• 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!

Mattis is out of the loop and Trump doesn't listen to him, say officials

Duty, honor, country is something 45 knows nothing about.
 
Xelor said:
IIRC, Trump thinks he knows more than the generals.
Click to expand...


Trump said so from early on in his campaign. There's no disputing Trump specifically said so. Trump hasn't said anything along this line since soon after taking office however. Now Trump has Mattis looking down on him as Trump Him Self well knows. And top Pentagon civilian officials too, almost each of which Trump gave Mattis personal authority to select. Mattis in fact retained the number two at Pentagon, deputy secretary Bob Work who stayed through most of 2017 to manage Mattis assumption of his charge. Trump found out soon all of 'em in the E Ring look down on Trump and consider Trump to be an incompetent CinC. This includes the Joint Chiefs and the senior three-star commanders under 'em and throughout the services at the Pentagon. Disrespect manifested after the standard briefing of the new CinC in the secure Pentagon 'tank' during which US armed forces and their positions and roles globally were presented to Trump. Trump kept shouting "I don't like that." It was after the chaotic meeting ended that the then SecState Tillerson said Trump is a "****ing moron." The rest is history in the making which means it is basically written already. The outline of it is certainly clear.
 
Tangmo said:
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary James Mattis learned in May from a colleague that President Donald Trump had made the decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, and scrambled to get his boss on the phone before a formal announcement was made. It wouldn't be the last time he was caught off guard by a presidential announcement.
Click to expand...


I was curious to see what this was about, since I have the OP on permanent block. And once again, I see why.

First of all, who wrote this article? Well, it is none other than Courtney Kube and Carol Lee. In case these names are not familiar, these are the same 2 that reported last year that the President ordered a "tenfold increase in nuclear weapons". A claim that got some people to talking, until Secretary Mattis absolutely blew it out of the water, stating it was not only false, but a stupid claim.

And now that the Secretary has blasted their last story, they seem to be trying to go after him.

Now look at that very first line of the article, which I have reposted here. And apply your critical thinking skills to it.

Why on earth would the President talk to the Secretary of Defense over a matter that has nothing to do with him? Treaties and the like are the prevue of the Secretary of State. And this is not even that, since it is only an Executive Order, and not even an actual treaty.

So realistically, this makes about as much sense as screaming that the President did not talk to the Secretary of Education before making a decision about forestry, since that might impact the production of paper that impacts books. When such a decision belongs with the Secretary of the Interior.

This is yet another nonsensical political issue, and has nothing to do with the military let alone reality. Other than in the minds of those with TDS.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I was curious to see what this was about, since I have the OP on permanent block. And once again, I see why.

First of all, who wrote this article? Well, it is none other than Courtney Kube and Carol Lee. In case these names are not familiar, these are the same 2 that reported last year that the President ordered a "tenfold increase in nuclear weapons". A claim that got some people to talking, until Secretary Mattis absolutely blew it out of the water, stating it was not only false, but a stupid claim.

And now that the Secretary has blasted their last story, they seem to be trying to go after him.

Now look at that very first line of the article, which I have reposted here. And apply your critical thinking skills to it.

Why on earth would the President talk to the Secretary of Defense over a matter that has nothing to do with him? Treaties and the like are the prevue of the Secretary of State. And this is not even that, since it is only an Executive Order, and not even an actual treaty.

So realistically, this makes about as much sense as screaming that the President did not talk to the Secretary of Education before making a decision about forestry, since that might impact the production of paper that impacts books. When such a decision belongs with the Secretary of the Interior.

This is yet another nonsensical political issue, and has nothing to do with the military let alone reality. Other than in the minds of those with TDS.
Click to expand...


That wuz a long way to go to end up where you started. Meaning you got nothing to show for the circuitous run.

TDS is glib, trite, a cliche', and a throw blanket to cover everything the right doesn't accept or cannot bear to hear.

