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

I don't see why not.

If Obama or Bush can flout congress and the senate to engage in wars, or make appointees without congressional approval, saying "I'm the boss, and what I say goes, regardless of checks and balances." it's possible.

But if that ever happened, I don't think the military would engage on a war against a foreign country. It will be against Washington DC, in my opinion.

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

edit on 5-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

And DevGru can go whenever they feel the need

Originally posted by Darkrunner
But if that ever happened, I don't think the military would engage on a war against a foreign country. It will be against Washington DC, in my opinion.

Why do you think the US military is scattered all over the world - probably to prevent what you mentioned. Even if the US servicemen and women wanted to rise against their political leaders they're so widely distributed there's no way they could organize a revolt.

It's a classic tactic used by politicians who are terrified of their own army (like the Romans, whom I already mentioned).

reply to post by Indigo5


Haha yes, don't even get me started on covert ops. I've heard a loooot of stories. Do you have ties with DEVGRU or are you a civilian? Just curious, stuff like that interests me and sometimes I wish I took that kind of path rather than the Marines.

Originally posted by Praetorius
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.

Didn't he turn over some kind of authority to the military generals early on? Kind of like saying you run this war stuff and let me play with health care and the economy.

The Pentagon, Dept of Defense and The Joint Chiefs cannot go to war without the Commander In Chief's explicit consent! Anything else is treason!

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. edit on 5-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given) 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

reply to post by Indigo5


You CLEARLY have no understanding of how the people you cite got to the positions that they hold. They are political APPOINTEES. The positions in question are rarely given to officers with superb military skills, but instead are given to those who have political skills, including taking orders, both official and with a wink from the "Commander in Chief".

Furthermore, please point out where I said anything close to this remark you accuse me of:

"After what you at the same time claim is a whole lot of anger from them toward the President for those same cuts???"

Here is my ENTIRE POST:

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.

I see no such claim.
Furthermore, if there is so much "fat", as you obviously believe, why didn't Obama or the Military Appointees DO SOMETHING about it in the three years of Obama's administration, or even before that?

Your argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
Presidents throughout our history have involved themselves with the military to varying degree. Some have led forces directly (very rare), some have closely involved themselves in strategy and giving orders, and some have basically just handed it off to their generals.

Regardless, if the president says jump, military has to ask "How high?". Control is his whenever he wants it on this matter.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

You CLEARLY have no understanding of how the people you cite got to the positions that they hold.

If you believe that Admiral Mullens, the Pentagon, The Joint Chiefs etc. care more about the Presidents political career than the best interest of the troops they command, and would choose to lie to benefit the President's campaign, then you are very confused as to how the military operates.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Furthermore, please point out where I said anything close to this remark you accuse me of:

"After what you at the same time claim is a whole lot of anger from them toward the President for those same cuts???"

Here is my ENTIRE POST:

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.

I see no such claim.

You failed to read the post I was responding to before retorting. Apparently you responded to my post without looking to see the claim I was responding to. Context. Read. Regardless...you apparently are back-peddling on that position now, so this will be my last post as I suspect all that remains will be frustrated baiting and sniping, though I hope I am wrong.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
why didn't Obama or the Military Appointees DO SOMETHING about it in the three years of Obama's administration, or even before that?

If you think that our budget for ground troops and occupying forces is the same now as it was 3 years ago or 5 years ago then you "CLEARLY" need to keep up on current affairs.

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 love it. The military is upset with these budget cuts

Perhaps if we didn't have career military personnel but rather: real SOLDIERS who are in place, on a temporary basis, to protect their country as needed then perhaps this wouldn't be an issue.

The military shouldn't be a damn vocation. It's supposed to be a temporary service.
It just goes to show you what a damn farce these 'wars' are.

If an enemy is attacking (instead of US being the aggressor all the time) and your 'job' is to protect your country (insert eye roll here) then what would you care if there was a budget cut? How does that effect you? What?....your troop won't be able to obtain a new Hummer? I mean, really? What the hell?

If you believe that Admiral Mullens, the Pentagon, The Joint Chiefs etc. care more about the Presidents political career than the best interest of the troops they command, and would choose to lie to benefit the President's campaign, then you are very confused as to how the military operates.

reply to post by Indigo5


I am not trying to quibble with you, but I see that you are relatively new to ATS, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you aren't familiar with what a response is. I noticed that most of your posts do NOT have a "REPLY TO THE POST OF xxxxx". If you wish to reply to someone, it is not enough to place their words in the quote box. You must click on "REPLY TO" in the upper right-hand corner of the post you wish to reply to. Failing to do that, there is NO WAY that anyone can tell which posts you are replying to. Please go back to the post I replied to, and look at your remarks. You used the phrase:

After what you at the same time claim is a whole lot of anger from them toward the President for those same cuts???

Now, can you see that there is no way ANYONE can tell who you mean when you use the word "you" in the above quote of yours.

This is not an indictment of you. I am merely trying to explain to what needs to be done to make it clear WHO you are replying to. If you wish to reply to several people in the same post, then you should have quoted whomever you wished to address regarding the above statement. I hope you understand.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


The post that you initially responded to included an excerpt from the post I was responding to including..

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

You were unable to discern who I was responding to?

Furthermore...when you posted your response...

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.

You claimed that a budget reduction that was guided and approved by the military was "100% Political" and a talking point for "Obama's re-election"..

I ask again...why would military leaders feign approval and falsely claim they support the nature of the cuts, complete with forging supporting research papers and reports and analysis from Military leaders all for "100% Political" and for campaign purposes?

The answer of course is that this was not a move motivated by political purposes or campaign purposes.

The cuts were budget driven and even dictated by the debt panel failure.

This was the President working with the Military early to give them as much say in how the budget cuts would unfold as strategically as possible...scalpel, not cleaver.

Now did the President use this for political purposes? Hell yes he did, he is a politician.

But your post as stated is not accurate, nor was the one I responded to, nor is the Military at odds with him about the cuts...that is politically driven rhetoric and unsupported by any objective analaysis of the facts.

The post that you initially responded to included an excerpt from the post I was responding to including.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

You were unable to discern who I was responding to?

reply to post by Indigo5


You STILL don't get it. You obviously have trouble understanding how to PROPERLY respond to a post. Your FIRST THREE posts on page one of this thread, are NOT the way you RESPOND to someone's post. It is no use responding further to you, since you obviously still don't get it. It is no wonder other members have such trouble with your posts. They don't even know who you're responding to.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


This has comedic value. I have seen deflection before, but ignoring the entire substance of our discussion in favor of ranting about whether I hit the "Quote" or "Reply" enters a whole new realm of nonsense.