• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Retired 4-Star Army General Calls Trump A ‘Serious Threat To National Security’

NIMBY said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on the necessity of a President Pence, which I believe we need at all costs ...
Click to expand...

Any man that stands by Trump and calls him a "good man" is suspect to me. Most of us Hoosiers weren't impressed by him.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Any man that stands by Trump and calls him a "good man" is suspect to me. Most of us Hoosiers weren't impressed by him.
Click to expand...

I understand how all of you feel about VP Pence on social issues and the rest;
he had to stand for this CinC; that’s the job of a VP;

I’ve seen this before, 44 years ago when in College.
John Dean is correct; this is well past Nixon, and the stakes are infinitely higher ...
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Absolutely agree. Rumsfeld's idiotic "save half our military to invade Iraq instead of making certain we stop Bin Laden in Afghanistan" was the stupidest, most incompetent, most utterly inept decision ever made, as we simply watched Afghani troops hired by "our military" stick their hands out, take the bribe and let Bin Laden and the entire Taliban waltz into Pakistan while we supposedly had them "trapped" in Tora Bora.

Criminally incompetent. I'll not forgive George W. for that idiocy, which was responsible for tens of thousands of lives, and another decade of American soldiers dying for what was a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, and completely ignored the best interest of the American people.

Even so, I'd take George W. over the narcissistic, utterly dangerous fool we now have in the WH. Trump, if not stopped, will destroy us all with his corruption, his utter contempt for the rule of law, the constitution, and his allegiance to a foreign government's attempts to infiltrate and take over our country's infrastructure and defenses. He is a traitor, pure and simple. History will reflect that, although I'm not sure how many of us will be alive to read about it.
Click to expand...



Funny. I detested most of what GWB stood for and what he did, not the least of which was hit us with tariffs on lumber because we chose to stay out of Iraq, but always thought he'd be the kind of guy you go fishing with, a gentleman who knows when to talk and when to fish and that you can't talk and fish at the same time (metaphor).
Ronnie was the guy whose actions pissed me off, but was the president I most admired. Now he was the kind of guy knew when to fish and when to talk. It would be a week end to remember regardless of the fish.
I agreed with some of what Obama did, but found that I'd prefer the company of a lot of other people before him; the kind of guy who just might break into an ecology lecture at a dinner party; the kind you want to hit with a wine bottle. Clinton was the kind you hang with after 18 holes, fishing isn't even on the agenda and I doubt anyone would learn anything that wasn't about him.
I agree, and GWB has said "Trump is making me look good" and he does. I have never understood the attraction to Trump, that is until I saw who bought what at Trump Towers Vancouver. Chinese worship money, love gold everything; 90% of the $ in that building is from off shore, likely we now hear it's laundered.
In person I suspect Trump is the kind of guy you want to count your fingers after shaking hands, don't go fishing, he'll buy the boat out from under you...and you won't learn anything anyway.
I am comforted that I am not the only one who thinks "dangerous" with Trump.
 
Barnacle said:
McCaffrey criticized Rumsfeld, too. So, who gives a hoot what a paid actor says?
Click to expand...

Oh my, he criticized Saint Rumsfeld? That is unforgivable!

Didn't your Dear Leader criticize the Dubya Administration on multiple occasions?
 
NIMBY said:
I understand how all of you feel about VP Pence on social issues and the rest;
he had to stand for this CinC; that’s the job of a VP;

I’ve seen this before, 44 years ago when in College.
John Dean is correct; this is well past Nixon, and the stakes are infinitely higher ...
Click to expand...


Now that Trump has made clear he has decided to be his own counsel in the WH and that he intends to remove Mueller, the attitudes toward Trump have changed. While Trump had not been checked much by the key people in WH he was waylaid by 'em on a number of things. Trump's lawyers for instance put Trump off Mueller by saying the investigation would end by Thanksgiving, then Christmas, then the new year and so on. Trump has the new Roy Cohn hitman lawyer Joe DiGenova. Gary Cohen quit over tariffs and other disastrous policies. McMaster who's been hanging on by his fingernails is seeing 'em getting clipped. Putin just got his new mandate while Trump fails to protect the national security and sovereignty against Putin. Trump's money deals are surfacing each day and there's the payoff of Stormy Daniels and the physical threats against her as related by her lawyer. Etc.