It was the chaotic meeting in the Pentagon 'tank' showing Potus US strategic positions and missions globally during which Trump kept bellowing, "I don't like it." It was on his exit that the then SecState Tillerson made headlines and history by saying Trump is a vucking moron. Tillerson actually missed quite a lot given Trump is Putin's sycophant and understudy. In the meantime you guyz over there on the right became what we once fought against. You're it solidly now. Irretrievably.
 
I have a bad feeling about Trump's meeting with Putin, Mattis possibly on his way out (per post 14) to me would mean Trump is going to pull out of northeastern Syria. Mattis is very much opposed to that. Sure it's good for America ito spending but the Kurds will be screwed. I don't think they're just going to hand that territory back to Assad and this means Russia will go from making all sorts of promises to Trump, to bombing the crap out of the Kurds.

America tried pulling out of Afghanistan it was a disaster, you tried pulling out of Iraq an even bigger disaster... now Trump wants to do it again in Syria... no wonder Mattis is preparing to walk, he's too smart for this.
 
It is Trump not Mattis who is going to have to walk.

Walk the plank.

Mattis keeps his head down which is wise and necessary. Mattis is the only credible guy in the cabinet with the great majority of Americans. This is so regardless of political party, ideological belief or region of the country. Mattis has more credibility then Pence has. Pence is in fact a kind of guy Mattis handles with ease and controls with facility.

So the November elections can't come soon enough. Even if the elections go well for the good guys there will be several more months before its effects can begin to activate to check and counteract Trump. The outcome of the elections will determine whether Trump gets checked democratically or has to walk the plank constitutionally. Either way Trump gets splashed.

Putin meanwhile is poisoning Brits for free again which offends profoundly the Pentagon national security commanders and the intelligence community. No nationality can feel safe or secure in their homeland from the long arm of Vladimir Putin's bad chemistry. Trump and the Republican party are soliciting Putin to throw in with Putin to demolish Nato and the EU. Each alliance is the bulwark of post WW II global stability. Trump is going to Britain in the summer to further diss our strongest and longest term ally. There is much much more but Trump in these matters alone is digging his own political pit. Sawing off the plank.
 
Tangmo said:
Putin meanwhile is poisoning Brits for free again which offends profoundly the Pentagon national security commanders and the intelligence community. No nationality can feel safe or secure in their homeland from the long arm of Vladimir Putin's bad chemistry. Trump and the Republican party are soliciting Putin to throw in with Putin to demolish Nato and the EU. Each alliance is the bulwark of post WW II global stability. Trump is going to Britain in the summer to further diss our strongest and longest term ally. There is much much more but Trump in these matters alone is digging his own political pit. Sawing off the plank.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?
 
It's the revenge of the defeated ca 1945.

And of the crushed ca 1991.

The new axis. The one we once fought against and smashed. Returning now as zombies to get even and moreover to reassert their original intentions, designs, plans in the homeland of the allied victors. The United States first and foremost. This shall not stand.
 
Tangmo said:
It's the revenge of the defeated ca 1945.

And of the crushed ca 1991.

The new axis. The one we once fought against and smashed. Returning now as zombies to get even and moreover to reassert their original intentions, designs, plans in the homeland of the allied victors. The United States first and foremost. This shall not stand.
Click to expand...

Tangmo to English converter required.
 
SecDef Jim Mattis likes it so much when you reup that he'll do it himself for and with you...



Soldiers Who Reenlisted Had Someone High up the Chain to Administer Their Oaths

eenlist6.jpg

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis re-enlists members of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (Old Guard) during a ceremony Sept. 20, 2017, at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Va. DoD photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brigitte N. Brantley








yeadon5.jpg

Mattis talks with family and friends of the soldiers he just re-enlisted. Army photo by Spc. Daniel Yeadon








yeadon4.jpg

Mattis chats with soldiers during the re-enlistment ceremony at Whipple Field, Ft. Myer Heights, Arlington Va. Ft. Myer Quarters #1, official residence of the Army chief of staff is at right. Quarters #6 the official residence of CJCS is at left. All are on Grant Drive. Army photo by Spc. Daniel Yeadon








