The question no one is asking. Why did the DOD go along with this?

[KentuckyWoman]

There is not one single chance any of this came from Trump. The man can barely keep his pants straight, let alone Iran and Iraq.

So the whole plan for this came from somewhere else. The DOD had to get it done. And they did. This tells me the DOD wanted this, otherwise there would have been push back. We'd have had someone high up retire in protest by now.

First we had the mess in Syria, leaving the Kurds to die. Now this in Iraq.
WTF is happening in the DOD? What is the end game?

If these people are going to murder in America's name then they better damn well tell us why. Get your ass in front of Congress and explain yourselves.

[evertonfc]

1. The DOD

gives a list of options from good to worst. The President chooses one. The NYT has reported on this extensively The last 48 hours.

[lame54]

14. Why are illegal choices in there?

[sandensea]

27. Because in a GOP regime, if you don't include illegal options...

[shadowmayor]

40. Because they want to be glorious war heroes

Show me General who refuses to bomb a school full of children and I'll show you a retired General. Show me a General who bombed 2 schools and I'll show you a man who's getting promoted. Bomb the hell out of a country and it's 4 stars and a cush job at Raytheon or CNN.

Retired military here = and if I told you how our commanders actually behave, what they say and what they reward, you'd lock the doors and cry for weeks.

Here's a clue folks, we are the bad guys. Just ask Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and next up - Iran.

[Martin Eden]

16. Word has it they were "stunned" when Trump chose the most extreme option.

Did they really think would make a rational choice?

[RVN VET71]

32. Sure they were "stunned".

If the DOD tries to sneak out that exculpatory nonsense the DOD will fail. They either knew what Trump would pick or they are so grossly incompetent they should step down and take a job protecting an abandoned shopping mall.

[walkingman]

2. When you go to a surgeon you get surgery....the military doesn't have a problem fighting wars, it's

what they do. Your right it is up to us to let our chicken shit leaders know their actions are unacceptable.

[DURHAM D]

3. I have friends (officers) in the military.

They always respond that he is their CIC. iows - Don't blame us.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. If they're officers, have you ever asked them to repeat the oath they took?

My understanding is that officers only owe an oath to the Constitution.

[stopdiggin]

36. people always trot out the "Constitution" as if it contains bedrock affirmation

for what THEY believe to be true. It rarely does. Military people follow orders. There is no constitutional exception regarding unpopular orders .. or incompetent CICs.

And .. if you're now reaching for your pen to fire back some screed on illegal or "unlawful orders" .. DON'T. In the U.S. military this is settled ground.

[Baitball Blogger]

42. What I'm trying to say is, that their oath does not demand allegiance to the president.

I know it's settled ground, but there is a lot with the military that needs to be changed.

[KentuckyWoman]

47. They are indeed trained to follow orders

We've seen people get pushed out for refusing to do what amounts to murder of unarmed children and grandmas. We've seen soldiers who followed those orders spend the next 50 years struggling with life or committing suicide later.

Where the road block has to be is at the very top. The few individuals with personal access to the President that translate orders downward. These are the individuals who we hope will start calling members of congress to put a stop to a maniac trying to use the military for personal gain.

If Trump calls up pentagon and says, we have proof Pelosi is planning a terrorist attack on innocent Americans, take her out. Then I would hope we don't have a Military that blindly follows orders. There has to be some kind of back channel to stop these sorts of things and I believe there is.

So while I certainly expect a war machine to be very willing and able to start wars, I don't believe for one second the leaders at the very top are eager to get into pointless war just for war's sake. There is a reason they are following orders like this that the rest of us don't understand. I'd really know to know what those reasons are, but doubt we'll find out.

[paleotn]

41. All members of the US military,

officers or enlisted personnel, take essentially the same oath, be it the Oath of Enlistment or the Oath of Office upon commissioning or the oath for National Guard officers....to protect and defend the Constitution and the Constitution only. A part of that Constitution states our military is at all times subject to civil authority. And that's a good thing. However, there's the whole concept of unlawful orders on which volumes have been written and is also covered in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so, like most human endeavors, it's complicated.

[Baitball Blogger]

44. I went through this on DU before.

Non-commissioned soldiers do an oath the Constitution and the president, in that order. But commissioned soldiers say an oath to the Constitution. Not the president.

[in2herbs]

4. Similar to my comments yesterday. We can't trust our military to keep trump away from the

nuclear button when they are so clearly supporting Trump on this assination. People have commented that our military couldn't have reacted to prevent it anyway because Trump's order was a lawful order and to disobey a lawful order would subject them to court martial.

Does no one in the military or Administration know the difference between a lawful order and an immoral act?

[Loki Liesmith]

6. It's not their job to keep him awake from the button.

It’s ours.

[in2herbs]

10. When we vote -- in any election --- we are kidding ourselves if we think we really know the person

we are voting for. IMO this is why our founding fathers required senate confirmation for people in certain positions, people and positions that voters do not pull the lever and vote for (or against). These people and positions, along with the military, are the ones that are supposed to keep check on the persons that we do vote for.

[Loki Liesmith]

12. The founding fathers did not give the military any leeway in this question

[relayerbob]

28. The military was given no role in checks and balances

We didn't have an organized central military then.

[Codeine]

39. The military has no role in checks and balances,

if for no other reason than many of the Founding Fathers didn’t even believe in the concept of a standing military force.

