Would the military accept Obama?

[Libsmasher]

I read that Obama has shortened his cut-and-run schedule for iraq by four months, to the end of 2009. It makes me wonder - would the experienced officer corps want to remain after this, the creation of an even more infamous US defeat than vietnam? My guess is lots would exit, severely jeopardizing america's military capabilities.

 

[Bunz]

Of course they will support the President. We have a military of professionals. No question. They will follow orders and due thier duty.

I read that Obama has shortened his cut-and-run schedule for iraq by four months, to the end of 2009. It makes me wonder - would the experienced officer corps want to remain after this

The experienced officer corps? Id venture a guess that many dont want to remain now. Except they are forced to through not allowing retirement, or being forced into it for having a political disagreement.

the creation of an even more infamous US defeat than vietnam? My guess is lots would exit, severely jeopardizing america's military capabilities.

A loss? We won the war. No question. All of our military objectives have been met. Large numbers of troops need to be withdrawn. The issues surrounding further American deployment beyond long term bases in Iraq is unwise. Providing security in Iraq is the most expensive entitlement program we have.

 

[The Scotsman]

Of course they will support the President. We have a military of professionals. No question. They will follow orders and due thier duty.

You say that...our lads would quite happily shove a grenade up Gordon Brown's ass for the way he and his Government have treated them.

Politicians pissing about playing soldiers....waste of sperm the lot of them!

The experienced officer corps? Id venture a guess that many dont want to remain now. Except they are forced to through not allowing retirement, or being forced into it for having a political disagreement.

The officer corps ain't the problem Bunz, the backbone of an army exists on the experience and loyalty of its NCO's....... if they leave then you're really screwed....


Rhetorical question remains though given another twin towers how would yer man Obama react?

 

[Bunz]

You say that...our lads would quite happily shove a grenade up Gordon Brown's ass for the way he and his Government have treated them.

Well I wouldnt want to speak for all the troops by any means. But I have heard some interesting things said about various politicians. There is considerable frustration at all the politicians, what I have noticed is a clear distain for Rumsfeld. Even though he is long gone, there is still some pissed off folks.

Politicians pissing about playing soldiers....waste of sperm the lot of them!

I understand your frustrations. I have a recently returned vet as a deckhand of mine. Plus I am friends with quite a few others that have returned from the sandbox. I wont claim any first hand knowledge, but I read as much as I can on the actual situation on the ground from a military standpoint. I also have had some very indepth conversations with those who have been there. Fascinating the view points they have when compared to the official reports.

The officer corps ain't the problem Bunz, the backbone of an army exists on the experience and loyalty of its NCO's....... if they leave then you're really screwed....

Oh I know Scotty, and that is my concern here. But the OP mentioned the officer core, which is why I kept with the theme. But then again, we have McCain who doesnt want to provide for the enlistedman in his vetrans bill is why Obama is the better candidate for our troops.

Rhetorical question remains though given another twin towers how would yer man Obama react?

An interesting one, no doubt. It wouldnt be fair to predict the future, especially if the unthinkable should ever be. But I would imagine as a matter of fact guarantee that he would not sit down and pretend to read a book to some school kids while not reacting, waiting for someone to tell him what to do and how to react.
As for the larger military issue. It is quite obvious he would not have attacked Iraq and would have focused on Afghanistan. Obama is no hawk, but he is no chicken either.

 

[Pandora]

The military will treat and feel for Obama like they did Bill Clinton. They treated Bill exactly like they should, with respect, and they really couldnt stand him.

Obama will gut the military just like Clinton did and the military will lose moral just like they did in the Clinton years.

 

[The Scotsman]

The military will treat and feel for Obama like they did Bill Clinton. They treated Bill exactly like they should, with respect, and they really couldnt stand him.

.....as you say you don't have to respect the leader but you have to obey him.

Its interesting though, in the UK the military owes its allegiance to the Monarch not to Parliament or the Labour Government. It is the quirky distinction that spawned the suspected coup plot in the UK in 1974 against the Heath Government! Moral with the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is at an all time low at the moment....watch this space

Obama will gut the military just like Clinton did and the military will lose moral just like they did in the Clinton years.

...what makes you say that? I would have though that with a resurgent Russia, China and India the US would be making a case for just the opposite. The geo-political scenes are shifting to the east, is this not something recognised in Foreign Affairs debates or in the media generally?

 

[The Scotsman]

As for the larger military issue. It is quite obvious he would not have attacked Iraq and would have focused on Afghanistan. Obama is no hawk, but he is no chicken either.

...I bow to your better judgement on that one.

Thing that is of interest to me though is the calibre of advisers that he surrounds himself with and whether he's prepared to listen to them. If only Bush had of listened to Colin Powell eh!

 

[Libsmasher]

Concerning officers - nearly EVERYONE knows that while not actually wanting wars to break out, they want to be in them if they exist, other factors being equal, because that is the only way to advance to high rank in the US military. Also, the notion that Obama would have gone into Afghanistan is insupportable. "Affirmative action" on steroids, as with the Carter and Clinton eras, would once again raise its ugly head with Obama, including in the military, and that factor undoubtedly would convince some white officers to leave, if they are to be held back because of their skin color.

 

[Pandora]

.....as you say you don't have to respect the leader but you have to obey him.

Its interesting though, in the UK the military owes its allegiance to the Monarch not to Parliament or the Labour Government. It is the quirky distinction that spawned the suspected coup plot in the UK in 1974 against the Heath Government! Moral with the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is at an all time low at the moment....watch this space

...what makes you say that? I would have though that with a resurgent Russia, China and India the US would be making a case for just the opposite. The geo-political scenes are shifting to the east, is this not something recognised in Foreign Affairs debates or in the media generally?

Well I say it because it is what Obama said. He did not use the word GUT he used the word cut. But it is the same thing. He has a lot of programs he wants to start, to do that you have to end something else. its just a differnt direction but nothing that can't be fixed I supose.

 

[Bunz]

The military will treat and feel for Obama like they did Bill Clinton. They treated Bill exactly like they should, with respect, and they really couldnt stand him.

Obama will gut the military just like Clinton did and the military will lose moral just like they did in the Clinton years.

Clinton was a matter of timing. Just like the credit he often gets for the economic boom of the internet age, and it isnt really deserved, same goes for his getting the blame for "gutting" the military. We did not, and still do not need a military the size we had during the cold war. One can argue it might have gone to far, that is a matter of opinion. Regardless of who was elected President, when the USSR dismantled, it was no longer necessary to maintain that level of militarization.

As a side note, morale especially among the junior officers from what I have seen is alarmingly low right now.

 

[Bunz]

.....as you say you don't have to respect the leader but you have to obey him.

Its interesting though, in the UK the military owes its allegiance to the Monarch not to Parliament or the Labour Government. It is the quirky distinction that spawned the suspected coup plot in the UK in 1974 against the Heath Government! Moral with the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is at an all time low at the moment....watch this space

The American armed forces dont swear allegiance to any person. They swear allegiance to the Constitution. Now in the conny it says that the President is CinC, but if theorhetically the President was to give an order outside of the Constitution...well that another discussion topic.
Here for the record is the oaths of allegiance are for the American armed services.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

 

[Bunz]

Concerning officers - nearly EVERYONE knows that while not actually wanting wars to break out, they want to be in them if they exist, other factors being equal, because that is the only way to advance to high rank in the US military. Also, the notion that Obama would have gone into Afghanistan is insupportable. "Affirmative action" on steroids, as with the Carter and Clinton eras, would once again raise its ugly head with Obama, including in the military, and that factor undoubtedly would convince some white officers to leave, if they are to be held back because of their skin color.

His willingness to say that he would use airstrikes in Pakistan if there was a good shot of getting OBL is proof enough for me that considering the events of 9-11 that conflict with AlQ in Afghanistan would have occurred and likely would have been more successful than what our current efforts in the manhunt have shown to be.

 

[Bunz]

Well I say it because it is what Obama said. He did not use the word GUT he used the word cut. But it is the same thing. He has a lot of programs he wants to start, to do that you have to end something else. its just a differnt direction but nothing that can't be fixed I supose.

It is amazing what a force the American military is, and if the troops currently working way outside of thier job description in Iraq were to be strategically re-deployed.

 

[Pandora]

Clinton was a matter of timing. Just like the credit he often gets for the economic boom of the internet age, and it isnt really deserved, same goes for his getting the blame for "gutting" the military. We did not, and still do not need a military the size we had during the cold war. One can argue it might have gone to far, that is a matter of opinion. Regardless of who was elected President, when the USSR dismantled, it was no longer necessary to maintain that level of militarization.

As a side note, morale especially among the junior officers from what I have seen is alarmingly low right now.

Not many are willing to admit that Clinton was not the cause of the economic boom, and the internet was... I am glad the Clintons are now hated because some truth of their time in office if FINALLY coming out.

I think he went to far gutting it, and the service paid dearly for it. It is going to happen again but on a grander scale with Obama, but I do agree the morale is low right now. but I think a lot of people are to blame for it.

the left and the right are both using the sodiers as political pawns.

 

[Libsmasher]

His willingness to say that he would use airstrikes in Pakistan if there was a good shot of getting OBL is proof enough for me that considering the events of 9-11 that conflict with AlQ in Afghanistan would have occurred and likely would have been more successful than what our current efforts in the manhunt have shown to be.

I missed that statement - have a link? And what does the appeaser left think of that statement, when their main reference in the wars against the IFs has been "legality"?