Trump's making it unmistakably clear he's had it with people in WH telling him he can't do this or that, not only about firing Mueller but on foreign and domestic issues with NK up front and percolating. We do indeed see Trump clearing the decks in the WH and that Trump fully intends to go his own way the rest of the way.

Trump being his own counsel is the worst of all worlds. It suggests too much now. Pence meanwhile continues to lie low, staying on his own course of the social issues such as abortion while doing everything he can to stay in the background and apart from Trump's new determination to do as he pleases no matter who or what. If we could have a snap election Congress would be turned over and Trump would be checked, both significantly and daily. No snap election is possible however, as we know. So the race is on as to which will come first, the November election to check Trump or Trump remaining unchecked and running off into the wild dragging the country along on the ground behind him.

Trump considers his unwavering base as being his ticket to pulling this off. Trump's base is keeping Republicans in Congress cowered and quiet which is how they'll stay no matter what. However, the limited base guarantees Trump's vulnerability given the broad opposition to him among the population in general. Public opposition to Trump is consistent and stable. Which means armed forces commanders don't need troops to express themselves when it comes to Trump. Nor do military commanders want or need to call on troops for the commanders to express themselves to the society they serve. The tradition of the officer oath is to the Constitution, which means the three branches of the government, the system of checks and balances, the rule of law -- the people. Potus is not in the officer oath and he's never been in the officer oath. Military officers positively view themselves as was stated from the founding of the republic, i.e., as connected directly and only to the people. With the Trump presidency we are seeing that be defined in new ways that are in fact the old ways. That is, it is the duty and the obligation of the military commanders to check and to deal with a tyrant ruler. How this manifests concerning Trump is being developed. It is being developed gradually and carefully -- conservatively. The one thing we do know concerning the military commanders is that they will never act to destroy democracy. The rule of law is rather that there are legal orders and there are illegal orders. Trump has not challenged this principle to date yet everyone knows Trump has no limits. There is also failure to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The laws of national security and sovereignty in particular. In this respect, military commanders know they and the majority of the population stand on the common ground. General McCaffrey has begun to manifest the unity of the military commanders and the people. It is obvious he is the logical and rational choice in this respect. We need to stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
GDViking said:
I guess you missed the words "on duty or present"...
Click to expand...

Nope. Sure didn't. I guess you missed the part where I said general officers at treated differently - that's because a general officer is always on duty (retired or not), and unless he is unconscious or dead, he is always considered present. Present, by the way, means available for assignment to a duty tasking.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Yep. General officers are held to a different standard. However, all retired military officers are subject to the UCMJ under Article 2, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to “[r]etired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.”

Article 88 states:

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Trump seems to me to be the kind of person that would push this issue, and he may order Courts Martial be empaneled to deal with mouthy generals.
Click to expand...


Chances of any kind of Trump action against Gen. McCaffrey are slim and none but as we know, with Trump things can get fat in an instant.

If Trump might decide he wants Gen. McCaffrey silenced Trump could activate the four-star on orders. McCaffrey would need to report. Report forthwith and without undue delay (get his civilian affairs in order etc). It would be the obligatory call of duty to General McCaffrey issued by the commander in chief.

All retired officers are subject to immediate activation and a return to active duty on the orders of Potus. (To include retired enlisted as well.) As you'd know, retired officers retain their rank. They get the retired designation with pay under USC Title 10 pertaining to the armed forces. Retired officers are normally exempted from the UCMJ while in retirement.

