Hypothetical question for current and prior service members

I am posting this because I am sick and tired of all the military bashing from individuals who do not know or understand how the military operates. It is almost to the point that I regret signing up to spill my blood. No regrets as far as defending this country, only that I could not make exceptions as to whose sorry asses I was protecting when I took my oath. But after I calm down and really think about it, I would have still defended those who call me a baby killer. I will take the high road, even though when I turn around I get hit in the head with a brick.

The first thing that these "people" do not realize is that, normally, the military does not do a thing until ordered to do so. Ordered by whom? The President and/or Pentagon and with as much bureaucracy as they can muster up. There must be some perspective when looking at this and things put into the proper context. One of the things that I hear the most, and to me it is only propaganda is that "our bomb killed innocent civilians". From what I have seen with my own eyes, our technology and precision is second to none. With the precision our military has when delivering ordnance, our technology pretty much allows us to drop it on a dime from 100 or more miles away and will destroy only the intended target. Now, that is not to say things do not go wrong from time to time, but in my experience, civilians being a target was never a consideration. IF by chance an "innocent" was killed was probably because they were in a place they should not have been to begin with. In other words, if they were there they were probably consorting with the enemy, generally speaking. Maybe I am wrong. The thing that people need to understand, and I did not say agree with, but we take our orders and we do it. That is the way it works, and there are some underlying principals that need to be understood in order to realize how it all ties together form a single cohesive unit. Maybe some people should try to read Sun Tzu: The Art of War, to gain some perspective as to how the military must operate in order to fulfill its number one mission, protect the US and its citizens at all costs. Again, people only need to understand and respect it, not necessarily agree with it. Maybe the responses to this may change some point of views and maybe quit placing blame on the members and place the blame where it truly belongs, which is the corporations and crooked politicians using the military as tools in their end game and manipulating the President and the Pentagon to make their wishes come true. There are many many other examples that I can point out that ignorant civilians hold against the military but I will get on with my post.

I know the military is not perfect and has its own internal issues that haunt them, but overall, despite the few tragic cases of actions of a few rogue service members out there, should not be the reflection of the military itself. Hell, I even put my Captain on report with Congress, that was not my intent, but that is the way it worked out when I had an issue that was not getting the attention I felt it deserved. But in the end, it all worked out and I would go back and do it all over again, taking the good with the bad. If for nothing else, ever since I have been out of the service, I have never met anyone since that I could honestly trust placing my life in someone else's hands.

So my question is, in the event that SHTF and if the President ordered you and your unit to turn on civilians for whatever reason, would you obey THAT order? Please remember the oath you took before answering.

Personally, I would strip down to my underwear right where I stood and lay down my arms. At that point they could either shoot me right there on the spot or let me go, their choice, but I would never point a weapon at a civilian. Sure, there may be a few I would like to knock out, but I would not do any permanent damage.

reply to post by Skewed
[more

First of all, thank you sir for defending our country. I myself served in the Navy so I kind of know where you're coming from. Back on topic, my best advice for you is to just remember this about your oath:

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Personally, that was the most important part of the oath. Now ask yourself who your domestic enemies are. Is it constitutional what our role is in Libya? Some say no, some say yes....what do you say?

To answer your question, I want to say I would shoot my brothers and sisters who would actually follow that order to shoot civilians. I have also had enough time away from the service to get far from the military mindset if you know what I mean.

reply to post by KewlDaddyFatty


To begin with, you aren't defending anyone when you go blowing people up halfway across the world. You are not defending, you are attacking.

Remember what the founding fathers said? They wouldn't want you killing anyone unless you are threatened on your home soil. Basically they wouldn't have agreed on any war with the possible exception being WW2. Every single of your presidents could use some a$$whooping.

reply to post by KewlDaddyFatty


I say, the people of Libya asked for our help and I think we are doing the right thing in helping them free themselves from a tyrant. If we are to be a superpower, then I think it is the responsible thing to do when humanity is concerned to help people that cannot defend themselves. By doing this, it reinforces our position in the world, love it or hate it, but if we are so bad then why do other countries from time to time ask for our help? Now, that is not to say we never get involved with things we have no business getting involved with like Vietnam especially. But the problem is that some groups of people like to use our military for political gain, which is totally sickening. But when people ask for our help, I am fine with it. Just like if I saw some person unable to defend themselves from a mugger, I would step up to the plate and protect that person as well.

reply to post by Skewed


Our role in Vietnam was based on lies, never forget that.

