quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
bigdeal, as you are not familiar with the military, there are two kinds of orders: Direct Orders and Lawful Orders.

Commissioned Officers give Direct Orders

Non-Commissioned Officers give Lawful Orders

While the distinction may sound minor the reality is, everyone who joins the military follow the orders of the President and those appointed above them and; if an officer gives a direct order, the recipient follows said order(s).

Thank you for the info and clarifications. A question: If Milley disagreed about a proposed mission, could he not simple state that and resign from his post (not the military, just the appointed position)? I'm not suggesting that military commanders across the spectrum refuse to execute orders because they do not agree with them. My question is more about these pompous bureaucrats in Washington that are about as military as my 10 year old Coonhound at this point, and 'their' options.

My understanding (from prior posts here) is that as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Milley in not in the chain of command. His role is to advise the President. The President issues orders through the chain which Milley sits outside of. The orders don’t pass through him. Now if he gave advice, his advice was ignored, and he could not support the orders given by the CinC, a man with a spec of honor might choose to resign, but it is pretty clear that would not be Milley.

I don't do facebook anymore but it seems these are from the now arrested Lt. Col.'s facebook page.

So, Joe ain’t r‘memberin’ too good now … said he was not advised … come on man, ain’t that queue to leave?

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
bigdeal, as you are not familiar with the military, there are two kinds of orders: Direct Orders and Lawful Orders.

Commissioned Officers give Direct Orders

Non-Commissioned Officers give Lawful Orders

While the distinction may sound minor the reality is, everyone who joins the military follow the orders of the President and those appointed above them and; if an officer gives a direct order, the recipient follows said order(s).

Thank you for the info and clarifications. A question: If Milley disagreed about a proposed mission, could he not simple state that and resign from his post (not the military, just the appointed position)? I'm not suggesting that military commanders across the spectrum refuse to execute orders because they do not agree with them. My question is more about these pompous bureaucrats in Washington that are about as military as my 10 year old Coonhound at this point, and 'their' options.

My understanding (from prior posts here) is that as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Milley in not in the chain of command. His role is to advise the President. The President issues orders through the chain which Milley sits outside of. The orders don’t pass through him. Now if he gave advice, his advice was ignored, and he could not support the orders given by the CinC, a man with a spec of honor might choose to resign, but it is pretty clear that would not be Milley.

But, who actually gave the order the LtC?

My guess, either a Sr. LtC, full bird Col or, a flag officer of some sort (USMC, USN, etc) who is in the LtC's chain of command eventually leading up to the Secretary of the Navy.

I was not an officer but a senior NCO for many years. My job was to advise the officers and junior folks to keep their tits out of the wringer. On a few occasions I disagreed vociferously with orders from a senior officer, in private, behind closed doors. But in the end, the decision was his and I came out of his office and executed with n'er a hint that I disagreed. That's how it is done, in the military, and more or less in police departments. If the order is legal, you ultimately carry it out and keep your disagreements to yourself.

“General, your objective is the Yankee line straight ahead. You must attack, not falter, and succeed. Can you do that?”
“Yes, sir. We will succeed or I won’t be back.”

“Lieutenant, the Hun is especially thick in our sector, and we’re going to have another go at him tomorrow. The barrage will hopefully be more successful at cutting the wire and silencing their machine guns, and maybe this time we’ll succeed in reaching their trenches, unlike the previous four attempts. In any event, your company will go over the top when our guns stop firing at 4:30 ack emma; got that?”
“Yes, sir. We’re set.”

“We’ve got to knock out that machine gun on the hill, Lieutenant. Take your platoon and get it done.”
“Aye, aye, sir.”

“Your mission, Captain, after your company lands is to gather your troops and destroy the battery at Saint-Martin-de-Varreville. You can expect heavy flak on the way in and strong resistance on the ground. Ready?”
“Airborne, sir!”

“You will be landing at Omaha beach, Major. It is heavily defended, but you must push inland regardless of your casualties. Are your men ready?”
“We’re ready, sir.”