eenlist3-560x350.jpg

Mattis greets Col. Jason Garkey, 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (Old Guard) commander; and Maj. Gen. Michael Howard, commander Military District of Washington and commander, Joint Force National Capital Region before re-enlisting members of the Old Guard. Mattis personally appointed each commander. DoD photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brigitte N. Brantley








yeadon3.jpg

The re-enlistment ceremony overlooked the National Mall, Monuments and city of Washington. Army photo by Spc. Daniel Yeadon
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
SecDef Jim Mattis likes it so much when you reup that he'll do it himself for and with you...
Click to expand...

Nothing unusual here. I have seen a great number of reenlistments done by VIPs over the years. While I was deployed, I attended one that was performed by General Petraeus. A gal in my unit simply sent his office an e-mail and her request was granted. A week later when he was next at our base he came down to our Command Post and swore her and 8 others in.

In my own initial enlistment, I was sworn in by US Senator Pete Wilson.

In my experience, one thing that all Officers and Veterans in a position to administer the oath take it as a real honor. Other than initial entry, anybody who reenlists generally has any officer in the unit available to administer the oath. Or even higher officers. I have seen Brigade Commanders, Division Commanders, even as I said the CentCom Commander and other politicians doing the oath (including a Governor, 3 US Senators, and a retired Major who was famous in the Corps in the 1980's as an author of a series of books of "Sea Stories").

And even the location is often whatever the individual wants. I have seen them done on top of PATRIOT launchers and M1 tanks, at 35,000 feet in a C-130 flying over Iraq, even in front of a waterfall in the jungles of Panama and in the gas chamber on Okinawa. For my last one at Fort Bliss I requested and got mine done on top of the repelling tower.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Nothing unusual here. I have seen a great number of reenlistments done by VIPs over the years. While I was deployed, I attended one that was performed by General Petraeus. A gal in my unit simply sent his office an e-mail and her request was granted. A week later when he was next at our base he came down to our Command Post and swore her and 8 others in.

In my own initial enlistment, I was sworn in by US Senator Pete Wilson.

In my experience, one thing that all Officers and Veterans in a position to administer the oath take it as a real honor. Other than initial entry, anybody who reenlists generally has any officer in the unit available to administer the oath. Or even higher officers. I have seen Brigade Commanders, Division Commanders, even as I said the CentCom Commander and other politicians doing the oath (including a Governor, 3 US Senators, and a retired Major who was famous in the Corps in the 1980's as an author of a series of books of "Sea Stories").

And even the location is often whatever the individual wants. I have seen them done on top of PATRIOT launchers and M1 tanks, at 35,000 feet in a C-130 flying over Iraq, even in front of a waterfall in the jungles of Panama and in the gas chamber on Okinawa. For my last one at Fort Bliss I requested and got mine done on top of the repelling tower.
Click to expand...


Re-upping has been done underwater which is in the books although I wasn't there in any capacity or at all. What you say is true for sure -- your experience is rich as a witness to the big decision to reenlist. My post focuses on a group of 3 IR nco whose reenlistment was held in a super setting.

It also personalizes SecDef Mattis to the regiment which has been designated since Potus Truman as the official "Escort to the President." So as I'd noted, Mattis personally appointed the colonel commanding the regiment and the two-star who is simultaneously commanding general of the Military District of Washington and of the Joint Force National Capital Region. Indeed, if Mattis is going to cross the Rubi, er, Potomac, he'll want the 3 IR cohort and the Joint Force legion behind him. Because when it comes to the case of Donald Trump very many Americans want him to move on soonest or to be moved on and away -- from the reup office especially where they're shredding forms.

The oath hosting by Mattis is anyway consistent with the imaginative and diverse ways nco reenlist, many of the gyrations being a good and memorable time. Officers being super serious about it typically show up at Btn or Rgt hdq for an informal ceremony amid handshakes and photos to include lotsa shoulder punching. No newly reupped major gets shot out of a cannon to hit the ground running and thingys like that. Many of us know taking the oath on a reup is not required nor is it a strict rule although it is preferred. The vast majority of officers prefer strongly to do the oath on each reup however. I would have done it that way had I not bailed cheerfully after my four-year obligation expired.