My take on Lybia: There is a Constitutional way we as American's do things. Attacking another country SHOULD require approval from our Congress. Not something for our President alone to decide. I agree if the citizens of Lybia ask for help to overthrow an evil government which attacks it's own people then by all means let's help give the people there a chance. BUT, the same crap is going on in Bahrain, Syria, Iran and Yemen and are we doing anything there? NO! What gives?

I'm a card carrying, dues paying member of Oath Keepers even though my last tour of duty ended in the 80's. The oath I took to protect this country against "all enemies, foreign AND domestic" did not expire with my enlistment. I consider it as valid today as it was the day I took it. According to some, this makes me a "domestic terrorist;" but regardless, I will NEVER allow a member of the US Armed Forces to turn a weapon on civilians in the US - over my DEAD BODY.

Anyone who would even consider turning on the citizens of this country is a traitor, and as such should be shot on the spot. Nothing angers me more than a traitor.

reply to post by Jepic


I totally agree.

The problem is there are so many $$$reasons$$$ for war. Too much special interest drives greed and hate. Many times I wish we would stay out of Foreign Affairs but I also understand war=money=jobs for Americans.

reply to post by OldCorp


Good for you sir!! Like I said earlier, if I ever saw members of our military turning their weapons on civilians I would do all I could within my power to stop the madness, at the risk of my own life.

A tougher question than it looks like. We just had a thread on here discussing "any lawful order" and whether there were unlawful orders. There are, of course, but the devil is in the details. Here we've added "enemies foreign or domestic" to the mix. You've taken the position of "not domestic," i.e.: You're equating civilians with domestic enemies., I hope I'm right as to your intent. If not. well, that's the definition I'm using here.

From a philosophical standpoint you are taking what for you is a moral stand despite the fact you swore to defend against ALL enemies, including domestic ones. Bearing in mind the "unlawful orders" it's still rare for a soldier to pick and choose what orders he decides to obey. So if you refused a lawful order to defend the country against domestic enemies, you've violated your oath. You've made a moral stand and also a practical one. I'm trying to stay away from the practical side of thimngs (You could get shot) or the moral ones in terms of "war is bad, etc.) To me thw whole thimng begs the question:

Is it possible there could be domestic enemies? The answer to this question determines your answer. If the definition of civilian means "unarmed" you probably could go one way, but what if your unit is confronted with several hundred civilians determined to block your way and they are also armed with M-16s and RPGs? Are they still citizens, or are the domestic enemies.

We've been there before. When confronted with this situation and fired upon, the British Army fired back and killed a few "civilians.'" The person who defended them in court was John Adams. I'm running out of time (dinner approaches). I don't remember whether he secured an acquittal, but I think studying that very encounter could do a lot to clarify the issue.

US Navy, 1971

reply to post by Skewed


Military technology isn't like it was back in the 40's. Since than, a lot of countries have upgraded their military with high tech weaponry. For us to think we're the only military force to keep the peace around the world is ridiculous. Going to war overseas to "protect our national security" is being used as a way to push our political ideologies on sovereign countries. We were always told the old Soviet Union was trying to spread communism across the globe. Are we not doing the same thing we were told to fear with the spread of communism? I'm sorry to say, but I'm ashamed at the way our country has stuck our noses in so many countries regional conflicts. We wouldn't like anyone coming here and trying to influence our way of life so why are we doing it in the middle east? The mission in Iraq was changed "3" times just to create a reason to keep our occupying forces in that country. Our country has supported dictators for their own selfish reasons. It always comes back to haunt us.

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:

Vietnam vet here. No I would never fire on Americans, but I would not consider that the only possible order I would disobey. Am I wrong or are you not justifying the actions of the Nazis who loaded Polish Jews into the box cars? Weren't they 'simply following orders'?
This differs from bombing civilians how?
So we were justified to bomb any village where the V.C. had been spotted as the fact that civilians were there had nothing to do with them living in those villages and/or working those fields but more likely was because they were in some way in cahoots with the enemy?
Likewise, all the dead and crippled Iraq children our bombs have killed and crippled were probably assisting those evil insurgents in some way, yes?
So reasoning and logic were never your strong points, yes?
I bet you made a fine soldier

No offence to the OP, because I think its a great question, and worth thinking about carefully...but...