“Captain, we must screen the people coming into the airport. Set up a checkpoint by the gate and identify the ones trying to get in.”
“Oh, no, sir: We can’t do that. We should just seal the gate and tell any Americans to get back to the US on their own. The President says the Taliban will help them. A screening operation is much too dangerous because we don’t know who might be in the crowd. In fact, I’m resigning my commission right now and will find a seat on the next flight out. Ciao.”

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
I was not an officer but a senior NCO for many years. My job was to advise the officers and junior folks to keep their tits out of the wringer. On a few occasions I disagreed vociferously with orders from a senior officer, in private, behind closed doors. But in the end, the decision was his and I came out of his office and executed with n'er a hint that I disagreed. That's how it is done, in the military, and more or less in police departments. If the order is legal, you ultimately carry it out and keep your disagreements to yourself.

This is what should have been done. Now if he, the LTC, were to be a “whistle blower” he would have some protections. He wasn’t, and he didn’t.

I was told of a way to do things a long time ago…

Doing the right thing the right way.
Doing the right thing the wrong way.
Doing the wrong thing the right way.
Doing the wrong thing the wrong way.

Seems like LTC chose #2.

I understand he was trying to draw attention to the problem. But he went about it the wrong way. Especially after being given a gag order….if he obeyed that his request for resigning his commission might have been accepted.

Poke the bear and I guess Big Green (is that only ARMY? I dunno, I was a sailor) is gonna squash you.

His Pre-trial confinement is wrong based on his accused crime….(which are what? Action. Unbecoming an officer, failure to follow orders, Other-bring discredit to the service) none of those charges warrant pretrial confinement.

As much as I agree with what the LTC is saying, he is going about it in a way that the Army cannot ignore.

This is probably the only way they can shut him up while they figure out what to do with him.

Imagine the mess there would be if others took this approach - NO military service can ignore this kind of behaviour.

I was a kid when this incident occurred and don't have any memory of it, and only recently heard it recounted...but apparently there is some precedent for a military officer to publicly oppose a Presidential order and offer to resign, rather than carry out an order he deems wrong or bad.

In this incident during the Carter presidency, Gen. Singlaub was opposed to President Carter's commitment to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea, and threatened to resign. He apparently had significant support from fellow military officers, and President Carter ultimately acquiesced and abandoned his plans, but disciplined the General for his insubordination, effectively ending his career.

My vague recollection is that Gen. Haig also butted heads with President Carter on a couple issues as well.

------------------------

Carter Disciplines Gen. Singlaub, Who Attacked His Policy on Korea

By Bernard Weinraub Special to The New York Times
May 22, 1977

About the Archive This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them. Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

WASHINGTON, May 21

President Carter today ordered the reassignment of a general who publicly criticized his plan to withdraw United Slates troops from South Korea.

A Defense Department announcement I said that the officer, Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub, would he “ordered to report to the Chief of Staff of the Army for consideration for another assignment.”

The statement followed a 30‐minute meeting between President Carter and General Singlaub. It was evident that the decision was meant as a stern reprimand for the highly respected two‐star general.

In the announcement Secr9tary of Defense Harold Brown said: “Public statements by General Singlaub inconsistent with announced national security policy have made it very difficult for him to carry out the duties of his present assignment in Korea.”

Mr. Brown added: “I have therefore recommended to the President that General Singlaub be reassigned, and with the President's concurrence I have directed the Secretary of the Army to take action to that effect.”

The statement left in doubt General Singlaub's next job, as well as his future in the Army, which he joined in World War II.

The 35‐year‐old officer, who was chief of staff of American forces in South Korea, appeared grim and declined—to comment after his meeting with President Carter. News photographers were not allowed to photograph the meeting.

General Singlaub was called home by the President on Thursday after his cornments in a Washington Post interview from Seoul. In the interview the general was quoted as saying: “If we withdraw our ground troops on the schedule sugnested, it will lead to war.”

White House aides termed the comments “clearly inflammatory” and said that President Carter's decision calling the general home was a signal to the military that the President would not abide insubordination over his Korea policy.

Defense Department officials said that, so far as they knew, it was the first time a President had personally recalled and removed a senior officer since President Harry S. Trum relieved Gen.

Douglas MacArthur as United States commander in the Korean War. General MacArthur had advocated armed thrusts into China and refused to obey the President's order to clear policy statements through the Defense Department.