[Nay]

35. Really?? Our job? NO. Frankly, it's the SANE PEOPLE IN THE ADMIN who are now

charged with stopping this crazy person. But they like what he's doing. There are no sane people left.

I get it, I get it, this country voted him in, theoretically, through the electoral college, but the populace did NOT vote this monster in.

[stopdiggin]

38. and the "military" is not responsible for vetoing

a duly elected Commander in Chief. (and we should NOT want them to if we intend to preserve a democracy)
Posters are right .. this falls on the American VOTER. Not the military.

[PatrickforO]

30. Unfortunately, a lawful order can also be an immoral act.

That's the problem.

[aikoaiko]

5. Or the CIA

[Iliyah]

8. Simple - Mark Esper . . . .

Who is one of shithole's henchman . .

[babylonsister]

11. And Pompeo. nt

[dalton99a]

13. +1. Esper was a Raytheon lobbyist

and his deputy is Grover Norquist's younger brother

[erronis]

33. WOW! One of the people most intent in shredding democracy (Norquist) is in the pentagon.

I hope all of these evil scorpions will start taking each other out.

Unfortunately, they'll take out a lot of good people along the way.

[duforsure]

9. I think

Some resigned recently , and now a Pentagon official let it be known there was no imminent danger, and trumps lying. When trump attacks them all , and threatens them it'll show his intent, and he was well aware of it being illegally done.

[dewsgirl]

26. Six in one week, a DU member had a nephew that resigned from

the Pentagon, he was furious...they had asked for his loyalty and it was a factor in his resignation.

[Farmer-Rick]

15. Having been a Naval Officer, I can honestly say that military leaders

Are just as political as most people.

If they kiss up to the right guy they can get promoted. If they say the right thing they may get their next star. To think that the people we train to fight wars should be the ones to stop wars from ever occurring is kind of backwards.

It's the civilian leadership that historically puts the brakes on fighting. But our civilian leadership has absolutely failed us.

Besides Trumpy Dumpy can go through the military leadership like a kid in a toy box. He throws out those leaders on top who disagrees with him (or they resign or don't bother to compete for a position) until he gets to the bottom of the box where all the broken ones are. There is bound to be 1 or 2 that will do what Dumpy wants.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

17. Soldiers are not supposed to obey an illegal order.

They are also not allowed to think for themselves and conclude an order might be illegal.

The Nuremberg Trials basically concluded that "I was only following orders" was not a defense. However, that's exactly what is going on now.

[Blaukraut]

18. The pentagon should not include a choice that amounts to a war crime. Ever. n/t

[KPN]

31. Sorry about the Pats (from a lifelong Pats fan) and love your signature line!

Oh, and I agree fully with your sentiment on this.

[milestogo]

19. They didn't just go along with it, they PROPOSED it to Trump.

They may have been shocked when he chose this option, but if they hadn't proposed it to him, it would not have happened.

[2naSalit]

20. Who operates the drones?

Is that the military or a contractor via the CIA or is it still the CIA?

PS. Don't forget, Pompeo was head of CIA first.

[erronis]

34. Or the israelis or the russians? Both experts on intercepting/manipulating wireless data.

[tirebiter]

21. Where's the illegal part?

That is not a settled issue. Stupid, sure, really stupid, it destroys what containment has been achieved.

[stopdiggin]

43. it's settled enough that the military has employed it

for at least a generation now. It's not illegal according to the military. This argument goes nowhere.

[chowder66]

22. I would like to know why they didn't tell Trump they reviewed that option further and found it

not viable.... if they were so shocked.

[evilhime]

23. I miss Mattis

[IronLionZion]

24. DOD had a lot of resignations in December

Fifth Pentagon official announces resignation in seven days
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/475205-fifth-pentagon-official-announces-resignation-in-seven-days

The ones who stayed are probably Trump loyalists. There were definitely people who wanted Soleimani dead, and it's not too hard to get Trump to approve it.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

25. Yes, there appears to be much more to this that's not (yet) public. The real danger of having a

buffoon like Trump in office is the ease with which he can be manipulated to advance corrupt agendas.
Was the killing really a "spur of the moment" opportunity as is being portrayed, or was this a much more premeditated or even orchestrated assassination.

[KPN]

29. Plenty here are asking it. That will filter up shortly -- to our Congressional Reps and Senators,

and some key media like Rachel. Be patient.

[KentuckyWoman]

48. I hope you are right.

I never think of this board as effective as far as bringing things to the top. My voice isn't much but this is the best place I ever found to yell.

I really hope there are people who can make a difference that monitor places like this to see what's brewing.

[Roy Rolling]

37. DOD Disgrace

Sorry, every soldier in a war zone may be an honorable person, but whoever sent the tweet “...The president made us do it” is a disgrace.

I remind everyone of Trump’s military expertise.

[mopinko]

45. whoever set this trap knew just what to bait it w. schmaltz. no, they arent shocked.

there is no reason for a plan like this to be on the table, in front of that idiot, if someone powerful didnt want it there.
that stupid 52 for each hostage crap was prolly on the table, too. they had to put some sort of a what if in there in case someone was sane enough to ask what came next. oh, we hit them back harder.

yup, played.

[California_Republic]

46. We don't make the military fix A problem that we the voters made