Hannity: Can ‘Not In Good Conscience Recommend People Serve’ In Military Under Obama

[olde north church]

It's only been relatively recent times (500 or so years) that the military in many countries became the protectors of the nation itself rather than hired and paid for by whoever was in power.  We are lucky enough to be one of those nations, and its why the military survives political regimes.  But even here the military is an arm of foreign policy, for good or bad.  Our military had good and bad times even under Reagan, lest we forget Beirut.  But anyone who only wants to serve during Republican administrations probably should look for another line of work.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the United States was among the first to have the military bound with the government but it could be quite close.  At least with the oath binding officers to the Constitution and the laws of the nation and not to the President.  How many mods to the oath in 200+ years?

[DCPatriot]

I wouldn't go as far as to say the United States was among the first to have the military bound with the government but it could be quite close.  At least with the oath binding officers to the Constitution and the laws of the nation and not to the President.  How many mods to the oath in 200+ years?

I would say that Egypt's Morsi, he of the Muslim Brotherhood, experienced a "...military bound with the government".   

[olde north church]

I would say that Egypt's Morsi, he of the Muslim Brotherhood, experienced a "...military bound with the government".   

Well now I'm going to have to do some research about armies and governments, volunteers, drafts and officer corps.   

[MACVSOG68]

Well now I'm going to have to do some research about armies and governments, volunteers, drafts and officer corps.   

The history of Europe and Britain will show how that development took place over the years.  Mostly the strong men whether they were kings, dukes or other "royal" households purchased their own army, and the loyalty was to the individual paying the salary, which of course came from taxes and plunder.  Mercenaries by today's standards, with no loyalties versus standing armies loyal to either a head of state or like first world nations, the state itself.

[DCPatriot]

Well now I'm going to have to do some research about armies and governments, volunteers, drafts and officer corps.   

LOL!   Not challenging you, ONC.   Was just thinking that if not for the secular Egyptian army, Obama would have been successful there too....creating a sense of disorder and anarchy.   

[PzLdr]

Every military has ALWAYS been the political pawn of who has been in power since the beginning of time.  Some regimes have just been better chess players.

Not true. The Roman Imperial Army made a habit of determining who would be the Emperor.

[PzLdr]

I suspect he's too old.

Maybe now. But he wasn't always too old...

[olde north church]

The history of Europe and Britain will show how that development took place over the years.  Mostly the strong men whether they were kings, dukes or other "royal" households purchased their own army, and the loyalty was to the individual paying the salary, which of course came from taxes and plunder.  Mercenaries by today's standards, with no loyalties versus standing armies loyal to either a head of state or like first world nations, the state itself.

We have the European model.  Then think about the ancient Middle East, Egypt, Greek, Proto-Indian and Oriental.  Which were the most successful?
How did Alexander build his army?  The Assyrians? Mayans?  You're getting my picture.  There must have been different models for different nations and empires.  What did they do when say, the Romans conquered two other "tribes" which were historical enemies?  How do they work them into the mix?
For as much whining people voice about freedom and liberty, members of both sides rally behind a strong man.  It's in our nature.  The Leftists have Wesley Clark and the other Clinton Generals.  Patriots and Conservatives have their own.

[olde north church]

Not true. The Roman Imperial Army made a habit of determining who would be the Emperor.

Whether he was one of their own or a puppet.  A good orator could always make a case.  Whether he came to bury or praise.

[MACVSOG68]

We have the European model.  Then think about the ancient Middle East, Egypt, Greek, Proto-Indian and Oriental.  Which were the most successful?
How did Alexander build his army?  The Assyrians? Mayans?  You're getting my picture.  There must have been different models for different nations and empires.  What did they do when say, the Romans conquered two other "tribes" which were historical enemies?  How do they work them into the mix?
For as much whining people voice about freedom and liberty, members of both sides rally behind a strong man.  It's in our nature.  The Leftists have Wesley Clark and the other Clinton Generals.  Patriots and Conservatives have their own.

A couple of points.  When Caesar went into Britain, he didn't fare very well in bringing the tribes into the empire.  He left.  When Claudius (I believe) came back a hundred years later, he first conquered, then civilized the tribes.  When Rome left, the Brits were helpless, only to be reconquered by the Angles and Saxons, because they had become civilized Romans, well except for the Scots!  But all of the models throughout earlier history did it by plunder, kill the opposition leaders, force their religion and culture on the conquered, assimilate and then tax them.

