(Still knows the Preamble by heart)
Yes, and if we are very lucky it would be like the general history of coups in Turkey, where the military sees itself as the last defense of the country and quickly returns the country to civilian control. I’m not convinced we’d be that lucky. Though I am wondering if many are wondering just who the “domestic” refers to at this point in “to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Oh absolutely, but a coup opens a whole can of worms that should be forever closed.
If the military disobeys orders the civilian order still exists and can react in different ways, if the military takes charge it’s all over.
If you check the history of military coups in the world, what you describe is, at best the exception, the rule is that it leads to disaster.
American exceptionalism may tell you different, but it’s almost always wrong.
But refusing orders is not a military coup, a military coup is the army marching into Washington and deposing the President, a very different thing.
I have no doubt that you’re correct.
I thjink I missed where any Dopers called outright for a “military coup” as the last backstop against American authoritarianism, but it could have been in threads I haven’t read.
It is a rosy view as most military coups don’t end very well for the country at large. But then we’re at a point where the institutions we depend on to prevent the rise of an autocrat have failed us at ever turn. The American voter, the press, Congress, and the Supreme Court have either purposely facilitated the rise of a dangerous despot or were too cowardly to prevent it. If people are looking at a possible coup with rose colored glasses it’s because they’ve lost hope in other alternatives.
I agree… up to a point:
When there was a coup in Honduras, some years ago, several dopers defended it because Honduras’ President at the time had taken some questionable decisions (but he was an angel compared to Trump).
I’ve also seen people here say things like “The military coup is the way South American countries solve the problem of authoritarian presidents”.
Well, as Cervaise said:
I know who I think it is.
I have a good friend who is a Marine. He keeps saying that Marines know their duty is to defend and uphold the Constitution, not the President. He is not happy about what’s happening but he seems to believe the military will behave itself should the worst come to pass.
I’m not sure I share his optimism. But I do hope he’s right.
I tend to feel the same way, but my belief is waning. Navy, not Marines, but still.
How long will it take to force out the people who believe in this oath (and understand it) and replace them with the hard-bodied, smooth-faced and smooth-brained angry young white guys that either don’t believe it or don’t understand it?
Hopefully longer than 4 years. But even then can America do enough in the 4 years after that to get quality people back in?
Are there any records as to who the U.S. militaries are trying to recruit, race, sex and politics-wise currently?
NOT speaking for anyone else, but I think part of the concern held by many of us is that while we agree that refusing illegal orders is the correct and moral thing to do, is that while a sane, rational actor would be daunted by this, Trump likely would be not.
And just refusing to take action at a crisis point, would likely lead to Trump mass firing, imprisoning, or even executing those doing so until he finds someone who is willing to do what he demands, and that a sufficiently large percentage of the military will comply. Either because he has the technical authority (martial law, enough support in congress, what have you), because they agree with his goals, or because they’re afraid that the consequences would be worse (again, the coup, or even just Civil War).
I think (IMHO) that everyone more-or-less agrees that by the time we’re at the stage where Trump is giving such orders, no matter the pretense, that we’re already in a defacto state of Civil War, and given such, and the risk of much/all of the military being used by the most authoritarian faction of such, it’s better to hope that the military coup run by the remaining elements of the apolitical military would be a better option.
So, it’s hoping for the least bad option of absolutely, horrifically terrible options. Which I’m stressing, because I agree 100% it’s not a good option, and easily see how the historical precedents give little-to-no reason to hope for a positive outcome (same with Civil Wars), but hoping for the least terrible seems the best we can do in this timeline.
My point was more that it’s easy to look at an actual rebellion as an enemy. It’s harder when it’s the civil administration being given effectively a green light my the courts.
And the day came that it stopped working there.
True. It’s a mutiny and then you get into who-blinks-first inside the command structure.
I mostly agree with you on this, but I think that the military coup is a lot like the trolley problem, yes if you have to decide between Nazism and a military coup, the coup is the least bad option, BUT you should be absolutely sure that you are not excluding other options.
For example Trump may give half the military orders to kill the other half, if they disobey en masse but if they are willing to do it you already have a civil war (which is different from a coup in my view) and if they aren’t there’s no need for a coup.
I can see an scenario like the one you describe as possible, but I caution against blinding oneself to alternatives.
I also believe we aren’t really disagreeing, at most we’re checking each other’s assumptions to try to find out what other possibilities we may be overlooking. In general we’re arguing about if it’s better to stabbed in the gut, or shot in the gut, and hopefully not overlooking something better than the least of two terrible wounds to the nation.
I guess that former Navy chief of staff Jon Harrison indicated that he would stay loyal to the constitution, rather than swear obedience to Dear Leader.