Will the military distance themselves from the President if they prove they are not capable of fulfilling the role of Commander in Chief?

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:24:44 -0500

If whoever wins the election, this year or years from now, prove to be incapable of fulfilling the role of Commander in Chief, would the military begin to distance themselves from this person?

Were they to change our military, our military policy, or make decisions that were to threaten the country as a whole, would the military have any power to veto their decision? Would Congress?

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Nov 7 at 2016 8:29 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:29:40 -0500

Only if the internet breaks. Otherwise life will go on the Military will follow legal orders, the civilians will go back to apathy and congress will continue to be inept.
Oh the liberals will continue stomping their feet about wanting something for nothing.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 7 at 2016 8:30 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:30:06 -0500

The President has become largely a figurehead in recent times. Inasmuch as the functions of all three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) have been absorbed by the bureaucracy (which includes the bureaucracy at the Pentagon), they can absorb any attempt at interference by the President, Congress, or the Court like the tar baby in the Uncle Remus story. Attempts to fight the bureaucrats will only mire the President in an unresponsive quagmire.

Response by 1stSgt Nelson Kerr made Nov 7 at 2016 8:30 PM

1stSgt Nelson Kerr — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:30:37 -0500

If they do so for anything less than an open violation of the Constitution they have betrayed their oath.

Response by SGT Robert George made Nov 7 at 2016 8:34 PM

SGT Robert George — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:34:26 -0500

No !!!

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Nov 7 at 2016 8:36 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:36:47 -0500

Not if we have the professional military we allegedly have.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Nov 7 at 2016 8:42 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:42:49 -0500

If you read both, officer and enlisted oaths, there are no qualifiers as to obey ing the orders of a seated president. Sure wouldn't want to be the service member, regardless of rank/rate to test him/her.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Nov 7 at 2016 8:45 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:45:18 -0500

It's not the Military's choice to make that decision, oversight role of Executive Branch lies with Congress.

Despite the Election rhetoric, either candidate will do fine, in my view. Remember the President has a Chief of Staff, full legal counsel on the Constitution, as well as other experts surrounding him/her and they should be able to do OK with all the support. If not we have 55 Senate seats up for election in two years time.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2016 8:46 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:46:29 -0500

The military does not get the option to determine who is and is not the Commander in Chief. That is determined every four years.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2016 8:54 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:54:56 -0500

I've spent more than 18 years on active duty so far, and I've never received an order directly from the president. Neither have 99.9% of the other people in the military. Someone who outranks me (by usually a little bit) tells me to do something, and I do it. Same with those to whom I give orders. Whoever holds the office of the president doesn't really come into our day-to-day considerations, except for people at the very top of our ranks.

Response by PFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2016 8:55 PM

PFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:55:01 -0500

Compare this very questions to the time of the romans. I know that it is a little different. But on the contrary the military didn't like how the "commander" treated his people. So they reveled and fought against the very institution they fought and bled for.

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 7 at 2016 8:55 PM

SFC George Smith — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:55:11 -0500

that will be a most interesting situation...

Response by SSG Steven Mangus made Nov 7 at 2016 9:00 PM

SSG Steven Mangus — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:00:39 -0500

The military is not in the business of making policy and vetoing laws however, the oath by both officers and enlisted say the will "defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic." So the better question is at what point does the government become the enemy of the constitution?

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Nov 7 at 2016 9:06 PM

MSgt Michael Smith — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:06:24 -0500

What part of Commander in Chief are you not getting? If the military decides to not do what the President says that's called a coupe de tat. Look up Pakistan on Wikipedia and see what happens then.

Response by 1stSgt Nelson Kerr made Nov 7 at 2016 9:11 PM

1stSgt Nelson Kerr — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:11:01 -0500

This seems to be a place where almost everyone here is in agreement,

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Nov 7 at 2016 9:16 PM

Capt Michael Greene — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:16:08 -0500

In other words, will our highest career officers commit mutiny? I think not.

It's lots of fun and quite emotionally satisfying for rank and file folks to scream about the dastardly incompetent evil that would become commander in chief, but the reality is that our decentralized republic and representative democracy is quite capable of surviving any president. Remember, the president is chosen freely--more or less--by the people.

Response by Maj John Bell made Nov 7 at 2016 9:39 PM

Maj John Bell — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:39:54 -0500

I am not sure what you are talking about. What would "distancing" look like?

Response by SCPO Penny Douphinett made Nov 7 at 2016 10:04 PM

SCPO Penny Douphinett — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:04:56 -0500

It is the job of the military to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief. It is not the Commander in Chief's job to prove him/herself capable, we decide that at the ballot box when we elect the President.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Nov 7 at 2016 10:48 PM

LCpl Cody Collins — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:48:32 -0500

You mean MUTINY ? Now that's Interesting.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Nov 7 at 2016 11:11 PM

LTC John Shaw — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 23:11:05 -0500

One of the two major candidates will win and we as the military will continue to serve largely unaffected by the choice of the population. The Obama administration with a GOP Congress has downsized the force by 25% while procurement spend has been down 10%. The country is not threatened with disillusion and the military is adjusting to the reduced level of spending.
The US military did not have a standing force between wars until after WWI.

Don't worry our bad choices are catching up with us. Project out 10 years and our Social Security, Healthcare and interest on the debt will suck all the air out of the budget and our services will be a shell of force, unable to project power.
The Europeans and Japanese are in worse debt they have no ability to force changes.
We will need to understand how to play nice with an economically more powerful Russia, China and India.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2016 12:35 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:35:50 -0500

They cannot do that

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2016 12:36 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:36:47 -0500

A cornerstone of American politics is that the military e exited the orders of the elected president no matter whom it may be

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Nov 8 at 2016 1:21 AM

Capt Chris McVeigh — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 01:21:56 -0500

It is up to the voters to elect the president, congress can impeach them if they are unfit. It is not up to the military to do anything unless they receive a straight up unlawful order, not just a disagreement in policy. The military is intentionally apolitical.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 8 at 2016 1:56 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 01:56:19 -0500

They didn't with Obama.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Nov 8 at 2016 2:31 AM

SN Greg Wright — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 02:31:35 -0500

Only if they're willing to violate their oath. The oath doesn't say 'I will obey those I believe in or voted for.' It says, 'those appointed over me.' You know this.

Response by CPT Alexander Grant made Nov 8 at 2016 3:16 AM

CPT Alexander Grant — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 03:16:56 -0500

I doubt this. But if they did...how would they even judge it?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2016 7:43 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 07:43:48 -0500

I thinkt that other persons would be involved so that it wouldn't happen. But there are a lot of different types of people (liberals, conservatives, independent, etc.) so I can't really say when and where the military would begin to distant themselves.

I assume after this election, that the military may do it.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Nov 8 at 2016 10:30 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 10:30:40 -0500

ENS Private RallyPoint Member It is not the military's choice to distance themselves from whoever is elected. It is their duty to obey the orders of the POTUS. No where in the Oath does it say that you can pick and choose what orders you want to follow.

"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."

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2016 10:48 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 10:48:58 -0500

We were to serve and support regardless of the Commander-in-Chief. I imagine these past few years have been difficult for some but it's long gone when we had CIC's that were fighter pilots in the war or submarine commanders.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2016 11:22 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 11:22:09 -0500

The military is not political, nor should it be.
When the Commander-in-Chief is facing a decision, it is very likely that they are leaning on Senior military leaders to provide them with quality options and courses of action. THAT is how the military shapes policy.
Deciding to get in the fetal position and pout because the President went another way is not an option. You execute the lawful orders given or you resign and get out.
Better to affect change from within than bitch about it from the outside.

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Nov 8 at 2016 11:24 AM

PO2 Pete Haga — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 11:24:56 -0500

I scrolled down and read all of the responses to this question and found some members on here still have to make it about liberal or conservative what the hell we will get nothing done while one side or the other is not willing to bend come on man put the better than thou attitude to rest and do away with the (my idea is right and yours is wrong no matter what)! MY RANT FOR THE DAY LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF IT!!!

Response by 1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2016 1:22 PM

1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 13:22:55 -0500

Interesting question given the current political climate. I see answers before mine that mention swearing allegiance to POTUS and the officers appointed, but I'd like to give my take as an officer. From the Officer's Oath of Office: "I...do solemnly swear 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." Unlike the similar enlisted oath, officers do not swear allegiance to POTUS (or the office) or officers that outrank the individual. We have a duty to uphold the constitution of the US against our enemies. If an order is given in contradiction to this ideal, we are within our rights to refuse the order. I believe there was a General (cannot remember if it was current service member or retired) who refuted one candidate's claim that he would order the killing of terrorist families, and stated that the military would refuse this order. As others have stated, the President does not give orders on day-to-day task to the military, and usually confers with the Joint Chiefs before issuing any military decision or policy. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he/she would decide any action that would be in stark opposition to his/her advisors or established military law.