I don't see too many people who actually look to Wesley Clark as a strong leader.  And as different presidents with different motivations appoint different generals, for the most part we don't have to be concerned with "Seven Days in May", because they all take an oath to protect the Constitution, not the president...or any military leader.

[olde north church]

A couple of points.  When Caesar went into Britain, he didn't fare very well in bringing the tribes into the empire.  He left.  When Claudius (I believe) came back a hundred years later, he first conquered, then civilized the tribes.  When Rome left, the Brits were helpless, only to be reconquered by the Angles and Saxons, because they had become civilized Romans, well except for the Scots!  But all of the models throughout earlier history did it by plunder, kill the opposition leaders, force their religion and culture on the conquered, assimilate and then tax them.

I don't see too many people who actually look to Wesley Clark as a strong leader.  And as different presidents with different motivations appoint different generals, for the most part we don't have to be concerned with "Seven Days in May", because they all take an oath to protect the Constitution, not the president...or any military leader.

 But the enlisted oath, "... 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.", may cause a problem or two depending upon the situation.

[MACVSOG68]

But the enlisted oath, "... 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.", may cause a problem or two depending upon the situation.

Always a potential for problems, but the officer's oath requires the officer to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and enlisted oath requires that the orders given must be lawful.  There is no defense to an enlisted person if he follows an unlawful or unconstitutional order.

It's not perfect, but "I was only following orders" is no defense to either an officer or an enlisted.

[Oceander]

Always a potential for problems, but the officer's oath requires the officer to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and enlisted oath requires that the orders given must be lawful.  There is no defense to an enlisted person if he follows an unlawful or unconstitutional order.

It's not perfect, but "I was only following orders" is no defense to either an officer or an enlisted.

Precisely.

[mountaineer]

Maybe now. But he wasn't always too old...

But he's talking about now - under this president, not another.

[PzLdr]

But he's talking about now - under this president, not another.

Don't care WHEN he's talking about. Point is, when he was younger, and had the opportunity, he DIDN'T serve. Absent illness or other disqualifier, IMO, he's not the guy to be handing out advice on joining, or not joining the service. And NO, I'm not saying he doesn't have the First Amendment right to say it [although that argument only applies to governmental restraint of speech], I'm saying he's not the guy to say it.

[DCPatriot]

Don't care WHEN he's talking about. Point is, when he was younger, and had the opportunity, he DIDN'T serve. Absent illness or other disqualifier, IMO, he's not the guy to be handing out advice on joining, or not joining the service. And NO, I'm not saying he doesn't have the First Amendment right to say it [although that argument only applies to governmental restraint of speech], I'm saying he's not the guy to say it.

First...not a fan of Sean Hannity.  Not of source of original thought, IMO.

That said, I think you must cut him some slack here.   All he's doing is saying that as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Obama has acted anything but. 

In fact, by his recent decisions...sacking existing/inherited military brass and officers in the field (especially the Middle East and Asia)...and purposefully jockeying to a position where he killed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Iraq, he essentially pissed on the graves of every American soldier that paid the ultimate price there.   And by extension, he diminished the tens of thousands of our disabled veterans.

IOW....it's plain that you cannot trust Obama.   So...if you love your children, don't let them grow up to be soldiers during an Obama administration.

And I don't like the inferences here that just because you never served in the armed forces, you lose the right to state an opinion on such matters.

[musiclady]

Don't care WHEN he's talking about. Point is, when he was younger, and had the opportunity, he DIDN'T serve. Absent illness or other disqualifier, IMO, he's not the guy to be handing out advice on joining, or not joining the service. And NO, I'm not saying he doesn't have the First Amendment right to say it [although that argument only applies to governmental restraint of speech], I'm saying he's not the guy to say it.

I'm not sure why you (and others) believe that not having served in the military precludes one from having and voicing an opinion about joining the military.

Why, in your opinion, is not having served a disqualifier from voicing one's perspective?

I know you're not the only one who shares this view, but I don't get it.

There are a number of things I haven't done...... like for example, gone to seminary or law school...... but I'm not sure why I shouldn't share my opinion as to whether or not it's a good idea for someone I know to go there.

