Friends, lots of people on both sides of the aisle are getting the vapors tonight, expressing extreme outrage. First, Democrats posted a video encouraging members of the military to disobey "illegal orders", but without specifying what orders Trump has given might be illegal. Then, Trump posted several comments on Truth Social decrying the video and asking, first, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???", and then declaring "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" So, in short, Republicans are upset that Democrats would so vaguely and casually call on the military to disobey the Commander in Chief, while Democrats are upset that Trump would so brazenly call for elected officials to be executed (after, presumably, being found guilty of sedition or treason). Frankly, I think both sides have a point. What the Dems did was irresponsible and, in its way, quite cowardly, because they encouraged service members to risk their careers, and maybe their lives, for a cause that even these armchair insurrectionists were unwilling to define. Pretty reprehensible. On the other hand, what the Democrats actually said was hardly sedition or treason, and certainly isn't punishable by death, because they never got around to specifying under what circumstances anyone should violate the chain of command. Virtually everyone agrees that "illegal orders" should be disobeyed. What no one agrees on, including the Democrats in question, is what constitutes an illegal order. President Trump, at any rate, clearly lost his cool and reverted to type, ranting on social media without pausing to consider the nuances of the situation or, indeed, how best to take political advantage of it. He gave Democrats, as he so often does, an opening to describe themselves as the victims of "violent rhetoric", when, as we all know, their rhetoric is anything but calm and collected. Long story short: neither the Dems nor President Trump are making America proud tonight.
https://x.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/1990774492356902948?s=20
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Your comments on the urging by some lawmakers to the troops to disobey "illegal orders" manifest common sense and measured evaluation of the issues as seen by both sides. I am constrained to agree with them though my sympathies stand against the protestors.
ReplyDeleteAchievement of Captain's rank in the Navy is a long hard road and is the last step before "flag rank", which is equivalent to a General of various ranks. Mark Kelly is a very creditable individual and I must think that his participation in this extraordinary expression is a reflection of sincere concern that President Trump is misusing the military.
Still: the Uniform Code of Military Justice may contain wording justifying willful disobedience of orders but good luck in prosecuting that right, especially if you are an enlisted man. You'd better have all your "Ts" crossed and all your "Is" dotted and you'd better have a dang good attorney! Military prisons are no day at the beach ; they are run much closer to the way prisons SHOULD be run than is permitted in most states.
Then there is the issue of peer pressure, which is in the military a very strong force. Someone contemplating disobeying orders (or all the many orders which obtain in deploying U.S. military force to back up law enforcement in anarchic cities plagued by criminal sympathizers in high civilian posts)may well face withering scorn in the ranks( I saw that during the Vietnam War). I have not seen a study of the morale of the troops deployed to shamefully maladministered cities where the law abiding face proven sometimes mortal danger from thugs gone wild. It appears that the righteous force the troops present has lowered crime rates where they are deployed. NYC Mayor Guiliani proved that a police force backed to the hilt by its civilian superiors can be a very effective deterrent to viciously presumptuous crime but President Trump has no authority to appoint Mayors. So, because the citizens of cities dominated by hapless apologists for the criminals who, by definition, consider morally and unsympathetically only possible consequences to THEM (eg. "can I benefit from this act or will I regret it?"): because lawful citizens are after all, Americans, he directs Federal force to rescue them from such injustice. Its a very worthy cause and opposition to it from people as highly placed as the protestors is a serious offense which better have some very well thought out "justification".
The fact that many thugs in cities to which Federal troops have been deployed have been forced to retreat into their hidey holes suggests to common sense people that the tactic is working. The protestors have advocated nothing as even potentially effective. The long since proven fact is that most criminals restrain themselves only when faced by overwhelming FORCE. To try to persuade them to be nice is to vastly increase the potential victimhood of all law abiding citizens!
Their shared military experience tends to show the protestors to be people of good will but I think them very much mistaken in their advocacy of disobedience to the troops. They say they will back those who do so. How do they propose to aid a perhaps youthful, naive and overidealistic soldier who answers their call ?!