US Military has Doubts about Syria Strike (will they refuse strike orders?)

Could it happen ... the US military refusing to follow Obama's orders? The military says they aren't prepared and would have to 'retrain' for war in Syria. They also say that there is no purpose to the strike. Even the Joint Chiefs are publicly stating that this isn't the way to go about things over there and that the retaliation for a strike would be bad. And the vast majority of Americans in general are against military action. Obama has no respect abroad and none with the U.S. military. All things considered .. I am wondering if the US military will refuse his strike orders.

US Military Has Doubts About Syria Strike

The U.S. military is hesitant to embrace President Barack Obama's plan to launch a missile strike on Syria, current and former officers revealed in interviews.

Military officers ranging from captains to four-star generals said they are uneasy about a potential Syrian missile strike because it could have unintended consequences, such as turning attention away from their exit from Afghanistan, the Washington Post reported.

"I can't believe the president is even considering it," a young Army officer, who is wrapping up a yearlong tour overseas, told the Post under the condition of anonymity. "We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war."

Especially interesting was this line from the article -

Active-duty military leaders said they feel strongly that a strike in Syria would serve no purpose for the U.S.

...

This whole situation is getting damn sketchy...

conspiracy bells ring all around this whole boon-dongle .

I Doubt, the military would refuse an order, highly doubt it.

But when they follow an order unprepared for whats to come, seems like we forgot what happened in Vietnam.

I’ve been asking myself this same question for days and I've no clue to gain an answer. I’ve been outside the USA for so long now I don’t know anymore and I really don’t feel at all qualified to second guess military personnel. I'll have to keep a close eye on this thread to see what the consensus is.

I’d like to think no one would follow the orders to ‘hit’ Syria. The problem is I’ve seen too many YouTube videos and negative reports on ‘today’s military’ lust for blood regardless who’s blood is shed.

peace

Originally posted by benrl
I Doubt, the military would refuse an order, highly doubt it.

I doubted it would ever happen ... until this Syria thing came up. I can picture these Joint Chiefs .. who are publicly stating that there is no reason or purpose to go bomb Syria ... sitting in the situation room with Obama when he gives 'the go' order. I can see them all looking at each other and saying 'not a chance' and then schooling him on what should happen.

I didn't think it would ... but now I can see it happening.
And I'm SHOCKED that America has come to this ....

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by benrl
I Doubt, the military would refuse an order, highly doubt it.

I doubted it would ever happen ... until this Syria thing came up. I can picture these Joint Chiefs .. who are publicly stating that there is no reason or purpose to go bomb Syria ... sitting in the situation room with Obama when he gives 'the go' order. I can see them all looking at each other and saying 'not a chance' and then schooling him on what should happen.

I didn't think it would ... but now I can see it happening.
And I'm SHOCKED that America has come to this ....

Yea.. Except if that were to happen, Obama would just relieve them of their command and get someone who will listen to his orders. The President is after all the highest authority in the military. To disobey his orders is a HUGE deal. For every officer you pull out that doesn't want to follow Obama's orders, you can probably find a handful more that will. It's just the name of the game.

reply to post by FlyersFan


That is a very interesting question, My brain is swirling with what if scenarios, Would the PoTUS hide if the military decides to ignore his orders? I am sure that he would be arrested, right?

It's interesting to see and note who exactly are the ones casting doubt. So much for being blind brainwashed automatons of the Military Industrial Complex eh?

If they did then our troops would actually be defending not only our rights but those of a sovereign nation we have NO business getting involved with.

The way I see it; if you're for a war in Syria, go but yourself a plane ticket and play GI Joe. I think our military and government have murdered enough civilians, destroyed enough land, and overthrew enough governments for a little while.

Now you tell me, who is our military? Strong, individualistic critical thinkers who live by a moral obligation? Or a bunch of prissy teenagers "Fighting for freedom!" in The American Dream? Tell me, how many other instances have our troops stood up and disobeyed illegal and unjust orders.

Practically zero. I'm sorry, but our military are indoctrinated pawns. What did Henry Kissinger have to say? "Military men are nothing but dumb pawns to be used in foreign affairs."

But please, by all means, continue your murder and occupation of another country "cuz we gotta get dem terrorists (even though we armed and trained them," but ignore the man who calls you stupid pawns.

reply to post by silo13

I’d like to think no one would follow the orders to ‘hit’ Syria. The problem is I’ve seen too many YouTube videos and negative reports on ‘today’s military’ lust for blood regardless who’s blood is shed.

It has nothing to do with bloodlust! The military isn’t full of rabid dogs.

It has to do with discipline. In the Marine Corps we define discipline as the instant, willing obedience to orders, respect for authority, self reliance and teamwork. It’s not our job to second guess lawful orders or question the legality or constitutionality of a presidential directive.

