Discussion » Questions » Military » How come no U.S military commander has ever had the guts to refuse a presidential order to declare war on a soveriegn nation
O-uknow

How come no U.S military commander has ever had the guts to refuse a presidential order to declare war on a soveriegn nation

by launching an unprovoked attack upon it NOT sanctioned by Congress?

Posted - April 10, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • Because that's not how the military works. You do what your commander tells you (and the President is the commander-in-chief) and you don't question it. I have a friend in the Navy who said that following the 2013 chemical attack, he was stationed in the Mediterranean, just waiting for the order from Obama to start firing missiles, but it never came. But he would've been 100% ready to do it had the order come. 
      April 10, 2017 9:43 AM MDT
    5

  • 5614
    Yes and No. There is precedent and legal cause for refusal but it takes guts. This post was edited by O-uknow at April 10, 2017 12:44 PM MDT
      April 10, 2017 9:47 AM MDT
    2

  • Only partially true.

    I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations.

    According to the oath their primary responsibility of the military is to uphold and defend the Constitution and and follow orders that are according to law and regulations.
      April 10, 2017 12:47 PM MDT
    2

  • Reading your question literally, military commanders aren't the ones who declare war. It is the duty of Congress to declare war, but this has precious little to do with the assignment of military operations. We never declared war in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam or Korea. Yet we fought and people died. 

    Here's the thing: when you serve in the military, you follow orders. Period. It isn't on you as a soldier to determine their validity or legality. 
    The Commander-in-Chief issues decrees and the lower commanders are tasked to make it happen.
    End of line.

    You fail to follow a lawful order and a laundry list of unsavory options fills your future; from demotion and loss of pay, to time in the brig, to forced retirement (possibly loss of benefits), dishonorable discharge or posting in Greenland or some shi* duty, You follow orders, or you get jammed. 
     


    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 13, 2017 1:19 PM MDT
      April 10, 2017 3:17 PM MDT
    2

  • 5614
    "You fail to follow a lawful order"? By whose account was the order lawful?
      April 10, 2017 10:32 PM MDT
    0

  • In the UCMJ, it is stipulated that any order given you by a superior that follows in concordance with its guidelines is a lawful order. Every soldier, sailor and airman has access to review the UCMJ. It is also the duty of every serviceman to disobey and report unlawful orders, but there are few commanders who would risk their careers consciously issuing unlawful orders. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 11, 2017 5:08 AM MDT
      April 11, 2017 4:31 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023

    ... besides the UCMJ, there are also the Geneva Conventions. 

    Unfortunately, it's virtually impossible to wage war without violating the Geneva Conventions to some degree.
    Which is why I favor assassinations, rather than war.

      April 13, 2017 1:22 PM MDT
    1

  • 5835
    Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

    "Delivered unto me," get it? Satan is the god of earthly authority. Once you join, he owns you. You can resign, but you just don't disobey.
      April 10, 2017 6:55 PM MDT
    0

  • No doubt military veterans would find much to dislike with equating their service with serving the devil. I am one. Would that you had stood in our shoes. 
    How about you just rest well under the blanket of security our service has provided, kindly say thank you, and spare us the backward, poisonous and tyrannical nonsense spouted by ancients who themselves never served. 
      April 10, 2017 7:13 PM MDT
    1

  • 5835
    I served four years during the Vietnam conflict, so I have earned the opinion that I hold. You can take your unfreedom of speech attitude ... I better stop talking now.
      April 11, 2017 6:36 AM MDT
    0

  • Yea?...and whose side were YOU on?

    Since Nixon was in office at the time, it might be said that, in a sense, our servicemen in Vietnam were serving the devil. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 11, 2017 12:07 PM MDT
      April 11, 2017 12:02 PM MDT
    0

  • 1002

    Because in the military they're property to be moved around. Obviously it's complete bs, but that's the way it goes. There are plenty of people ready to line up in the absence of one who refuses to follow orders. Alas, it changes nothing. If you don't want to take orders, best not to enlist. It's kinda what they do.

    Before my dad could return home from his Vietnam tour, he was presented with a choice: eat the fist full of pills he was given or stay in the Philippines. That's a close to 'discretion' as you get. Which do you think he chose? lol

      April 10, 2017 7:56 PM MDT
    2

  • 5614
    There is something to be said for taking a stance. In the past when you do others have followed.
      April 10, 2017 10:34 PM MDT
    1

  • 1002

    I don't disagree with you, but you asked why they don't and I suspect my above is the thinking behind it. My dad served and most of what I posted above paraphrases the discussions we've had about it over the years.

    It's probably also worth considering that they enlist (and he did as well, he wasn't drafted) to take a stand. They did it / do it because they believed in the fanciful ideals about freedom and justice that are hammered into our heads from birth. Imagine their surprise when they discovered that the *vast* majority of what we do abroad doesn't have much to do with those ideals at all.

    Sure, it's makes a great recruiting tool, noble platitudes about helping the helpless, but in practice, that's not how it works at all. There is no real justice in this world.

    Have others really followed? Look at Manning and Snowden, they were hung out to dry for taking a stance, viscerally mocked, hated, they're quite lucky to even be alive. The stance of many Americans is that they should die. It's a nice idea to think one person can change the hearts of others, but at the end of the day humans are notorious creatures of habit, convenience even. This foreign policy couldn't survive otherwise. Think our govt. is unaware of that? On the contrary, they know how to find and recruit people who "take a stance," and they're well aware these "stance takers" present the greatest single threat to this foreign policy, so they get to be the first to die.

    This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at April 11, 2017 7:31 AM MDT
      April 11, 2017 7:27 AM MDT
    0