responded to my original question as well as those who have responded to their comments, have reservations, maybe even doubts, but are honor-bound to fulfill their oaths to the best of their ability. Would that politicians honored their oaths as well...
(0)
(0)
14
14
0
I do not care who is president. I enlisted and swore to do my job to the best of my abilities, and to defend this country. Respecting or even liking who's in office is no concern of mine. Same goes for congress. Liking anyone is nowhere to be found in my enlistment oath.
(14)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" - Naw Bruh...just another Soldier amongst his peers who are also great people in their own right.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Daniel Attilio
Same here, my concern were the Marines to my left and right, the Marines I lead and the Marines I followed.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
If you can't serve under a CinC that you don't respect, then you don't belong in the Military.
When you get to the policy-making level (which almost no one on RP is), then you go ahead and exercise your ability to influence policy or resign if you irreconcilably disagree with the ends or rationale of an administration's strategy or policy.
At the lower levels we have only a very limited ability to dissent, and can only refuse if the required action or inaction is illegal, immoral, or unsafe.
What does respect for the CinC even count for if the CinC's orders are evaluated individually by each Service member? Who's to say that a leader you respect won't demand that you do something with which you disagree? The point is that Service is supposed to be *apolitical* (that means non-political). Therefore, the question in the original post is irrelevant.
When you get to the policy-making level (which almost no one on RP is), then you go ahead and exercise your ability to influence policy or resign if you irreconcilably disagree with the ends or rationale of an administration's strategy or policy.
At the lower levels we have only a very limited ability to dissent, and can only refuse if the required action or inaction is illegal, immoral, or unsafe.
What does respect for the CinC even count for if the CinC's orders are evaluated individually by each Service member? Who's to say that a leader you respect won't demand that you do something with which you disagree? The point is that Service is supposed to be *apolitical* (that means non-political). Therefore, the question in the original post is irrelevant.
(9)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
COL Jon Thompson, I understand the distinction well, sir. Still, in carrying out one's Oath-bound duty, respect for superiors (individuals or offices) is irrelevant. A respected/respectable leader can issue unlawful orders, and a leader deserving no respect can issue lawful orders. The same applies to safe/unsafe and moral/immoral orders.
My original point was that one should not serve at all if he or she would either fail in executing his or her duties or resign his or her position based on who occupies a superior office. If one's own ability or willingness to lead subordinates in good faith necessarily depends on the occupant of superior offices, then he or she should not serve.
My original point was that one should not serve at all if he or she would either fail in executing his or her duties or resign his or her position based on who occupies a superior office. If one's own ability or willingness to lead subordinates in good faith necessarily depends on the occupant of superior offices, then he or she should not serve.
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
LTC (Join to see) There is only one flaw in your theory of if you don't respect the position then resign. Most any of us that have been in for any length of time have served under someone we have not respected. Political swings happen from 4 to 8 years and when they swing it is usually the opposite of the way it was going. Obama being a perfect example. Bush was conservative, Obama uber Liberal. If you can swing from respecting one to the other I don't want you leading anything, anywhere near me because you are a wacko with no moral compass. People just don't give up their beliefs like that.
(0)
(1)
SGT William Howell
LTC (Join to see) Sir, I want to apologize. I use the word "you" all the time in general. It is the hillbilly in me. "You" and "you all" can be both plural and singular in redneck. It was not meant to say that you personally are either unstable or that you do not have a moral compass. It was not meant to be a personal attack on you at all. It was very poorly written on my part.
I will work on picking my words better in the future. I do respect you and your opinions. We may not agree, but it does not mean that what you have to say is any less important or significant that what I have to say. Again, Sorry for coming off like an ass.
I will work on picking my words better in the future. I do respect you and your opinions. We may not agree, but it does not mean that what you have to say is any less important or significant that what I have to say. Again, Sorry for coming off like an ass.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SGT William Howell, the edit function is useful in such situations.
Again, the point is that *respect for the individual occupying the office is irrelevant*. Serving the Nation cannot possibly depend upon one's personal respect for the occupant of any higher office. That is not Service, that is selfish.
The problem is that you see it as "swinging" when in fact Serving under presidents of different political poles is consistent. The consistency lies in the fact that it is *Service to the Nation.*
Again, the point is that *respect for the individual occupying the office is irrelevant*. Serving the Nation cannot possibly depend upon one's personal respect for the occupant of any higher office. That is not Service, that is selfish.
The problem is that you see it as "swinging" when in fact Serving under presidents of different political poles is consistent. The consistency lies in the fact that it is *Service to the Nation.*
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
I did in the 90's. His name was Bill Clinton. We serve the nation, not the President.