We could bet the farm General Kelly would indeed insist on the activation course if Trump were to want instead to punish Gen. McCaffrey in negative ways. That is, if Kelly could not head off any such course of Trump action, which Kelly would certainly attempt to do and emphatically. Kelly could have McCaffrey put in Kelly's care personally somewhere in the Office of the Potus where Kelly could keep his eye on him and ears close to McCaffrey. However, Kelly would also know Trump is on thin ice at the Pentagon as it is and that anything Trump might want to do to punch back at McCaffrey would sink Trump straight down at the Pentagon and right into the swamp the Pentagon is built on. It's just perfect anyway the entire area is built on a swamp right to Capitol Hill.




Parrish said:
Let him try it. It won't end well for the Collaborator-in Chief.
Click to expand...

For sure, both at Pentagon and the armed forces and in the society in general. Kelly in particular would look abysmal if he could not head off Trump if Trump were to insist and simply order an action against Gen. McCaffrey. Kelly would become persona non grata at Pentagon immediately and forever. Kelly's standing at Pentagon is dubious at best as things are and have been. Gen. McMaster would weigh in against it for sure but McMaster has been on the outs with Trump for some considerable time already. Trump would probably ship out McMaster simultaneously if he hadn't done it already.





DiAnna said:
I'm fairly certain Gen. McCaffrey is well aware of all UCMJ Articles. He clearly believes that the security of this nation is more important than the potential threat of a Courts Martial. I have no doubt that he will stand by his position, and continue to publicly adhere to it in spite of that, because he is a true patriot.
Click to expand...

General McCaffrey would need to report to active duty but what a fiasco it would be for Trump. It would radically upset civil-military relations to no end. Last I heard McMaster is headed for the scheduled vacancy as Army vice chief of staff which would would take McMaster to four stars besides. CofS Gen. Mark Milley and SecDef Mattis have already put out the welcome mat to McMaster so any upset to this pending arrangement would no doubt cause a further stir. I doubt seriously Trump would act against McCaffrey but then again and as we know Trump will say and do anything of the moment. Barry McCaffrey is respected to the high heavens by military commanders both active duty and retired. McCaffrey knows practically all of 'em. Military brass regard their relationship with General McCaffrey as a privilege and an honor. Indeed. One could even say Gen. McCaffrey speaks for 'em here and there, now and then. Mostly now.
 
Tangmo said:
Chances of any kind of Trump action against Gen. McCaffrey are slim and none but as we know, with Trump things can get fat in an instant.

If Trump might decide he wants Gen. McCaffrey silenced Trump could activate the four-star on orders. McCaffrey would need to report. Report forthwith and without undue delay (get his civilian affairs in order etc). It would be the obligatory call of duty to General McCaffrey issued by the commander in chief.

All retired officers are subject to immediate activation and a return to active duty on the orders of Potus. (To include retired enlisted as well.) As you'd know, retired officers retain their rank. They get the retired designation with pay under USC Title 10 pertaining to the armed forces. Retired officers are normally exempted from the UCMJ while in retirement.

We could bet the farm General Kelly would indeed insist on the activation course if Trump were to want instead to punish Gen. McCaffrey in negative ways. That is, if Kelly could not head off any such course of Trump action, which Kelly would certainly attempt to do and emphatically. Kelly could have McCaffrey put in Kelly's care personally somewhere in the Office of the Potus where Kelly could keep his eye on him and ears close to McCaffrey. However, Kelly would also know Trump is on thin ice at the Pentagon as it is and that anything Trump might want to do to punch back at McCaffrey would sink Trump straight down at the Pentagon and right into the swamp the Pentagon is built on. It's just perfect anyway the entire area is built on a swamp right to Capitol Hill.






For sure, both at Pentagon and the armed forces and in the society in general. Kelly in particular would look abysmal if he could not head off Trump if Trump were to insist and simply order an action against Gen. McCaffrey. Kelly would become persona non grata at Pentagon immediately and forever. Kelly's standing at Pentagon is dubious at best as things are and have been. Gen. McMaster would weigh in against it for sure but McMaster has been on the outs with Trump for some considerable time already. Trump would probably ship out McMaster simultaneously if he hadn't done it already.







