American Praetorian Guard?

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

For that matter we've had a general put up for election - he didn't get anywhere (Wesley Clark in 2004)

Wesley Clark had the terrible albatross of Waco around his neck. He is the only general since the Civil War who has presided over a military operation on US soil. That, and he's rather smarmy in a Bush sort of way. He never would have won, so it wasn't because he was a general - he was just a particularly bad one.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

As one who was born after the Vietnam war's end this is a dangerous question. I, and many from my generation (and later generations), have never had faith in our politicians, and an outright fear of the military.

Being born after Nixon, I have a general distrust of politicians (at the age of eight it struck me as odd when the President was testifying before the Senate and repeating "I don't recall" after every question). After Kent State, there has been no reason to trust an idiot with a rifle just because he's wearing a uniform.

Politicians are at least answerable to the people come election time.

The military has no such responsibility to the people, as evidenced by their lionization of Oliver North.

If I have a distrust of politicians, I have an outright contempt for military leadership, who have almost no long term oversight over their operations, and are not answerable to anyone except themselves in what is often a kangaroo court. Generals can command for decades; presidents get four to eight years to "fix things."

When a general badmouths a commander in chief it's like satan cursing mephistopheles.

EDIT: I guess my question is, have you ever had confidence in our politicians? Would you, if you were born at a later time? My argument is that there is an entire generation of folks who never experienced competent or trustworthy leadership and, yeah, bad things are to come.

A naive response. The military is the only reason you get to enjoy your the privileges you now enjoy.

There are many problems with our military, and in general I do not believe there should be a standing army in a civilized nation. But US is no longer a nation nor is it civilized. Suggesting a professional career soldier is more corrupt than a psychopathic politician simply means you've met neither.

Me, I'll accept the first dictator who lives with the humility of a soldier any day over some lawyer wearing a suit.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

I agree with most of what you said in your post, partially quoted here. There is a major error in the above Oath however. The Oath you quote is the Enlisted oath not the Officer oath. I have been both an enlisted man and an officer and I have administered the respective Oaths to enlisted and officers. The Officers' Oath leaves out the part about obeying the orders of the President and officers appointed above. Military officers are Constitutional Officers just like the Congress and the President and every officer is sworn to support and defend the Constitution. A United States military officer swears the exact same Oath that the President and Congress swear, word for word. Obviously, Congress doesn't swear to obey the President, and neither do military officers.

The original writers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of a corrupted Congress or President who might threaten the Constitution or even act in concert with foreign or domestic enemies against the Constitution and citizens. Military officers are expected to act according to their Oath to support and defend the Constitution even if that means disobeying the President and other officers. Military officers take the Oath very seriously. The Oath is not time-limited. It does not expire when the officer leaves the service. The huge numbers of military officers who are currently serving is dwarfed by the number of officers who have been discharged or retired and they all have sworn to support and defend the Constitution. We are the last bastion of defense for the Constitution. I have 29 years of military experience and didn't really fully understand the ramifications of my oath until it was explained to me by a Marine Colonel in 2002.

You learn someting new everyday.......I'm a Commonwealth nation NCO.....while I've been kindly offered the opportunity, I haven't ventured over to the "dark side".

Half jokingly, I'm now wondering if I should read up on the late 20th century history of Turkey.

Cheers for that!

[lakedaemonian]

Re: American Praetorian Guard?

You're right. I did not know any of the restrictions on post terms or limitations on officers you mentioned. And yes, my opinion is driven largely by the bad news that makes headlines, not the good news that nobody hears about.

But we've had 40 years of bad news since My Lai. The only "good news" that has come out of the military over those years have been lots of borderline-illegal "black-ops" -- military coups and juntas where the side we backed won. Or re-building schools that we were responsible for destroying.

An oath is only as strong as the character of the individual that upholds it. The rank and file of the military, I believe, has outstanding character. As you move your way up through the officer class, however, I think there is a deterioration of that character. By the time you get to Generals or the Commander In Chief, I think that character has eroded to the point of pathology.

Problem is, the strong men and women at the bottom have to do the bidding of the lunatics at the top.

That McChrystal article depicts it perfectly, and if he were a private or possibly even a lieutenant he wouldn't have had the luxury of resignation and retirement. It'd be a dishonorable discharge.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.......

The last time I checked my military peergroup throughtout the US/UK/Canada/Australia/NZ from recruit/cadet up through warrant officer of the Army/Chief of Defense Force possesses not just the right but the responsibility and obligation to refuse an unlawful order and adhere to the Laws of Armed Conflict.

I believe you're digging a bit of a credibility hole for yourself on this topic with some stereotypical comments.

"The rank and file of the military, I believe, has outstanding character." As if EVERY last member is the epitome of Alvin York or Charles Upham?......there's lots of retards in uniform......ask anyone who's ever worn one.....some with quite terrible character actually......the good news is they're almost always filtered out before they can cause TOO much damage.....that REALLY comes across as a bit patronizing.

"As you move your way up through the officer class, however, I think there is a deterioration of that character. By the time you get to Generals or the Commander In Chief, I think that character has eroded to the point of pathology."...If you actually spent any time in uniform, or even attempted to talk to some folks in uniform or perform some due diligence I think you'd find your comments posted here to be quite silly and insultingly patronizing....the fact is that of course there are retards that get promoted......but another fact would be professional and successful organizations reduce the chances of retards continuing to achieve higher rank as the filters put in place to seperate the good from the bad tend to get finer the higher you go.

I'm seriously confused by your admission to an opinion being based on bad news headlines...knowing full well that good news isn't news worthy.

In the 40 years since My Lai I'm aware of lots of good news in regards to US forces......in just the past fews years there are a number of outstanding examples.........1999 Timor Leste, 2004 Asian Tsunami relief efforts, 2005 Katrina(the US Coast Guard REALLY showed their stuff), 2010 Haiti.

I don't see the point in continuing a debate when there are no facts to actually debate.