(8)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Okay, President Clinton had his issues. Still he governed from the center ideologically. His major failing was that he couldn't keep his pants zipped up, but that's hardly anything new among testosterone-laden leaders. Do we have to list respected Presidents and generals as well as heads of major corporations who were successful leaders while jumping women at every opportunity?
(7)
(0)
1stSgt (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish
I dislike Clinton because he brought dishonor upon his family, nation and his job. He lied to the American people and survived impeachment because of politics. Just because it is not "anything new" and thers have done it does not that mean my opinion of him will change.
I dislike Clinton because he brought dishonor upon his family, nation and his job. He lied to the American people and survived impeachment because of politics. Just because it is not "anything new" and thers have done it does not that mean my opinion of him will change.
(4)
(0)
SGT William Howell
As long as there has been a military we have served under people that were not respected. George Washington was within a month of being relieved of command. Yes technically he was not the President at the time, but he was the Commander and Chief. Roosevelt quite possibly could have been the worst President we ever had if it had not been for WW2. His economic reforms were not only seen as a waste of money, but it was believed that if allowed to continue the Great Depression would have reemerged and relapsed the country into another depression bigger than before.
Americans continued to serve for the love of our country. No matter how messed up our country is, it is still better than every other country out there.
Americans continued to serve for the love of our country. No matter how messed up our country is, it is still better than every other country out there.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
CPT Jack Durish - Yeh, I did until he violated the White House. At least Jack Kennedy---and other presidents-- had the CIA keep it quiet.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
I go with the uniform. A 2nd looie gets a salute like a full bird. The uniform get a salute even though I don't know them.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
MAJ Keira Brennan
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003
(3)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Context and intellectual honesty! He did say exactly what you parroted. But he said a lot more than that brief introduction in his speech. I would suggest reading the entire editorial. However, I don't think it will matter, you've already made up your mind and prerogative doesn't extend to ideology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yCsmwoMecU
Here are some more quotes from the speech:
“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
“OUR MISSION CONTINUES. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed.”
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.”
“America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.”
http://csis.org/blog/bush-never-said-%E2%80%9Cmission-accomplished%E2%80%9D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yCsmwoMecU
Here are some more quotes from the speech:
“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
“OUR MISSION CONTINUES. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed.”
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.”
“America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.”
http://csis.org/blog/bush-never-said-%E2%80%9Cmission-accomplished%E2%80%9D
Bush Never Said “Mission Accomplished” | Center for Strategic and International Studies
With the leaking Gulf oil well apparently under control, and the spilled oil mysteriously vanishing, the Obama administration has come under pressure from journalists to declare “mission accomplished.” It is understandably unwilling to do this, partly because things could still go wrong and partly because of the phrase’s unfortunate political baggage.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Keira Brennan
I not an OIF vet (OEF 6 here). I shake my head everytime think of the mess i missed. The three most prominent rational for the 2003 invasion: link between Saddam and AQ = nil, possession of WMD = nil, projection of global military dominance = nil. Everytime i think of how under equipped we were in RC (E) i think of how fucking time, lives, and money was wasted for and invasion, insugancy, and civil war. Shia Iraq might as well be West Persia. Thanks W.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
"...i think of how under equipped..." And yet you support a president who would cut military funding making it even harder for troops on the ground.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I liked some, disliked one, and am outright flummoxed by another. However, the military serves the country and what you think of the current Chief Executive doesn't really matter, beyond your vote. Fortunately, Presidents come and go while the country remains. We are equally fortunate to have Constitution that makes it difficult for a President, Congressman, or even Judge to make permanent changes.
(4)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Although I applaud your optimism, I fear that the Constitution has lost much of its force in America, not because of our politicians, but rather because of the willingness of We the People to elect and repeatedly reelect those who contravene the spirit and intent of the Constitution. I'm an optimist in that I believe that we can reverse this trend if we want to. However, until then, we are struggling with an Executive Branch that has usurped the power to legislate and adjudicate laws with the aid and consent of the other two branches of government. This is in direct contravention of the architecture of the Constitution which provides for separation of powers and is the most serious threat to our individual liberties. Meanwhile, We the People ignore it...
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
Yes I served under Clinton with whom I didn't have much respect for. But this being said, if we all gave up and quit, then where would we be. I looked at it like I was SERVING my COUNTRY. This was why I joined in the first place to Serve a Nation, not just one man.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
I did, I joined 2 years after President Obama was elected. Do I respect him, no. Do I respect his position, yes. But I also didn't join to serve the President. I joined to protect my family, friends, brothers and sisters. I joined to repay the many Veterans before me and try to be the man that they were/are.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google