Can the Army go to war without Obama's approval?

With all the political bickering going on and Obama is trying to make himself look good, will the military try to go to war without Obama's support? Is this even possible? The Army is clearly upset over these budget cuts. What do you think?

Possible. What with all that has been happening, I wouldn't be surprised.

What was it he said?... Oh yeah... The military will be more streamlined, ready to deploy at a moments notice. The main head scratcher for me was... What would the response time be for 100'000 compared to 10'000?!! Would there really be any difference?

Would love to see an military coup. Been a while since the last one.

reply to post by jjf3rd77
War can be declared, but president is commander-in-chief. He can tell the troops to sit on their hands, come home - whatever. Only open insurrection and rebellion against their supreme commander would allow the military to do anything against his express orders.

reply to post by Xcellante


Yeah I have a feeling this is going to piss off a lot of the top military brass.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
With all the political bickering going on and Obama is trying to make himself look good, will the military try to go to war without Obama's support? Is this even possible? The Army is clearly upset over these budget cuts. What do you think?

I am confused what makes you think the Army is clearly upset over the budget cuts?

They were comming irregardless as we scaled back in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the mandated budget cuts.

What the POTUS did was sit down early with the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to figure out a way to save critical functions and make sure the majority of the budget cuts could be directed at "fat" instead of muscle.

This plan was the result of several meetings and strategy sessions involving the Army.

Confused on the "Army Upset" thing?

reply to post by jjf3rd77


The budget cuts and planning for it has been going on at the Pentagon since the Bush years. The problem with budget cuts is that there are folk who have their personnal pet project like let's say...the F-35 Lightning II. That has been a money pit for over a decade now.

And in my opinion, if the military went to war without the POTUS or Congress approval, it would called a Coup. Not a war.

In the strictest constitutional sence; Congress can declare war with or without the president's approval.

As the commander and chief, I think this would be very unlikely, but it would be possible.

Also, as the commander and chief, the president could just not order the deployment of any troops.

This could bring about some very ugly political problems for everyone.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


You need to read the constitution a little more.

en.wikipedia.org...

Only Congress can declare war.

What the POTUS did was sit down early with the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to figure out a way to save critical functions and make sure the majority of the budget cuts could be directed at "fat" instead of muscle.

reply to post by Indigo5


If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This move was 100% political. It is a talking point for Obama's re-election, nothing more, nothing less.

The epitomy of stupidity is the Current Commander and Idiot we disarm the rest of the world arms and innovates and there they are shrinking forces and technological systems and it has only one outcome.

This is beyong stupiidty because he will still "make war" on whoever its the "villian" at the time and the outcome is those servicemen and women will die.

Obama hates the militay the entire left does and yet they have used them more than Bush or the Republicans ever have.

Simple fact the only one who calls the shot for war is the Potus the civilian commander in cheif is the first and last say doesn't matter what brass says.

That is the chain of command.

case in point is the beoing plan shutdown in wichita ks 1 billion losss of revenue and taxes and here they scream the left is all about jobs just if your in the military or the defense industry sucks being them.

yeah!!!

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

What the POTUS did was sit down early with the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to figure out a way to save critical functions and make sure the majority of the budget cuts could be directed at "fat" instead of muscle.

reply to post by Indigo5

 

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This move was 100% political. It is a talking point for Obama's re-election, nothing more, nothing less.

Yep, he took a previous existing plan and has declared it as his own.

Much like how he claims to have ended the war in Iraq.

That's not working out to well for the Iraqis.

Ah...the law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head again.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

What the POTUS did was sit down early with the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to figure out a way to save critical functions and make sure the majority of the budget cuts could be directed at "fat" instead of muscle.

reply to post by Indigo5

 

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This move was 100% political. It is a talking point for Obama's re-election, nothing more, nothing less.

And it is in Admiral Mullens, the Pentagon, The Joint Chiefs etc. interest how...to go along with what you purport is a lie? Since they all claim they had heavy input and direction regarding the budget cuts? They have an interest in helping the President get re-elected? After what you at the same time claim is a whole lot of anger from them toward the President for those same cuts???

What muddy, failed logic some folks offer up to thier gods of political blindness.


President Obama gave remarks at the Pentagon alongside....
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta,
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Army Secretary John M. McHugh
Army Chief of Staff Raymond T. Odierno

Anyone can go to war with anyone else. Just because a law says you cant doesnt mean it cannot possibly happen. We have just seen Obama break the law, a fundemental law at that, by signing the NDAA bill.

No one is stopping the banking terrorists.

Originally posted by neo96

Obama hates the militay the entire left does and yet they have used them more than Bush or the Republicans ever have.

No way around it. This statement is 100 different flavors of dumb. One of those doosies that is so blanket, reaching and indefensibly false that it simply defies reason.

How would measure the accuracey of such a statement?

By the GOP field of Nominees own words?....It is a "bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb Iran" musical with the lone exception of Ron Paul and the near totality of the GOP is hammering him for not wanting to go to war with Iran.

Would you measure it by invasions?

How about Wars ended? Or troops brought home?

"the entire left" "hates" the military?

I think "the left" loves their children that they send to war enough to not want them to be sent in harms way on a whim or false pretenses...and I would hope that goes for the "right" too.

Honestly...ugly nonsense that makes it hard to have real discussions here.

reply to post by Indigo5


What a load of garabage the left loves their children more people have been murdered under them than any other party of this country.

Over 50 million children have been murdered under the guise of womens right called abortion
Nuclear weapons dropped in Japan.
Vietnam
Bosnia
Libya
Yemen
Pakistan
Somalia
Iraq
Afghanistan still there after 3 years and still killed people

And the list of murder of "terrorists" Bin laden" and others

Weapon systems cut and ends put people out of work and endanger the lives of every American in this country and the ones who are always called even tho that Righteous Left who supposedly "hates" war has used the them to a degree than no other..

What better way to destroy something you hate than to spread it too thin only a fool beleives that the left is better than the right THEY ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING.

reply to post by neo96


Second verse, same as the first. Until you demonstrate rational thought, not much point in responding. Carry on.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


no the President is Commander in Chief of the military (so personally I think for anyone to qualify to run for president should have served in some branch of the military)

The Army needs congress's approval to go to war, but the Marines can go with just Obama's approval.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Cant imagine there would ever be a need for that, hes sending them everywhere he can now anyway. Why would the war industry slip into action without gods approval anyway?

The Army can do whatever they want, 'correct' or not. Who's going to stop them? However, that only works when all military forces are united into one coherent force; if it breaks apart you usually get civil war (which is basically what happened when Julius Caesar marched his Romans across the Rubicon).