The end of NATO?

[Max Q]

For example, back in 2022 Biden talked very frankly about using nuclear weapons on Russia (the NYT called it Biden’s “Armageddon Moment”) but no missiles were launched. Why? Because political rhetoric doesn’t equal official orders.

I’m not affiliated either way, but in that article you mention, Biden was saying how, due to intercepts, there was a likely use of nuclear weapons based on a Russian initiated strike.
The current POTUS asked why we couldn’t nuke a hurricane, or nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else. You don’t need to lecture me on nuclear weapons, I doubt you have the PRP stink on you.

In case you failed civics, POTUS “wants” aren’t actionable while orders could be…if legal.

I don’t know how far in the sand you’ve stuck your head, but these days wants and orders are almost one in the same. Almost as if the people who assess the legality of orders weren’t just fired earlier this month.

 

[Griz882]

I’m not affiliated either way, but in that article you mention, Biden was saying how, due to intercepts, there was a likely use of nuclear weapons based on a Russian initiated strike.
The current POTUS asked why we couldn’t nuke a hurricane, or nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else. You don’t need to lecture me on nuclear weapons, I doubt you have the PRP stink on you.

I don’t know how far in the sand you’ve stuck your head, but these days wants and orders are almost one in the same. Almost as if the people who assess the legality of orders weren’t just fired earlier this month.

My head isn’t in the sand. No one at DoD is going to bomb Canada because of a truth social post. Just like no one launched a missile when Biden made his statement. It isn’t a “he said it different” kind of thing or a “his policy was based on…” kind of thing. It just takes a bit more to launch a war than “Hey, let’s invade Panama!”

 

[UMichfly]

It just takes a bit more to launch a war than “Hey, let’s invade Panama!”

My head isn’t in the sand. No one at DoD is going to bomb Canada because of a truth social post. Just like no one launched a missile when Biden made his statement. It isn’t a “he said it different” kind of thing or a “his policy was based on…” kind of thing. It just takes a bit more to launch a war than “Hey, let’s invade Panama!”

This is all fine and good until you step back and realize how much of the senior leadership is in place solely for their sycophancy. How far down the chain of command does a bad/unlawful order have to flow now before someone says "whoa, what the fuck?"? There's a demonstrated lack of qualification and judgement in the appointee class combined with an imminent pink slip for any Flag Officer who disagrees with the head shed.

 

[Griz882]

This is all fine and good until you step back and realize how much of the senior leadership is in place solely for their sycophancy. How far down the chain of command does a bad/unlawful order have to flow now before someone says "whoa, what the fuck?"? There's a demonstrated lack of qualification and judgement in the appointee class combined with an imminent pink slip for any Flag Officer who disagrees with the head shed.

Are you implying all of this has happened in the last 100 days? Seriously?

Look, I was a long, long way from being the best guy to serve my country but all the guys I served with and all the senior leaders I dealt with…across wildly different administrations…knew the difference between a comment and an order. If things are as bad as you imply then isn’t the fault with the military promotion system that allowed these sycophants to rise so far?

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

I doubt you have the PRP stink on you

One never knows who has or has not been part of the PRP.
And it's not something one would discuss here.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

an imminent pink slip for any Flag Officer who disagrees with the head shed

I'd rather get a pink slip than execute a can't be undone order that may or may not be legal.
What happened to our "policy" of fail safe?

 

[Swanee]

in terms of policy:
When the Commander-in-chief says he wants to take over a Nation, I believe the services would follow suit.

Is it a lawful order to attack a nation with whom we have a congressionally ratified mutual defense pact? It's US law now, written into the CFR. What happens when it's NATO against the USA?

Why are we in a position where thought experiments like this even come up or could be even remotely possible?

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11256

That seems to be a decent primer. I've taken a dive into the other CFRs, 22 and 117 aren't very helpful in this case. But based on that paper, I'm going with "No, it isn't a legal and lawful order to use military action against a NATO country." Nor is it legal for POTUS to remove us from NATO without ratification from the Senate.
We're also stuck in tort law here. That tends to go to the SCOTUS. Who knows what they'll do these days.

Edit- Here's the CFR saying that the President cannot remove us from NATO without a 2/3rds majority from the Senate. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/1928f

 

[UMichfly]

Are you implying all of this has happened in the last 100 days? Seriously?

Look, I was a long, long way from being the best guy to serve my country but all the guys I served with and all the senior leaders I dealt with…across wildly different administrations…knew the difference between a comment and an order. If things are as bad as you imply then isn’t the fault with the military promotion system that allowed these sycophants to rise so far?

I'm not implying it at all, I'm outright saying it. It hasn't been until the last 100 days that Fox News time has eclipsed senior military/corporate/industrial leadership experience as a cabinet qualification. It hasn't been until the last 100 days that it became acceptable to purge the senior ranks of mil leadership and replace them with retired folks who haven't even met the rank requirements of the office.

I'm far from the person who'd defend the military promotion system but I don't think it's fair to cast blame there for this situation. The folks who percolated up through that promotion system have been canned without cause and replaced with the previously mentioned junior/retired folks whose main qualification is unabashed fealty to the executive.