With all of that being said, if the order from the Commander in Chief is lawful and does not violate the Constitution or UCMJ, we have no reason but to obey, no matter any personal bias we may hold. In response to your second statement, Congress would absolutely have the power to override a presidential veto, assuming of course they have the majority votes required.

Response by PO2 Sam Corean made Nov 8 at 2016 1:53 PM

PO2 Sam Corean — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 13:53:23 -0500

I definitely think this is much more complicated concept then just close your eyes and follow the commands of whoever happens to outrank you. Oath or no oath, the essence of military service is to defend the constitution and the American people - not blindly follow orders IMO

Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Nov 9 at 2016 11:42 AM

SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:42:31 -0500

I think at some point we watch to many movies on TV, but that won't happen now because the right choice was made last night. but if the wrong choice would of been made I am sure our military leaders would find some kind of way to break away from the commander in chief because they could only go so long fighting the bad guys knowing it was because we were really the blame for everything that has happened. Fighting against yourself. The policy would go undercover and our forces would divvied and our Command in Chief would lose their power. Hell new seal of the president would be created who knows maybe the EMPIRE would be formed.

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Nov 9 at 2016 8:00 PM

SSG Mark Franzen — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 20:00:19 -0500

How can someone like Him get a security clearance when he has all these things going against him like groping women and so on and so on. how soon can we get him removed from office? Ill tell not soon Enough he really shows his ass talking about the president now where I would say that is totally wrong and if it was me I would probably be put in Jail.
SSG MARK FRANZEN

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Nov 10 at 2016 1:03 PM

SPC Brian Mason — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:03:58 -0500

A President doesn't have to have military experience - never in uniform: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Grover Cleveland, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover
He has military advisers along with the rest of the Cabinet to help him run the country. Congress can declare War, the President cannot. There's many good reasons why our government is split into three; each with limited but interlinking powers with each other.

Response by SPC Brian Stephens made Dec 27 at 2016 7:30 PM

SPC Brian Stephens — Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:30:20 -0500

My vote is no. Carter, obama, and Clinton were all commander in chiefs who were incapable of fulfilling their role and the military stuck to its guns and America survived.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Dec 29 at 2016 10:58 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:58:25 -0500

The military is strictly apolitical, and needs to remain that way. We do not want to go the way of the Roman Empire with the Praetorian Guard choosing who becomes (or stays) emperor.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2016 8:15 PM

Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 20:15:39 -0500

The Military Should have convened a Courts Martial Board to Courts Martial 'o'bama for his Many acts of TREASON !!! Number1 being, he IS/WAS an Illegal Alien, Illegally in the Whitehouse !!!

Response by MSgt Cayle Harris made Dec 30 at 2016 9:59 AM

MSgt Cayle Harris — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:59:35 -0500

Um...that's called treason.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 30 at 2016 6:16 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:16:08 -0500

Sp4 Byron Skinner. MSG Davis is 100 % correct. In 1861 sworn officers of the US Military broke their oath. One a guy named Robert E. Lee, yes that one had second though and decided to as to be reinstated and was refused. The historical question is still hanging out there if Lincoln would have lived what would he have done about those officers that walked away form their country and survived the war. Lincoln was very up set over this.

Response by PFC Martin Longden made Dec 30 at 2016 9:14 PM

PFC Martin Longden — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:14:15 -0500

As is the case with any mandate for security, there are also protocols of acceptable behaviours and decisions governed by a complex structure of 'duty of care' standards. The moment a head of state within a western democracy contravenes them, then ( in the USA ) Article 25 becomes invoked, as the basis of personal reasoning acting outside the best interests in serving the people, as bias affecting the office of POTUS. He/She would be set aside, the VP would act, and the President would then be subject to a Senate review of their capabilities, which the house would decide upon - either to continue or be impeached.

Response by CW4 Don Conlan made Jan 18 at 2017 8:52 AM

CW4 Don Conlan — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:52:31 -0500

I certainly hope not.

Response by SSgt Walter Lonsdale made Jan 18 at 2017 10:35 AM

SSgt Walter Lonsdale — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:35:27 -0500

Did they for the last eight years? There's your answer.

Response by SSgt Walter Lonsdale made Jan 18 at 2017 10:40 AM

SSgt Walter Lonsdale — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:40:19 -0500

Respect

Response by PO3 Kenn Andrus made Jan 19 at 2017 9:14 AM

PO3 Kenn Andrus — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:14:32 -0500

the military follows who ever is the President, good or bad. we are not given the option to decide who we follow and who not to follow.

Response by PFC Francis Ramseyer made Jan 24 at 2017 8:45 AM

PFC Francis Ramseyer — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:45:45 -0500

It's a tough question ! But, being a soldier, I will always obey order from my officer.

Response by PO1 Todd B. made Jan 24 at 2017 4:04 PM

PO1 Todd B. — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:04:20 -0500

In my opinion, ANY military person that takes this action or step is a traitor to their oath and the Constitution. I wanted obama ousted as I felt he was both of those in fact. HOWEVER, taking action against him would have not only been wrong but would have put me in the same category.

Our JOB, our responsibility is to defend this nation, to defend the people and to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. In the case of a president gone awry, our job is to stand with the people should orders be given that go against our oaths. Our job is to follow our orders as long as they are not immoral, illegal or unconstitutional.

The CONGRESS can intervene should a president move to violate those AND can order us to follow the oath we took. We on our own cannot do that. We are under the command of civilian leadership.

And regardless of what we personally think of a president, we cannot just arbitrarily decide to ignore or refuse orders given to us by that president, UNLESS as I said, those orders are illegal, immoral or unconstitutional. ONLY under those circumstances do we not only have the right but the responsibility to refuse to follow those commands.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2017 6:45 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:45:17 -0500

We are required to obey lawful orders. Keyword is lawful.

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made Feb 4 at 2017 9:12 PM

Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 21:12:37 -0500

1) Recommend looking at the difference between the oath that Officers Take vs Enlisted.
2) I seved in the miliray under under 5 Presidents. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter & Reagan. Some were able, others ok, 1 was incompetent - let you decern who was former worst CIC was before Obama.
3) As for the military being damaged - the damage done under former President Obama to military preparedness, failing to prepare for increased risk and threats to the USA should evidence a response to your question as to military officers restraint.
4) Based on my esperience with the 5 presidents first identifed, there is no need to worry about the present president. We have a Commander-in-Chief who respects the military, who was not a politician but a civilain and he as shown great ability in selecting qualifed former miitary officers for leadership to help us rebuild the military and retool our "war equipment" to confront our enemies.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2017 9:17 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 21:17:37 -0500

Did they distance themselves from Mr. Obama when he showed he was not capable of fulfilling the role of CINC?

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Feb 5 at 2017 12:50 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sun, 05 Feb 2017 12:50:36 -0500

The military has the mission to defend the US from enemies foreign and domestic by conducting and winning our Nation's wars. That mission doesn't change when the Civilian leadership changes. Presidents have implemented policies over the years that some thought would destroy the military, but the Services are so strong that they took potential negatives and turned them into positives. Many administrations have used the military for social experimentation. The Services took those challenges and became one of the most inclusive places to work in the world.

I don't see senior military leadership trying to "veto" the decision and orders of the President and SECDEF. In recent history, when the civilian leadership ignored military advice and asked the military to accomplish missions they may not agree with, the unified command commanders and Services carried out the orders to the best of their ability. The senior military leadership is aware of their obligation to follow the orders of the President or resign. Lower ranking service members who may disagree with the orders of the President and attempt to resist their execution are likely to find themselves being prosecuted under the UCMJ, denied re-enlistment, or discharged as unsuitable.

Response by CW3 Charles Morris made Apr 11 at 2021 12:12 AM

CW3 Charles Morris — Sun, 11 Apr 2021 00:12:03 -0400

I suggest you take a hard look in the mirror. When we take our oath it isn't an oath of fealty to a potentate, it is to "uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." What we witnessed on the Sixth of January 2021, was former president Trump attempting to execute a self-coup to seize power and implement authoritarian rule. He incited a right-wing, insurrectionist mob to march on and seize the US Capitol in direction violation of his oath of office, his conduct was treasonous. The actions of Republican members of Congress after the Capitol was secured from the mob was unbelievable; rather than to support the constitution, they sought to throw out the election in what can best be described as a constitutional coup d'etat.