I know that's kind of apples to oranges, but as a parent of a child who did serve, I feel very comfortable in saying that I would strongly suggest that they not join the military under a CinC who despises the military with an ugly passion.

What's the rationale here?

[EC]

I'm not sure why you (and others) believe that not having served in the military precludes one from having and voicing an opinion about joining the military.

Why, in your opinion, is not having served a disqualifier from voicing one's perspective?

I know you're not the only one who shares this view, but I don't get it.

There are a number of things I haven't done...... like for example, gone to seminary or law school...... but I'm not sure why I shouldn't share my opinion as to whether or not it's a good idea for someone I know to go there.

I know that's kind of apples to oranges, but as a parent of a child who did serve, I feel very comfortable in saying that I would strongly suggest that they not join the military under a CinC who despises the military with an ugly passion.

What's the rationale here?

Well said. Obama has never done anything at all, yet his opinion is listened to. 

[Oceander]

Don't care WHEN he's talking about. Point is, when he was younger, and had the opportunity, he DIDN'T serve. Absent illness or other disqualifier, IMO, he's not the guy to be handing out advice on joining, or not joining the service. And NO, I'm not saying he doesn't have the First Amendment right to say it [although that argument only applies to governmental restraint of speech], I'm saying he's not the guy to say it.

Just what, pray tell, disqualifies someone who didn't join the military from opining on whether others should, or should not, join the military?  Suppose I support people who want to join the military - should I just STFU because I haven't served?  Suppose it comes to a question of what the budget for the military should be - a fact that necessarily determines whether some people get to join or not - should I just STFU because I haven't served?  How far down the line does it go?

[Dexter]

Not enough people joining the military just means they would bring back the draft during wartime. I understand the thought process he used to come to his conclusion, but I really don't agree with it.

[Dexter]

Just what, pray tell, disqualifies someone who didn't join the military from opining on whether others should, or should not, join the military?  Suppose I support people who want to join the military - should I just STFU because I haven't served?  Suppose it comes to a question of what the budget for the military should be - a fact that necessarily determines whether some people get to join or not - should I just STFU because I haven't served?  How far down the line does it go?

"The validity of your opinion and point of view is completely dependent on how much I agree with them."

[Oceander]

Not enough people joining the military just means they would bring back the draft during wartime. I understand the thought process he used to come to his conclusion, but I really don't agree with it.

Apropos of the draft:  I'm not entirely convinced that it would be a bad idea to have some form of simple draft, in place at all times, not just during wartime.  I'm not suggesting that draftees, as such, end up being sent to the front lines, but that everyone be asked - forced, to be honest about it - to contribute something other than bluster and taxes to the country for, say, 2 years.  Those who want to continue on into the professional military could do so from there while those who don't wish to continue would return to civilian life with at least a modicum of understanding for what it means to serve your country, serve others, and a modicum of respect/understanding for those who go on to join the professional military.

[Dexter]

Apropos of the draft:  I'm not entirely convinced that it would be a bad idea to have some form of simple draft, in place at all times, not just during wartime.  I'm not suggesting that draftees, as such, end up being sent to the front lines, but that everyone be asked - forced, to be honest about it - to contribute something other than bluster and taxes to the country for, say, 2 years.  Those who want to continue on into the professional military could do so from there while those who don't wish to continue would return to civilian life with at least a modicum of understanding for what it means to serve your country, serve others, and a modicum of respect/understanding for those who go on to join the professional military.

As somebody who has served in the military, I am aware of the benefits associated with doing it. I was an awkward and immature kid when I joined; I left a disciplined adult. The military basically forced me to grow up. Mandatory military service would probably go a long way towards preparing young people for the adult world, but good luck selling the left on that one. haha

[EC]

As somebody who has served in the military, I am aware of the benefits associated with doing it. I was an awkward and immature kid when I joined; I left a disciplined adult. The military basically forced me to grow up. Mandatory military service would probably go a long way towards preparing young people for the adult world, but good luck selling the left on that one. haha

We  had it here, from the end of the war until the late 60's. 2 years national service, where you were taught the basics, then you could wind up doing anything - crop picking, cleaning up the bomb sites, troop support, navy - the list was endless. It's why the UK had far less of the hippy nonsense.

[Dexter]

What would you guys say to military service being a mandatory part of becoming a U.S citizen?  You meet all of the current requirements and then to seal the deal you must serve in one of the military branches for a predetermined amount of time.