 

[Griz882]

Is it a lawful order to attack a nation with whom we have a congressionally ratified mutual defense pact? It's US law now, written into the CFR. What happens when it's NATO against the USA?

Why are we in a position where thought experiments like this even come up or could be even remotely possible?

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11256

That seems to be a decent primer. I've taken a dive into the other CFRs, 22 and 117 aren't very helpful in this case. But based on that paper, I'm going with "No, it isn't a legal and lawful order to use military action against a NATO country." Nor is it legal for POTUS to remove us from NATO without ratification from the Senate.
We're also stuck in tort law here. That tends to go to the SCOTUS. Who knows what they'll do these days.

Edit- Here's the CFR saying that the President cannot remove us from NATO without a 2/3rds majority from the Senate. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/1928f

Spot on.

 

[Griz882]

It hasn't been until the last 100 days that Fox News time has eclipsed senior military/corporate/industrial leadership experience as a cabinet qualification.

Clark Clifford, LBJ’s Secretary of Defense, served three whole years in the Navy and was a lawyer, hardly meeting your criteria. Chuck Hagel, infantry sergeant, radio DJ, and Senator was equally lacking.

It hasn't been until the last 100 days that it became acceptable to purge the senior ranks of mil leadership…

Nor has it been the first time…

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving... Read More

www.investors.com

i know…I know…that’s different.

In the end if you have so little faith in the military you should resign. In my time I served under a few idiots, but never under any fools.

 

[Brett327]

isn’t the fault with the military promotion system that allowed these sycophants to rise so far?

More like the American electorate.

 

[Brett327]

One never knows who has or has not been part of the PRP.
And it's not something one would discuss here.

Nonsense. I was in PRP. The fact that someone is in PRP isn't sensitive.

 

[Spekkio]

Nor has it been the first time…

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving... Read More

www.investors.com

i know…I know…that’s different.

I actually think the comparisons and differences are quite interesting.

Obama came into his presidency in 2009 with a campaign promise to get out of Iraq. The beltway bureaucracy fought him tooth-and-nail over it, and he mostly deferred to their experience in his first term.

In his second term, a Republican controlled Congress was being budget-hawkish, and he was more than willing to use the DOD as the sacrificial anode to support his other fiscal and legislative priorities.

Trump in his first term wanted to shake things up by bringing in DC outsiders into his cabinet. Unlike Trump 2.0, these cabinet members were highly esteemed invidivuals with a long list of credentials. Unfortunately, they also were old-guard Republicans and fought Trump on many of his initiatives. The most visible and spectacular was his Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, who became frustrated that Trump wouldn't listen to his neo-con approach to foreign policy.

Trump's second term cabinet is the island of misfit toys (promoting a riot on Congress and being charged with a laundry-list of felonies will tend to isolate you from people who don't need to risk having your stink on them), but he likewise is sick of people who have opposed his initiatives. I think that the most significant and interesting aspect of Trump's cabinet is how relatively young they all are - a risk Trump 2.0 can take because he thinks he's the smartest man in the room. He is especially sensitive to Biden's inner circle, since you can find a lot of one-liners that glean insight into Trump's brain - he believes very strongly that Biden and his inner circle conspired to steal the 2020 election, and then leveraged the DOJ to ensure that Trump didn't challenge Biden a second time.

Somewhat related, albeit maybe not really, is that the military has had a problem supporting Presidential initiatives since the Korean War. There's a saying that when there's a personality conflict with your boss, your boss has the personality and you have the conflict.

We are never truly 'on-board' with every concern the President has, and stricty apply military solutions to problems that could be politically or strategically costly. For a recent example of this, you can see a number of people on this board advocating for continued support to Ukraine because "Russia is an enemy." Well, no, they aren't. They aren't a close ally, but policies toward Russia could run the gamut from direct military interdiction on behalf of Ukraine to assisting Russia take Ukraine, and everything inbetween. The middle ground is "why the hell is this America's problem and why are we wasting resources on it?" which is something that you'd be hard pressed to explain to voters if your entering (false) premise is that "Russia is a sworn enemy." Meaning, to a sitting president, support of Ukraine poses a lot of domestic and international political risks with very little gain. So perhaps telling Germany and Poland that "yeah, we don't really give a shit about Ukraine, secure your own borders if you're worried about a slippery-slope to Russian imperialism" is the right message for now.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

The fact that someone is in PRP isn't sensitive.

No, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand. Hence, not something I talk about as general discussion.
Or maybe I just missed something in the direction the thread was going, I didn't see where PRP played into anything, other than the snide comment that was made about having PRP stink.

 

[Max Q]

I didn't see where PRP played into anything, other than the snide comment that was made about having PRP stink.

Sorry - I lizard brained it. I spent enough time in the tube with the battlestaff nerds LARPing nuclear war day after day. PRP wasn’t a badge of honor, but rather misery experiencing perpetual IRS/Scientology auditing.

you can see a number of people on this board advocating for continued support to Ukraine because "Russia is an enemy." Well, no, they aren't.

You made a lot of good points; but I disagree with the Russian sentiments. They have thousands of ICBMs aimed at us, and have killed citizens on our allies’ soil. I agree that Europeans should assist more as the problem is closer to home, but bringing America to 1930s isolationism isn’t the key to power.