Although it was to soon to assess reaction within the Pentagon to the removal of General Singlaub, military officers have privately expressed anger at the treatment accorded him. Officers have asserted that General Singlaub was misrepresented in the Washington Post interview and that he had not expected that he would be quoted by name. The newspaper denies the allegation.

At the same time, military officials assert that General Singlaub has been “singled out” for views that numerous officers share. Moreover, President Carter's decision to order the officer home and subject him to public humiliation is viewed bitterly by officers who describe the general as a skilled, highly prolessonal and courageous officer.

Administration officials said that General Singlaub, in his meetings with Mr. Brown and the President, said that the quotation of his statements in the newspaper interviews were essentially accurate but that the remarks were taken out of context and “exaggerated.” He said that he had thought he was speaking “on background,” or not for direct quotation.

Officials said that tha ctatamont loft little doubt that General Singlaub's career in the Army was finished. If he does not resign, officials said he will probably be assigned to an insignificant job.

Many Army officers in Korea as well as at the Pentagon are known to share General Singlaub's views that the withdrawal of American ground troops in South Korea would upset the military balance there and provoke North Korea to plan another invasion of the South, as occurred 25 years ago.

The gradual withdrawal of the 32,700 American ground troops from South Kores was a key foreign policy pledge made by President Carter during the Presidential campaign.

Administration officials said that General Singlaub's comments were overstated and poorly timed. President Carter is sending two envoys—Philip C. Habib, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Gen. George S. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—to Seoul this week to consult with South Korean officials on the withdrawal of American troops.

Both South Korea and Japan strongly oppose the pullout, arguing that the American forces in South Korea provide a deterrent force that keeps the area stable.

Earlier in the day President Carter had a one‐hour conference with the Defense Secretary as well as Mr. Habib, General Brown and acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The meeting centered on the coming talks in Seoul.

Administration officials said that Mr. Habib and’ General Brown would seek to assure South Korea that a troop withdrawal would be gradual and that the United States was not planning to abandon its commitment to the Seoul Government.

Administration officials have emphasized that the Carter plan would leave American air forces in‐place and that there would be a continued strong American naval presence in the Sea of Japan to assist South” Korea in the event of an invasion. American troops in Korea represent about 30 percent of fliiited States forward‐deployed forces in the western Pacific, which number ‘about 127,000.

^^^ Good thing the US didn't withdraw from South Korea. Pretty obvious what would happen if we did. Carter is almost but not quite as dumb as Biden.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
^^^ Good thing they the US didn't withdraw from South Korea. Pretty obvious what would happen if we did. Carter is almost but not quite as dumb as Biden.

I've long believed that the quote [in all its reported variations and attributed to its various sources] Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, to be true, at least much of the time...and it seems the more historical incidents and context I learn about, such as when comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan (or Iraq), and military officers who oppose orders from Presidents they disagree with, that the quote moves increasingly towards becoming an axiom, or at the very least, relevant.

Some of the historical parallels are uncanny.

Apparently during the hearings today it has come out that President Biden discussed implementing his "over the horizon" strike capability strategy with President Putin, by basing U.S. troops and equipment from Russian military bases.

(besides being unwise, apparently this is illegal per U.S. law.)

Also revealed today, apparently President Biden called a meeting with his military advisors to discuss leaving a U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan ten days AFTER the fall of Kabul

In addition, based on testimony, apparently the Biden administration was aware of the likelihood that Afghanistan would fall as early as June.

The ACLJ team plays clips of today's hearings while discussing them.

@ 1 hour video (commercials edited out, except the ACLJ's own commercials). For those who don't want to watch the entire video, the first 10 minutes will give a general look at the facts.

Former DNI Rick Grinell's comments @ 22 minute mark.

Discussion of the correct number of people left behind in Afghanistan @ 37 minute mark.



Breaking: Biden Explored Offer To Use Russian Military Bases To Fight Terror

High level military officers who serve as advisers to elected political officials should be able to offer unwelcome advice and criticism to those officials without being accused of insubordination. It should also not be considered insubordination for officers in such positions to be able to make it clear that if their advice is not followed it indicates a fundamental lack of confidence in their role as a trusted adviser and that they will step down from the position.