While I got put into IRR which is the Rotc norm (4 years), Army had made me an active duty regular effective three months into my assignment to 3 IR TOG. My sponsor S/sgt and by then OCS 1LT Joe Kinzer who retired as a three-star and whose Old Guard company and platoon I'd been assigned to (unsurprisingly) wrote the colonel from the Nam where he was with the 82nd. The colonel sent the paperwork on to the Pentagon by carrier pigeon or some such -- it being next to Ft. Myer and The Cemetery -- where TOG paperwork always got immediate attention and a rapid processing via MDW command.

Back then Rotc Lt didn't get much respect from senior officers -- or many regular officers of the same rank -- unless you got a regular duty status. So it isn't tough enough to just be a 1Lt. Rotc commissioning was something somewhat less than until you got captain. A Rotc captain commanding a company got much more respect from higher ups and peers than an Rotc capt assigned to staff did. I spent my final year at Btn as adjutant but I'd been ptn leader, cpy xo then cpy c.o. which cleared the way for me. I'm advised reliably that in AVF the Rotc 1Lt is well regarded. Rotc grads don't really arrive until they reup then get major (O-4), at which point you're an equal to the academy guys to include grads of Citadel, VMI, Texas A&M and the like who are regulars from commissioning. It's not news to the active military and to veterans that at any point in time being a 'regular' has a long history of respect. It goes way back in time.
 
Last edited:
SecDef Mattis accompanied Cindy McCain when she placed a wreath at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the National Mall today. Mattis met the McCain family and the Senator's casket at Andrews AFB in the Maryland suburbs of Washington last night, on their arrival from Phoenix.





SecDef Mattis Accompanied Cindy McCain and Family To Place a Wreath at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.








5b8887904b88a.image.jpg

SecDef Mattis accompanies Cindy McCain, widow of Sen. John McCain on their arrival at Andrews AFB, Maryland, Saturday evening. McCain retired from the Navy as a Captain and generations of Navy men.





John Kelly was at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial for the wreath placing, with the script, "All Who Served," which suggests Mattis position at the Pentagon remains secure despite Ol' Bone Spurs wild whims.
 
Last edited:
Best Ten Minute Commencement Speech Ever -- By General James Mattis



General James N. Mattis speaks at his alma mata Central Washington University Commencement in 2011. Mattis graduated from Columbia High School in 1968. Mattis enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1969. He earned a B.A. degree in history from CWU in 1971. He was commissioned a second lieutenant through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at CWU on 1 January 1972. He earned an M.A. degree in international security affairs from the National War College of the National Defense University, Ft. Leslie J. McNair, Washington DC in 1994.


General Jim Mattis was the Davies Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution until being confirmed as the 26th United States Secretary of Defense. He studied national security issues, specifically strategy, innovation, the effective use of military force and the Middle East while writing a book on leadership.

General Mattis commanded at multiple levels in his forty-three year career as an infantry Marine. As a lieutenant in the western Pacific, he served as a rifle and weapons platoon commander in the Third Marine Division. As a captain in the Pacific and Indian Ocean, he commanded a rifle company and a weapons company in the First Marine Brigade. As a major he was the battalion officer at the Naval Academy Prep School then commanded Marine recruiters in the Pacific Northwest and Hawaii.

As a lieutenant colonel he commanded the 7th Marines Assault Task Force Ripper breaching the Iraqi minefields in Operation Desert Storm. As a colonel he commanded 7th Marine Regiment; and, on Pentagon duty, he served as the Department of Defense Executive Secretary. As a brigadier general he was the Senior Military Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Following 9-11 he commanded the First Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Naval Task Force 58 in operations against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, thus becoming the first Marine Corps officer to command a naval combat task force. As a major general, he commanded the First Marine Division during the initial attack and subsequent stability operations in Iraq.

In his first tour as a lieutenant general, he was in charge of Marine Corps Combat Development at Quantico and subsequently served as Commander, I Marine Expeditionary Force/Commander, U.S. Marine Forces in the Middle East. As a general he served concurrently as the Commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command and as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation.

Before retiring in 2013 he was the Commander of U.S. Central Command, directing military operations of over 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen, Marines and allied forces across the Middle East. He is co-editor of the book, Warriors & Citizens: American Views of Our Military.

https://dod.defense.gov/About/Biographies/Biography-View/Article/1055835/james-mattis/



Whew
 
humbolt said:
Yeah. I read the OP, and the officials who make the claim remain un-named. Odd that those who dispute the OP are named.
Click to expand...

I've never seen so much made up bull**** since they've tried sinking Kavanaugh. The sick part about these haters is that they HOPE that Trump isn't listening to his generals, maybe in some delusional belief that he'll **** up something really big militarily, and then get impeached. I think Democrats have gone so far off the deep-end that they will go for anything insane in order to get rid of Trump.
 
American said:
I've never seen so much made up bull**** since they've tried sinking Kavanaugh. The sick part about these haters is that they HOPE that Trump isn't listening to his generals, maybe in some delusional belief that he'll **** up something really big militarily, and then get impeached. I think Democrats have gone so far off the deep-end that they will go for anything insane in order to get rid of Trump.
Click to expand...

Trump is still there, and so is Kavanaugh. I guess they've temporarily sidelined Mueller as a focal point.
 
American said:
I've never seen so much made up bull**** since they've tried sinking Kavanaugh. The sick part about these haters is that they HOPE that Trump isn't listening to his generals, maybe in some delusional belief that he'll **** up something really big militarily, and then get impeached. I think Democrats have gone so far off the deep-end that they will go for anything insane in order to get rid of Trump.
Click to expand...

I think that a lot of people are wanting to see a divide between the General and the President. Because they do not like what he sees.

Mad Dog is the epitome of what a General should be. And in many ways, he reminds me of another great leader from the past, Jim Webb.

And the two have a lot in common. Both are nominally Democrats, but have dedicated their life to serving the country. Both have served in high positions in the DoD under a Republican, and have put aside any kind of political squabbling in order to accomplish their jobs (as had Mr. Webb who was Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan). And both are Marines.

From everything I have read politically about the General, he is probably one of the last of the "Old School Conservative Democrats". Just like Mr. Webb. And like many others, such as Lyndon LaRouche, the late Larry McDonald (who was in an aircraft shot down by the soviets in 1983), and most famously John Kennedy. Strongly Anti-Communist, if Kennedy was alive today I find it likely that ANTIFA would be holding protests against him.

Funny how we keep hearing this pop up every so often, yet the General remains. And I expect him to remain, unless he resigns because of poor health, or over a major contention with the President as Mr. Webb had (that had been over the cancelling of his predecessors "600 ship fleet"). As was the Secretary before him, Secretary Webb had strongly pushed for the 600 ship fleet, and resigned when he was not only to not see this happen, but was being pushed to reduce the size of the Navy even further. But one of his most lasting accomplishments was appointing General Gray as Commandant of the Marines, leading to a major change in how that branch trained and operated.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I think that a lot of people are wanting to see a divide between the General and the President. Because they do not like what he sees.

Mad Dog is the epitome of what a General should be. And in many ways, he reminds me of another great leader from the past, Jim Webb.

And the two have a lot in common. Both are nominally Democrats, but have dedicated their life to serving the country. Both have served in high positions in the DoD under a Republican, and have put aside any kind of political squabbling in order to accomplish their jobs (as had Mr. Webb who was Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan). And both are Marines.

<<snip>>


Funny how we keep hearing this pop up every so often, yet the General remains. And I expect him to remain, unless he resigns because of poor health, or over a major contention with the President as Mr. Webb had (that had been over the cancelling of his predecessors "600 ship fleet"). As was the Secretary before him, Secretary Webb had strongly pushed for the 600 ship fleet, and resigned when he was not only to not see this happen, but was being pushed to reduce the size of the Navy even further. But one of his most lasting accomplishments was appointing General Gray as Commandant of the Marines, leading to a major change in how that branch trained and operated.
Click to expand...


Mattis came to his maturity immediately as a junior officer whereas Jim Webb didn't become intellectually or personally mature until his early forties. And Mattis has always steered clear of politics whereas Webb was a right wing extremist until his middle age. Webb was writing right wing tomes prolifically and making extremist speeches for the longest time. I do commend Jim Webb for finally growing up.

Yet I have always been impelled to wonder what made the boy from the mid-Atlantic states hills who graduated Annapolis and was heroically wounded in the Nam take so long to become an actual adult in temperament and intellect. I am pleased to share with Jim the political migration to Democrat from Republican. (I fashion myself a Henry Jackson Democrat throughout.) Yet and indeed Webb's history is all the same erratic and meandering whereas Mattis has always had his true north.




While I rarely speak of Jim Webb out of deference to his later years of wisdom finally gained, I reference one of several dozen exhibits that can and do testify to my statements about Jim Webb...

Several Naval Academy alumni have asked the alumni association to rescind an award planned for former U.S. Sen. James Webb because of his decades-old essay questioning the decision to admit women into military service academies.

Webb, who also served as secretary of the Navy, wrote the 7,000-word essay "Women Can't Fight" for Washingtonian Magazine in 1979.

"There is a place for women in our military, but not in combat. And their presence at institutions dedicated to the preparation of men for combat command is poisoning that preparation," Webb wrote. He called the dormitory Bancroft Hall "a horny woman's dream."

The essay has been described by several alumni as a "manifesto" that potentially empowered male midshipmen to harass their female counterparts. Retired Navy Cmdr. Laureen Miklos, a 1981 graduate, wrote in an email that the decision by the Naval Academy Alumni Association to give its Distinguished Graduate Award to Webb was "a hit to the gut." She taught at the academy from 1998 to 2001 and described Webb's essay as a "living document" still referenced by mids.

Webb released a statement saying he wrote a "strongly argumentative magazine article" during the intense national debate of women serving in combat. "Clearly, if I had been a more mature individual, there are things that I would not have said in that magazine article," he wrote in the statement. "To the extent that this article subjected women at the academy or the armed forces to undue hardship, I remain profoundly sorry."

Naval Academy grads ask alumni group to rescind honor for former Sen. Jim Webb - Capital Gazette



Webb decided after all that he could not accept the award due to concerns over an open protest demonstration at the dinner ceremony had he attended.

Further, when the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was being approved for construction Webb opposed it, calling it a "wailing wall." He later changed his tune after heavy peer criticism, saying he could accept the Memorial as true and valid because a flag and a light had been added to it. This is specious and this was Jim Webb for too many decades. Trying to equate Jim Mattis and Jim Webb leaves much to be desired indeed. So as I say and emphasize, Jim Webb finally grew up. More power to him and I continue to wish him only the best.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:

Reports are that Mattis has not forwarded to Trump a viable military option on either North Korea or Iran. We know well about NK. As for Iran, Mattis isn't giving Trump ammunition Trump wants, i.e., options, to blow some Iranian small boats out of the water. Mattis simply doesn't send that kind of stuff to Trump's desk. Mattis knows better. So do the Joint Chiefs.
Click to expand...


Don't believe any of this. Contrary to the claim, I do NOT believe commanders of our military are violating their oath like anonymous source claims they are.
 
joko104 said:
Don't believe any of this. Contrary to the claim, I do NOT believe commanders of our military are violating their oath like anonymous source claims they are.
Click to expand...


