this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
300 points (99.3% liked)

politics

20365 readers
3476 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 day ago (2 children)

All the top officers have been in the military for over 20 years. They have seen Presidents come and go, and are loyal to their fellow service people. Even if they like Trump, firing for political reasons isn't going to go down well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

But like DEI. Meritocracy, and other things Fox News told me

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Genuinely, I do think the only way out of this is starting to look like a military coup by some sort of cadre of non-insane officers from across the services. Based on the performance and reactions of every single part of the government - specifically including the alphabet agencies - I don’t think we’re going to snap out of fascism any other way.

It looks like the legislative and judicial branches, and all of the agencies, have simply decided to do nothing and follow the rules while Trump just gives illegal directives that are then enacted by eel-on-musk’s imbecile intern wünderkinds, and everyone just stands around saying “I’m just following orders”. It’s fucking embarrassing.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 20 hours ago

Even independent LGBT orgs have immediately given up on supporting trans people, just from the threat of the loss of federal funding. It's sickening

[–] [email protected] 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Trump is going after senior military officers AND Social Security AND doing an end run around Congress all at once. I just hope that he doesn't have enough fingers for the dike.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I hope the dykes have enough fingers for triggers.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Problem is I don’t see any person in military doing this. They’re been brainwashed to love their country and their president since birth.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

and their president

During training we are very specifically taught that nothing is above the constitution, including the president. We are obligated to refuse illegal orders.

If it stuck with me, hopefully it stuck with a few of the people still in service.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago

Isn't a large part of the federal workforce veterans? I can't imagine active service members have good feelings about Trump kicking them to the curb

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago

If it stuck with me, hopefully it stuck with a few of the people still in service.

apparently not... it's alredy happening and the entire rrction have been tears and bending over

[–] [email protected] 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Refusing illegal orders is something that always sounds good, but never goes well even when it rarely happens in real life. Otherwise the crazy numerous war crimes and illegal things the air force kidnapping citizens human trafficked and abused by ICE because they are brown and "might be illegal" wouldn't happen.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

There was that Russian submarine commander that refused to launch nukes and saved the world. That's a pretty big one.

Vasily Arkhipov to put some respect on his name.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Not to discredit what he did because he was probably one of the biggest impact decisions taken ever, he is definitely a great man and he deserves every ounce of credit, but he did not defy orders. They received no orders whatsoever, and the captain just assumed a war had broken out. They were too deep to receive orders at all. He refused to give his permission which was "legally" (military law-wise?) needed to launch the nukes. From your own link (also he wasn't a commander at the time):

Unlike other Soviet submarines armed with the "special weapon", where only the captain and the political officer were required to authorize a nuclear launch, three officers on board the B-59 were required to authorize the launch because Arkhipov was also the chief of staff of the brigade (not the commander as is often incorrectly reported, who was in fact Captain First Rank Vasili Naumovich Agafonov).[11][12] The three men were Captain Savitsky, Political Officer Ivan Semyonovich Maslennikov, and Executive Officer Arkhipov. An argument broke out among the three of them, with only Arkhipov against the launch.

So it doesn't really apply. It is more one of 3 commanding officers that had a big disagreement and one of them refused to let the others give the order.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Well, yeah. When you're planning a military coup against a fascist regime you don't announce it ahead of time.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 22 hours ago

I have zero special knowledge, but generic history would suggest that at least some in the officer class, regardless of political leaning, will not be down with the current trajectory.

no idea what this may look like, but my worthless analysis portends something brewing ahead and it may be wise to consider possibilities and prep accordingly. fuck these "interesting times".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

I don't want to destroy any illusions, but I don't believe that much resistance can be expected from the military. The command principle applies here and the president is the Commander-in-Chief. I don't see why any civil disobedience could be expected here in particular. Besides, it's not as if those who actually make up the majority of soldiers would have much say in military affairs. If that were the case, there might be a chance, but the military is also run by old, greedy, white men - just like any other US institution.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

They're not going to necessarily be the saviors of democracy but there's actually a pretty clear demarcation between career politicians and career soldiers. There's a reason "oblivious politician forces military to make strategic blunder" is a trope.

Usually their goals align with maintaining US hegemony but much less so when the Commander in Chief is selling the nation to foreign adversaries.