On the other hand, resigning or threatening to resign from a position if one’s advice is not followed should not be required or expected. People who have strong emotional opinions about things they are woefully ignorant of often assume without evidence that failing to act or threatening to act is a sign of moral cowardice, but it ain’t necessarily so. If possible reasons for not doing those things aren’t obvious with just a bit of unbiased thought and analysis, my enumerating them won’t change anything, but they can exist.

But what one does after a superior rejects one’s advice is not the same as refusing to obey the lawful orders of one’s superiors in the military chain of command—and especially not the same when those orders pertain to an immediate critical situation.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

...On the other hand, resigning or threatening to resign from a position if one’s advice is not followed should not be required or expected. People who have strong emotional opinions about things they are woefully ignorant of often assume without evidence that failing to act or threatening to act is a sign of moral cowardice, but it ain’t necessarily so. If possible reasons for not doing those things aren’t obvious with just a bit of unbiased thought and analysis, my enumerating them won’t change anything, but they can exist...

I accept that Thoroughly Modern Milley was right not to resign. However, I cannot excuse his insuordination to Trump while he was still in office. I recall frequent leaks (gee, maybe from Milley himself...) about his disdain for the POTUS.

And now with a senile bumbling idiot in charge...silence from Milley.

The title is click-bait, something that is routine on YT, but the testimony is important. FYI, “Sec. Austin” is Lloyd Austin (General, U.S.A. ret.) current Secretary of Defense. General McKenzie (USMC) serves as CENTCOM commander, the AO that includes the Middle East. The hearing is an attempt to disassemble the course of events that led to the disaster in Afghanistan generally, and Kabul specifically.



I’ll add, I recognize that most here know exactly who Austin and Gen. McKenzie are. Please don’t take offense at me identifying them.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
However, I cannot excuse his insuordination to Trump while he was still in office.

I agree completely, and still believe that if the information in Woodward’s book is correct, allowing a court martial to decide whether he was guilty of an attempted conspiracy or mutiny would still be appropriate. And as far back as when Clinton was elected, it was felt necessary to admonish Army soldiers that overt disrespect of the President would not be tolerated. What Milley is accused of and what he evidently has not denied goes far beyond a few blowjob jokes that could have sunk someone’s career at the time.

What I’ve tried to make clear is that if the thoughtless calls for resignations every time someone didn’t like something that a superior did, and especially calls to refuse lawful orders had been heeded throughout history by the US military, this country would be nothing more than a fragmented third world cesspit today. I don’t like the current state of the Nation, but it could be far worse, and if some people’s ideas were implemented, it would be—and possibly may yet become—far worse.

If any part of what Woodward printed was true, Milley needs to go to trial.

You give advice to the Command and Control Staff and that advice isn't followed. You have a couple of different things you can do.

1. Live with it.
2. Transfer.
3. Find a new job.

The one thing you do not do is trick fuck your boss.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
Apparently during the hearings today....

I watched a bit of this at lunch today. The two takeaways were...

-1- The Dem's are in complete lockstep in their attempt to fully cover all of this up and make it go away. Biden is not to be blamed for any of it. Chairman Smith (the rampant POS he is) is a lying piece of human filth, and if duels were still legal, I would hope someone in Congress would challenge him to one on the capitol lawn.
-2- Not one piece of this is going to stick to McKenzie, Milley or Austin. They are total and complete failures and frauds at their jobs, and will be handsomely rewarded for it.

Matt Gaetz ripped em a new one.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Matt Gaetz ripped em a new one.

[FLASH_VIDEO]Video[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Although this might feel good viscerally, its all just posturing for the cameras. This entire hearing is a complete waste of time. The Dem's are going to do everything possible to completely cover this whole clusterf*ck up, and the Repub's are going to do what Gates did, throw red meet to the base and prepare to fundraise off of it. In the end, the thirteen men and women killed and the others seriously injured in Kabul mean nothing. They're the equivalent of the 'waste' estimate on an assembly line.

The biggest takeaway from this debacle and aftermath is that no one in this country should ever encourage or allow their sons and daughters to be part of the current US military, the leaders of which are incompetent, corrupt, and don't give a damn about anything short of their personal reputations and/or pocketbooks.