When do our senior officers have the responsibility to dissent and say no?

LtCol Robert Quinter — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:50:00 -0500

Our armed forces operate under the elected administration. When do our senior officers have the responsibility to say no? What is their appropriate path of dissent?
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/01/19/when_appeasement_is_in_season_108916.html

When Appeasement is in Season | RealClearDefense

Last week was especially bad for the American military, already drained by sequestration and segregated from a society where affluenza has become our signature epidemic. A panel of...

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 20 at 2016 11:07 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:07:35 -0500

They have a duty to say no when they are being forced to act against their conscience. The appropriate path of dissent is resignation.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 20 at 2016 11:23 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:23:40 -0500

You always have the duty to say no when you think what is going on is immoral or illegal. The key is that you are willing to accept the consequences of saying no. Many people are not too keen on that part of it.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 20 at 2016 12:07 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:07:23 -0500

If we are given an illegal order we are bound to say no LtCol Robert Quinter.
This of course requires a general knowledge of the UCMJ but most of us have consciences ands we can spot something which is illegal - it benefits somebody directly, it harms the innocent, ir takes away the freedom of somebody with insufficient evidence or it transfers money for personal gain, etc.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 1:57 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:57:23 -0500

They have a duty to give unvarnished advice to the civilian leaders.
They also have a duty to execute their orders, even when they disagree.
If they disagree to such an extent that they can't follow those orders, it is their duty to tender their resignation.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Jan 20 at 2016 9:13 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:13:20 -0500

When we cannot take it anymore it is our duty to move on as we swore an oath to obey orders even if we disagree.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 20 at 2016 10:12 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:12:37 -0500

Illegal, someone will get hurt, cheating, stealing, and dilly dallying with someone other than your wife.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 10:47 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:47:52 -0500

That article was just a typical Presedent Obama hit piece. It's not really about when a senior officer says no. The principal of the relationship between the POTUS and the JCS is no different than between a battalion commander and his S3 or a company commander. The staff officer gets to give his best thought out advice. The commander decides. Who didn't have a Plt Ldr think he knew better what to do than you did as a company commander?

I don't buy this "the POTUS never served" BS. The Constitution specifically put a civilian in charge of the military. They could have easily put military service as a requirement if they felt it was important. But the didn't. In fact, Washington initially didn't want to be president because he didnt want it to seem like the military was really in charge. The president has all sorts of military expertise around him. He didn't need to serve to understand the ramifications of going to war. IMO that's a red herring. But more importantly, the President has to evaluate strategic decisions in a much broader context than the generals. Take a look at just about every general's recommendation for Iraq or afghanistan since 2001. More troops, more money, more years, indefinitely. And to the general that may make perfect sense. But the general doesnt have to weigh things like how those additional troops and trillions of dollars and years wiill effect the US economy, the will of the people to contine to support the war; the impact of the middle east conflicts on our allies and adversaries or our comittments in other parts of the world. . The truth is the generals concern themselves with the war in front of them while the POTUS must consider much more.

So whether the POTUS was a private or a 2LT for a couple of years has no bearing on the expertise he needs to make POTUS level decisions. If a general doesnt like it that his BOSS doesnt go with his recommendation, he can quit if he wants. But I remember being taught since ROTC that you give the commander your best advice, and then you follow his decision just as if it was your idea. That's the role of an officer. If you don't like that, and want to make POTUS level decisions, then get out and run for president.

What arrogance must a general have to think he is so smart that he believes he should overrule the decision of the American people as to who sits in the big chair and makes the big decisions. Who the F--- died and made him king? Generals need to do their jobs; lead the soldiers below them and follow the orders of the CINC above him.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 21 at 2016 12:53 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:53:42 -0500

Illegal, unethical, or immoral orders.