General McCaffrey would need to report to active duty but what a fiasco it would be for Trump. It would radically upset civil-military relations to no end. Last I heard McMaster is headed for the scheduled vacancy as Army vice chief of staff which would would take McMaster to four stars besides. CofS Gen. Mark Milley and SecDef Mattis have already put out the welcome mat to McMaster so any upset to this pending arrangement would no doubt cause a further stir. I doubt seriously Trump would act against McCaffrey but then again and as we know Trump will say and do anything of the moment. Barry McCaffrey is respected to the high heavens by military commanders both active duty and retired. McCaffrey knows practically all of 'em. Military brass regard their relationship with General McCaffrey as a privilege and an honor. Indeed. One could even say Gen. McCaffrey speaks for 'em here and there, now and then. Mostly now.
Click to expand...

But now we have Bolton as NSA. Who knows WTH will happen.
 
Parrish said:
But now we have Bolton as NSA. Who knows WTH will happen.
Click to expand...

And surely those all around the world who have gotten so comfortable sucking on Americas decline have taken note....
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And surely those all around the world who have gotten so comfortable sucking on Americas decline have taken note....
Click to expand...

Oh, the world knows. Congress needs to act on the AUMF.
 
Parrish said:
Oh, the world knows. Congress needs to act on the AUMF.
Click to expand...

When you hear yourself saying the words "Congress needs to act" you know what trouble you are in....RIGHT?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
When you hear yourself saying the words "Congress needs to act" you know what trouble you are in....RIGHT?
Click to expand...

No. I do not. Just when I respond to a member of the Un-Intelligentsia.
 
Since the Russians started the process of this interference back in 2014, I wonder if Obama was also a threat to national security since he did nothing.
 
Ten retired four star commanders of the two Western Hemisphere armed forces commands have urged Potus Trump to endorse and strengthen Nafta as vital to USA national security. The retired seven four star generals and three four star admirals advised Potus Trump that, "Without NAFTA, cooperation with our North American neighbors will be less likely, weakening our ability to confront security challenges."

The signers include General Barry McCaffrey who recently said publicly Potus Trump is a "danger to the national security in the United States." Gen. McCaffrey was commander of U.S. Southern Command which includes all U.S. armed forces operations south of Mexico.

Two of the ten signers went on to become Nato supreme commander: Gen. George Julwan of the Army and Admiral James Stavirdis. Since retiring Adm. Stavridis has been dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston. One signer, Marine General Peter Pace became chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff during Iraq and Afghanistan.

Eight of the signers were commanders of U.S. Southern Command. Two had commanded Northern Command which includes all armed forces in the USA and Canada. Five of the SOUTHCOM commanders had signed an earlier letter to Potus Trump advising him to support the existing U.S.-Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement: McCaffrety, Pace, Julwan, Wilheim, Hill.



FORMER MILITARY COMMANDERS URGE TRUMP TO KEEP NAFTA

Dear Mr. President:

We join you and all Americans in supporting a secure and economically vibrant United States. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) directly supports these goals. As you negotiate to update NAFTA, we encourage you, as former Commanders of U.S. NORTHERN Command and U.S. SOUTHERN Command, to strengthen U.S. commitment to the agreement itself.

NAFTA has also established a framework of trust among all three parties, leading to close cooperation to address a range of pressing concerns including drug trafficking, terrorism, cyber security, organized crime, and migration. The issues are regional, with criminal and terrorist networks operating beyond the borders of any one country; they require regional responses. Without NAFTA, cooperation with our North American neighbors will be less likely, weakening our ability to confront security challenges. And in a broader sense, recommitting to
NAFTA would reassure Canada and Mexico and also our allies globally that they can continue to depend on U.S. commitments, particularly as China becomes increasingly assertive.
.
Even so, Mr. President, NAFTA is far more than a trade agreement – it is a core aspect of our national security. We respect fully ask you to
update and strengthen the agreement on a mutually-beneficial basis, while ensuring it remains a part of the U.S. strategic arsenal for many years to come.

