Posted on Feb 29, 2016
Would the military follow the orders of Donald Trump?
6.54K
84
56
11
11
0
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.
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Election 2016
Politics Election 2016
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 26
0
0
0
I believe we are bound by UCMJ to follow all orders unless illegal or immoral
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I would certainly follow orders, as I am sure almost all service members who take their job and oath seriously would. This posted question was more along the lines of exploring why so many people believe the military would notttt fulfill their oath. Maybe I worded the question wrong?
(0)
(0)
PO3 David Fries
CPT (Join to see) - I would have used that next to last sentence as the question. "Why/do people believe that we wouldn't follow the orders of Trump if he becomes President" or something to that effect. Just my humble opinion.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
'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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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. .
-----
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. .
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
GySgt John Olson - Maybe I wasn't clear in what I wrote. For the most part, the military will obey the orders of President Trump regardless of how they feel about them. We have done that numerous times with Obama. But in extreme cases like you mention, I would hope they would resign as those things would violate their oath to the Nation. Another example is how he advocates torture for terror suspects. I have no illusions about him and worry deeply what would happen if he is elected. But the question in this thread is will the military follow the orders of President Trump. Unless his orders clearly violate the Constitution, the answer is yes they will.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
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
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
GySgt John Olson - I cut the post short - 1. It was already long, 2 I had to get on a conference call :) - you are essentially correct, although other political, social and economic factors came into play. I am by no means advocating a return to a draft, but we are at a point where in the next 10-20 years a military coup would not surprise me.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google