The last paragraph of the OP’s NewsMax article sums it up.

"When a president draws a red line, for better or worse, it’s policy," an Army lieutenant colonel told the Post, referring to Obama’s declaration last year about Syria’s potential use of chemical weapons.

www.newsmax.com...

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Except if that were to happen, Obama would just relieve them of their command and get someone who will listen to his orders.

He's going to have to go really far down the list to find anyone who agrees with him.

To disobey his orders is a HUGE deal.

VERY BIG. And it would be a disaster for Obama. Can you imagine him having to explain to the press why dozens and dozens of officers and the Joint Chiefs refused to follow his orders to bomb Syria? He's look like an even bigger fool than he already does.

I'm thinking that if those people refused his orders, then Obama would never admit it and instead he'd be out saying some spin like 'after discussions with the Joint Chiefs I have come to the conclusion that this is not the time for a strike

Originally posted by FlyersFan

I can picture these Joint Chiefs .. who are publicly stating that there is no reason or purpose to go bomb Syria ... sitting in the situation room with Obama when he gives 'the go' order. I can see them all looking at each other and saying 'not a chance' and then schooling him on what should happen. ..

If we're lucky maybe this could happen. There still seems to be some fine officers in our military. Hopefully they will keep this focused on the military readiness aspect as that seems the best way for now to avoid this upcoming bloodbath.

Originally posted by thesaneone
Would the PoTUS hide if the military decides to ignore his orders? I am sure that he would be arrested, right?

I'm thinking that the lil' rat would just come out of his Joint Chiefs meeting with his tail between his legs and he's make some statement that HE decided it wasn't time to strike. And then he and Jarrett would go and try to destroy the lives/careers of the Joint Chiefs who dared to knock some sense into the situation. That's be my guess.

I can tell you that when we got word of it here in the 'Stan most of us were pretty much like "You can't be serious".

There's no support for such a strike anywhere. Militarily speaking it would be such an over stretch of resources and personnel that you would wind up with poorly equipped troops deploying for two years straight. Perhaps more.

We're not only in the middle of an Afghanistan exit. We're in the middle of a force reduction both in funding and personnel.

We just can't do it.

That's right, I doubt the guys have much say in the matter. In this case it's the navy who would be carrying out the tomahawk missile attack, they are stuck on a ship out there, where are they going to run? Risk going AWOL over Syria would not be in most soldiers best interest.. While there may be cases like firing upon their own citizenry is the only time I think we would see them not take orders..

reply to post by starfoxxx


I'm not talking about the guys in the trenches or on the ships ... I'm talking about the BIG GUYS. The Joint Chiefs were quoted. Some other big brass as well. I'm wondering if they'll take Obama to the back of the woodshed and school him about how our troops aren't trained for this type of conflict .. that they have to be retrained ... and that there is no purpose for the USA to be doing this. The big guys don't seem at all happy with this 'community organizer' telling them to go bomb Syria when it makes no sense.

Originally posted by projectvxn
We just can't do it.

I agree with you. Our military is tired. Our resources are cut back too much. There is no 'purpose' and no strategy other than Obama running up and throwing rocks at 'bad guys' in Syria and then running away. He's just poking the hornets nest with a big stick and running. There is no thinking involved in this. It can come to no good.

reply to post by starfoxxx


I read this article from TheBlaze

It quotes a New Yorker article that characterizes the immediate and the far reaching consequences in a conversational format. I found it to be very much like the discussions I've had with my fellow soldiers on the matter.

Politicians don't think ahead farther than the next poll. But military folks do. Planning ahead is what we're trained to do. There is no plan of action here that wouldn't have severe consequences, not just for the US or the region, but perhaps the whole world.

reply to post by FlyersFan


As I put more thought into it the United States of America will not throw the United States of America under the bus.

reply to post by FlyersFan


No he wouldn't have to go very far down the chain-of-command at all. First off that article named very few names and was very vague as to how many officers are considering disobeying. Not to mention, just because they have doubts on the order does not mean they will disobey the orders if they are given to them. You are extrapolating too much from the article. If Obama decided to go ahead with this idiocy, the military would go along with him (albeit a bit grudgingly).

ETA: I am not for military intervention in Syria. I am however a veteran of the Iraq war and I've seen this crap before. Soldiers are people too and therefore have opinions regarding just about everything in their lives, including their orders. They still obey them though.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by starfoxxx

 

I'm wondering if they'll take Obama to the back of the woodshed and school him about how our troops aren't trained for this type of conflict ..

We can only hope someone tries to do this.. Obama along with Kerry and the other numbskulls have backed themselves in a corner on this coming out and saying they know for sure Assad ordered the gas attack, and the other war drum beating they have done, if they don't strike they think they will look like fools, but most of us who already look at them as fools I think would say well atleast he made one right decision..