...whatever your personal answer may be, it might not be the wisest thing for a current service member to state so on the internet.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by Skewed


Precision bombing? There were 1 million innocent civilians killed in the Iraq war..that is beyond unacceptable.You all could have refused to follow those inhumane unconstitutional orders.but.I know you all thought it was right, that you were only following..I do support you guys I know your lives are in danger constantly and that is the people who command you that make YOU kill innocent people and it is YOU they put in danger..it will be YOU they use to take over this country.

I only hope when the time comes you have no justification in your mind, no reason to think its OK to shoot American citizens under any circumstance ..I hope if you are an active soldier you will use logic before helping the tyrants who command you that it is the citizen (Protected under law of our constitution outlined in the oath you took) that you defend is now the enemy.

Show us all when the time comes that even you can see what you're being USED for..that you are no more important then the people they will tell you have become aggressive and are now enemies or rebels.Who are these "people" Americans, Americans who will stand against this government and rightly so, It is our right to fight for the freedoms we believe they are violating, They are the enemy,traitors to us all and humanity as a whole.They are going to betray us all...The time is coming soon where YOU our military will have to decide to follow those orders or condemn us all..don't let us down.

reply to post by schuyler



Let me post the enlisted oath, so all can read:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States 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 orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


This is simple, I would base my argument of defense on the very thing they would be holding against me; The Oath. Since this is the very first thing I did when I joined was to say that oath that bound me from that point forward what I was about to do and is very specific in what my primary duties are; in order.

"...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...".

With that, that means that the very first thing I will do is to defend every single letter of The Constitution. Then, as stated;

..that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;....

That is what I am doing now, defending myself from attackers of The Constitution. Then, finally....

...and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me...,

I will do what I am ordered to by my supervisors above me.

I did what I affirmed I would do to the letter, to the very thing that bound me to be a member of the Armed Services, shoot me, hang me, throw me in prison or free me, I do not care. That is my story and I am sticking with it.

reply to post by Nebulous1973



I do not disagree with your argument in any way. In fact, I think I have said a few of those things myself.

What are the civilians doing about it? Not a damn thing, other than waiting for the next damn mobile device to get released. Everybody agrees to the fact the military does things it should not, but while they are trying to keep from getting a bullet in the head, how come the civilians cannot put aside their personal needs and vanities and help them help us. How? Do what ever it takes to start getting the right people in office, so that the politics can be removed from the military all together. It will not be easy and probably an impossible goal, but never give up. Get the corruption and greed out of our politics as much as possible, at least not let it be the majority rule, and then you will see what our military really is.

As US Citizens and if you believe in The Constitution, then do your part, you also have a responsibility. You fight that battle for the military personnel by any means necessary to fix the problems and I guarantee you that if orders are given to stop whatever it is you are doing to help them, when military starts walking your streets, I assure you we would not be pointing a weapon at you, but the person who is trying to harm or stop you. As another member stated, my oath did not expire when my enlistment did.

reply to post by schuyler


OK. I just looked it up. Eight British soldiers were charged. Six were acquitted. Two others wwere charged with murder, but convicted of manslaughter. One of the bones of contention was whether or not the Captain gave the order to fire. Obviously at this late date we cannot tell, but the general historical consensus is that he did not and that tensions were high enough that one fired, then many did. The regiment had been pelted with stones and roughed up prior to the incident. This is important because there is a distinction between following "any lawful order" and striking on your own. Unfortunately we cannot use this as a precedent for what constitutes a lawful order.

I did what I affirmed I would do to the letter, to the very thing that bound me to be a member of the Armed Services, shoot me, hang me, throw me in prison or free me, I do not care. That is my story and I am sticking with it.

Cool. You go right ahead and do that. But considering 9 Supreme Court justices can't decide whether the "right to keep and bear arms" means we have the right to keep and bear arms you'd best hope your personal definition of what the Constitution means turns oiut to be the "correct" one. After all, Clinton said whether he did have sex with that woman depended on what the definbition of "is" is, and he's a Constitutional lawyer.

But I actually never answered your question. How remiss of me. For myself if said "citizens" were armed and clearly had evil intent and I was ordered to fire, I would. If the crowd was peacefully protesting, I would not.

Look, um, you asked the question of veterans or those who serve. I answered, at least this time, and then yiou argue about it. That telle me your position is entirely fixed and that you don't want a discussion at all. You just want to pontificate on your position. My quibble is that if you want to pontificate, go ahead and do so, but don't pretend you want to have a give and take discussion. That's why it is useless for me to continue this discussion. I thought the Adams stuff would be of use to you. You are welcome.