Sincerely,

General George Joulwan Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command 1990-1993

General Barry McCaffrey Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command 1994-1996

General Charles E. Wilhelm Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command 1997-2000

General Peter Pace Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command 2000-2001

General James T. Hill Commander, SOUTHCOM (2002-2004)

General Bantz J. Craddock Commander, SOUTHCOM (2004-2006)

Admiral James G. Stavridis Commander, SOUTHCOM (2006-2009)

General Douglas M. Fraser Commander, SOUTHCOM (2009-2012)

Admiral James A. Winnefeld Jr. Commander, NORTHCOM (2010-2011)

Admiral William E. Gortney Commander, NORTHCOM (2014--2016)


NORTHCOM is headquartered at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado and SOUTHCOM is based in Miami, Florida. Other retired four star officers who have been publicly critical of Potus Trump recently include Admiral William McRaven, the former Special Operations commander who planned and executed the death of Osama bin Laden; Admiral James Ellis Jr, former commander of the nuclear arsenal at Strategic Command; General Michael Hayden the former director of NSA and then of CIA, and Lieutenant General Guy Swan Jr former commander of NORTHCOM and a career friend of LTG H.R. McMaster. General retired John E. Kelly is a former SOUTHCOM commander who is, as we know, chief of staff to Potus Trump.

The present commander of Cybercommand, Admiral Mike Rogers recently testified to Congress that he has not received any directives or orders from Potus Trump to counter cyber attacks against the United States in the homeland as conducted by foreign governments. Present four-star commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Army General Raymond A. Thomas recently remarked that "the government is in a terrible turmoil" which Gen. Thomas said he does "hope gets straightened out soon because we're a nation at war." Gen. Thomas said U.S. special operations forces globally remain "focused" nonetheless. It seems a lot of military commanders are getting focused lately also.
 
Last edited:
Parrish said:
But now we have Bolton as NSA. Who knows WTH will happen.
Click to expand...


Bolton makes McCain look like a peacenik. John Nuke 'Em Now Bolton.


Word around is that SecDef Mattis is definitely inclined to connect more with Congress these dayze. Mattis has excellent relations on both sides in Congress of course. The retired Marine four-star Mattis knows the officer oath is to the three branches of the government and that it deliberately excludes Potus/CinC. That's the way George wanted it back in 1789.

It's anyway true command positions of top military brass must be confirmed by the Congress, that Congress is the paymaster of the armed forces, that every officer promotion in each instance is voted on by the Congress, and that only Congress has the power to declare war. The latter point is moot of course, however, almost all our armed conflicts post WW II have been approved by the congress in the form of a joint resolution. Congress in short has a hellova lot of power and authority in military matters. It's really between the executive and the legislature as Scotus stays out of matters of war and peace. Scotus has for instance turned away every challenge to Potus exercising the War Powers Resolution (1973). Scotus has confirmed specifically that matters of war and peace are for the executive and the legislative to deal with. So with the vp as president of the Senate it becomes quite a club over there on the Hill.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And surely those all around the world who have gotten so comfortable sucking on Americas decline have taken note....
Click to expand...

Tangmo said:
Those all around the globe would include those in the USA too.
Click to expand...

Hawkeye10 said:
Well that is the Dream Right....that America finally wakes up out of this stupor....
Click to expand...


Whatever the Dream Right in USA might be sucking on it ain't good.

Stupor over there is better than the rightwing madness Trump and His Fanboyz have loosed upon the world. Concocting a declining America and wanting to bring back the good ol' dayze of when we wuz growing up is delusion and fantasy. It is a pathology that cheerfully creates its own new disasters. The forced implosion of the world's most powerful nuclear armed country and most advanced economy is the craziest idea imaginable. We're in the 21st century, not the first century. Youse over there are demanding a nuclear Guns of August redux a hundred years on.

Youse are mad and the sooner you're stopped the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom