TexasCHLforum.com

howdy wrote:The General is at the top of a Division/Corps
Colonel in charge of a Brigade
Lt.Colonel for a Battalion
Captain for a company
2lt for a Platoon

The General may give the orders, but the Jr.Officers do the fighting. The order has to be legal and every Officer will determine if THEY think it is legal. Most Military come from working class homes and they are big gun owners. The troops might not follow where they are led.

Don't count on it.

bdickens wrote:

howdy wrote:The General is at the top of a Division/Corps
Colonel in charge of a Brigade
Lt.Colonel for a Battalion
Captain for a company
2lt for a Platoon

The General may give the orders, but the Jr.Officers do the fighting. The order has to be legal and every Officer will determine if THEY think it is legal. Most Military come from working class homes and they are big gun owners. The troops might not follow where they are led.

Don't count on it.

Having been a troop for quite a while, I suspect that you are not going to see a whole lot of them not following where they are led. I know that I like to believe that I would have never followed what I clearly believed to have been an unlawful order that I had been given, but I also know that I would have really been struggling with it. There is a fine line between conscience and mutiny and I can only imagine that I don't ultimately decide which was which.

Purplehood wrote:

bdickens wrote:

howdy wrote:The General is at the top of a Division/Corps
Colonel in charge of a Brigade
Lt.Colonel for a Battalion
Captain for a company
2lt for a Platoon

The General may give the orders, but the Jr.Officers do the fighting. The order has to be legal and every Officer will determine if THEY think it is legal. Most Military come from working class homes and they are big gun owners. The troops might not follow where they are led.

Don't count on it.

Having been a troop for quite a while, I suspect that you are not going to see a whole lot of them not following where they are led. I know that I like to believe that I would have never followed what I clearly believed to have been an unlawful order that I had been given, but I also know that I would have really been struggling with it. There is a fine line between conscience and mutiny and I can only imagine that I don't ultimately decide which was which.

I imagine that it's only in the early stages of a revolt that the decision is unclear. "Is this Ruby Ridge or Bunker Hill?".
Now put yourself in Utah going against the Sheriffs Association.... easier or more difficult decision?

I will rest a little easier tonight!

http://youtu.be/yTxU4Vj4NWg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the long and short of it, a Grunt will fight to protect his fellow Grunt. If someone is trying to hurt his friend, that person is the Grunt's enemy.

I can tell you last year, on another forum where I moderate, a member posted a story that got my attention. He said his son was in the military and came home upset because his squad (don't know if that is the correct term, sorry) had been called out by their leader one morning. A man who was not in uniform was nearby watching. The officer asked them a question. He asked them if they would fire on US citizens if given the order to do so. To a man, every one of them said they would refuse. Reportedly the mystery man was not happy to hear that from his expression. The officer ordered them not to speak of this to anyone including their families upon threat of prosecution. The next day after he posted the story, he PM'd me to ask me to remove the entire thread. When he told his son he had posted the story, the son became very upset and told his father the entire squad had been threatened and he didn't know what he had done. I deleted the thread. This member is a fine man. A truthful man. I have no reason whatever to doubt any of what he said. If this is true, there are elements in our government trying to quietly put together the means of enforcing their will upon the citizens of our nation. I hope none of this is true, but when I read this thread, it sounded uncomfortably similar. I can not imagine that such a thing would not cause outright mutiny in the armed forces. Perhaps this is a plan for marshal law in the event of the financial collapse of our nation. That is a real possibility if we keep committing financial suicide. Imagine the chaos when the government has to truly institute austerity measures the likes of which have never been seen.

To a degree you want officers and enlistedmen who will fire on American citizens. Examples would include in time of riots, civil war, ect. On the other hand you would not want a military who would fire on Americans as part of an illegal operation. Any use of military force on American soil against American citizens will catch the publics attention, repeated usage will most likely catch the full wrath of the American people. We could not bring our selves to effectively occupy Iraq or Afganistan long enough to do the job and ensure that we will not have to go back later, how can anyone think that the same government will be able to effectively use military power internally against a very angry and very well armed population? Am I worried they might try something? Yes, You have to worry about this in order to ensure it doesn't happen. Do I believe that this administration is stupid enough to try using the military against the public? No, except maybe Biden (He is an idiot). I suspect that every president in the last 50 years or more has wanted a "Yes" when they asked their generals that question. Don't get me wrong, I dislike this administration as much as the next person, but I will not toss reason out the window because I dislike a single man and the people he has surrounded himself with. To do so will cause you to under estimate what he can and will do and then you have some real problems.

Can't argue with any of that.

G.A. Heath wrote:To a degree you want officers and enlistedmen who will fire on American citizens. Examples would include in time of riots, civil war, ect. On the other hand you would not want a military who would fire on Americans as part of an illegal operation. Any use of military force on American soil against American citizens will catch the publics attention, repeated usage will most likely catch the full wrath of the American people. We could not bring our selves to effectively occupy Iraq or Afganistan long enough to do the job and ensure that we will not have to go back later, how can anyone think that the same government will be able to effectively use military power internally against a very angry and very well armed population? Am I worried they might try something? Yes, You have to worry about this in order to ensure it doesn't happen. Do I believe that this administration is stupid enough to try using the military against the public? No, except maybe Biden (He is an idiot). I suspect that every president in the last 50 years or more has wanted a "Yes" when they asked their generals that question. Don't get me wrong, I dislike this administration as much as the next person, but I will not toss reason out the window because I dislike a single man and the people he has surrounded himself with. To do so will cause you to under estimate what he can and will do and then you have some real problems.

I'm not disputing your statement in its concept, but I worry about its execution. IF, for instance, those citizens were radical islamists attempting a religious war, or perhaps armed communists attempting to overthrow democracy, then MAYBE I would uphold the idea of military personnel firing on them (although I tend to favor civilians lynching them). But the problem is, who gets to decide whether such a use of force is just or unjust, legal or illegal? Obviously, the only person who gets to make that determination INITIALLY is the president. Whether or not the individual soldier/marine/airman/squid (sorry I couldn't help myself) has to make that decision for themselves for real, they will never be faced with the decision unless the president has first made that decision.

Here is how that question translates, and it is the ONLY way it should be translated, when a president requires that question be answered: "Is your primary loyalty to ME, or is it to The People?"

That is why organizations like Oath Keepers are so important. I can say this entirely without meaning to insult a single soul, but I do think that there are people serving in the military who, if confronted with having to make such a decision, would decide that these are difficult times and that they only thing they can hold onto is that their chain of command must be right; because if they are NOT right, then what else can they have faith in? They want to do the right thing, and they want their chain of command to tell them what that means. That is not to say that the military has no independent thinkers. They DO. But not everybody is going to fit that mold.

One must consider what information the chane of command has passed down also. Usually they only tell you part of what is going on. What they think you need to know to get the job done.

TexasGal wrote:I can tell you last year, on another forum where I moderate, a member posted a story that got my attention. He said his son was in the military and came home upset because his squad (don't know if that is the correct term, sorry) had been called out by their leader one morning. A man who was not in uniform was nearby watching. The officer asked them a question. He asked them if they would fire on US citizens if given the order to do so. To a man, every one of them said they would refuse. Reportedly the mystery man was not happy to hear that from his expression. The officer ordered them not to speak of this to anyone including their families upon threat of prosecution. The next day after he posted the story, he PM'd me to ask me to remove the entire thread. When he told his son he had posted the story, the son became very upset and told his father the entire squad had been threatened and he didn't know what he had done. I deleted the thread. This member is a fine man. A truthful man. I have no reason whatever to doubt any of what he said. If this is true, there are elements in our government trying to quietly put together the means of enforcing their will upon the citizens of our nation. I hope none of this is true, but when I read this thread, it sounded uncomfortably similar. I can not imagine that such a thing would not cause outright mutiny in the armed forces. Perhaps this is a plan for marshal law in the event of the financial collapse of our nation. That is a real possibility if we keep committing financial suicide. Imagine the chaos when the government has to truly institute austerity measures the likes of which have never been seen.

Thanks for sharing that. Chilling.

ETA: What was the time frame for the story TexasGal?
There was this incident in 1995...

http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-pri ... -citizens/
1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

Does anyone know how many actual combat troops the Armed Forces have right now? I do NOT mean how many folks are in uniform. I mean how many TRIGGER PULLERS. Because as I lay in bed reading an excellent book by a former 82nd Airborne veteran, at one point he went over just how many folks in the Army are NOT trigger pullers...that is, they are support personnel of one type or another...admin, medical, supply, maintenance, comm, etc. And way forward in ANY war, as this pyramid shrinks, are the actual trigger pullers, the combat infantry, the folks in tanks, the folks in aircraft, etc. It takes a HUGE amount of personnel to properly feed, clothe, supply, administer and otherwise support a modern military, as true today as it was in WWII...and the military in WWII was HUGE, and yet the number of men at the pointy tip of the spear was still not as large a number as you might think. Yes, I understand that ALL Marines are "riflemen first", and that they are all trained...but for many, it is still not their primary duty (such as Marine aviation). The word outnumbered comes to mind, though I admit that our trained combat troops are worth several untrained folks.

Additionally, it only takes a few mistakes here and there to gum things up pretty bad...and in a crunch situation, who can say why a mistake gets made..."sorry, sir, I'm trying to install this control valve in the aircraft, but I'm having serious trouble getting it mounted in the bracket, yes sir, I'll get it done as fast as I can" or "no ma'am, I don't know why only 5000 rounds of ammo were sent, I'll have to look in the computer and see, oh, looks like someone forgot a zero, yes, ma'am, we'll get that ammo back on order as soon as we can". I've had guys slow leak jobs on a weekend shift just because they were ticked about getting put on weekend duty at the last minute...I could tell them to go faster, I could bug them about it, I could have threatened them with some sort of reprimand if I really wanted to...but just PROVE they were slow leaking the job...hey, to hear them tell it, they were simply being "thorough". I hope that even if the Generals aren't as dedicated as we would like them to be, that a large number of our SERGEANTS and PETTY OFFICERS are as SMART as we would like them to be, and DEDICATED to the Constitution in the Oath they took...

Something to keep in mind most in the Military are young impressionable people and even though they took an oath to uphold the constitution does not mean they understand what that means and rely on their leadership to tell them. We need to instill the beliefs into our kids as the Gov't will not.

Purplehood wrote:

bdickens wrote:

howdy wrote:The General is at the top of a Division/Corps
Colonel in charge of a Brigade
Lt.Colonel for a Battalion
Captain for a company
2lt for a Platoon

The General may give the orders, but the Jr.Officers do the fighting. The order has to be legal and every Officer will determine if THEY think it is legal. Most Military come from working class homes and they are big gun owners. The troops might not follow where they are led.

Don't count on it.

Having been a troop for quite a while, I suspect that you are not going to see a whole lot of them not following where they are led. I know that I like to believe that I would have never followed what I clearly believed to have been an unlawful order that I had been given, but I also know that I would have really been struggling with it. There is a fine line between conscience and mutiny and I can only imagine that I don't ultimately decide which was which.

Many coups are led by officers below flag rank. My estimation of officer integrity decreases with increasing rank. I don't remember the numbers, but I if I remember correctly, we have more generals now than we had during WW2. There may be some good ones, but most of them are politicians. I tend to agree with your assessment of the troops, but I don't think it will entirely come down to the decisions of individual soldiers. Some Major or Colonel will disobey orders from his superiors, and give contrary orders to his troops, and then it will be a question of which authority is obeyed. So, it may not come to the individual decision of each soldier about what order is illegal or unconstitutional, but a decision about which competing authority to follow. In movie terms, I see it as something like what was depicted in the movie Crimson Tide --a competition between divided loyalties.

Purplehood wrote:

bdickens wrote:

howdy wrote:The General is at the top of a Division/Corps
Colonel in charge of a Brigade
Lt.Colonel for a Battalion
Captain for a company
2lt for a Platoon

The General may give the orders, but the Jr.Officers do the fighting. The order has to be legal and every Officer will determine if THEY think it is legal. Most Military come from working class homes and they are big gun owners. The troops might not follow where they are led.

Don't count on it.

Having been a troop for quite a while, I suspect that you are not going to see a whole lot of them not following where they are led. I know that I like to believe that I would have never followed what I clearly believed to have been an unlawful order that I had been given, but I also know that I would have really been struggling with it. There is a fine line between conscience and mutiny and I can only imagine that I don't ultimately decide which was which.

In the seven-and-a-half years I spent on active duty, I saw enough playing go along to get along - even to the extent of illegal and/or immoral activities - that I can't quite have the confidence you do. I myself was even instructed by my Platoon Sergeant to fabricate a handful of missing DA 4856's (Counseling Statement) from before my time as Squad Leader. I refused. Others did not.