The military oath is to the Constitution period. Potus/CinC is not in the officer oath. Potus is mentioned in the enlisted oath yet he is superseded by the fact EP too take their oath to the Constitution. The Constitution is more important than the Potus and the Constitution is superior to the CinC. This is taught thoroughly in officer education although it is overlooked grossly in EP education and training. Ordinary people in everyday life are oblivious to it.
 
Tangmo said:
The military oath is to the Constitution period. Potus/CinC is not in the officer oath. Potus is mentioned in the enlisted oath yet he is superseded by the fact EP too take their oath to the Constitution. The Constitution is more important than the Potus and the Constitution is superior to the CinC. This is taught thoroughly in officer education although it is overlooked grossly in EP education and training. Ordinary people in everyday life are oblivious to it.
Click to expand...

Why lie?
 
A huge number of veterans of the armed forces posting here are retired non-commissioned officers or retired petty officers. That is, they served as enlisted personnel (EP). Accordingly, any one or all of 'em are invited to state the education s/he was issued concerning their oath of enlistment. This invitation is extended also to enlisted personnel who served a one time tour of enlistment, to include those EP who may have served for less than 20 years. Some here for instance put in ten years then out, or eight years then out and so on.

Because I dare say: every veteran of enlisted service of any rank, experience, period of time, who has posted to DP, has said Potus being in the enlisted oath means their obedience is to the president. This is so despite the fact the oath of enlistment is to the Constitution and to the Constitution only. Further, while Potus is mentioned as such in the enlisted oath, the oath of EP is to the Constitution and not to the President of the United States.

What these EP need to know is that CinC is an executive and administrative position as specified in the Constitution, and that the military oath of enlisted and officer alike is to the Constitution itself and only. There is no oath to the Potus or to any Caesar, i.e., individual official or leader. This is because the Constitution is more important than the Potus and the Constitution is always superior to Potus. No person in any office or capacity is more important than the Constitution or is superior to it. I have yet to read a post to any thread at any time made by EP or former EP now retired or separated who state an awareness of these facts. Quite to the contrary in fact.

It was Washington who wrote the first oath which was for the Continental Army and Navy. Gen. Washington himself -- commander in chief of the Continental Army and the Navy -- reported directly to the Continental Congress. As president of the Constitutional Convention Washington proposed successfully an oath for all personnel of the US armed forces. Washington iterated specifically the armed forces oath is to the Constitution and the Constitution only. Washington's assertion is that there must never be an oath to any individual official of the government or to any leader. His rationale was that the armed forces must be the bulwark against a tyrant leader should one ever gain power in the government. And that the Constitution is more important than the president and the Constitution is always superior to the president.


Have you been to it...

Constitution Corner

Location: West Point, NY
Country: United States of America

Loyalty to the Constitution Plaque

329a04c66ce9c59de2e6eeff451e5a47-1150-52094-853-640-1452566799-1543-m.jpg



The United States boldly broke with the ancient military custom of swearing loyalty to a leader. Article VI required that American Officers thereafter swear loyalty to our basic law, the Constitution

While many other nations have suffered military coups, the United States never has. Our American Code of Military Obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. Many other nations have adopted our principle of loyalty to the basic law.

This nation must have military leaders of principle and integrity so strong that their oaths to support and defend the Constitution will unfailingly govern their actions. The purpose of the United States Military Academy is to provide such leaders of character.

https://www.historicalmarkerproject...tion-corner_West-Point-NY.html#prettyPhoto/3/



An order is given by a person whereas the law is provided by institutions.

The military oath to the Constitution exclusively means to the three branches of the government. Each branch has a chief. The three branches exist in a co-equal balance of powers under the system of checks and balances. The military is loyal to the whole of it, not to any single person or official of it. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that there could be a military coup d'etat in the United States. This is because the military chiefs, commanders, enlisted personnel, are subordinate to the civilian authority and its leaders of the three branches of the government. Never to one only or exclusively. The whole of it and to the many in it -- above any single part of it or any single individual or leader in it.

I've never read an EP active or retired posting to DP whose statements resemble any of this in any shape or form. Quite the opposite in fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom