How does the military make political decisions?

Factual Questions
21

The short answer is - the people receiving orders either obey them or refuse, and suffer the consequences. If sufficiently few people choose to obey an order, or deem it unlawful, then chaos ensures and someone ends up in charge. It could be akin to a Saturday Night Massacre, where 2 AG’s were fired before Bork accepted and fired the special prosecutor. However, it had severe political repercussions, for Nixon and much later, for Bork. Something similar almost happened to Trump.

OTOH, if the person refusing is not backed by a decent number of the people behind him, it’s basically career suicide. best case, they get to resign. Worst case, they do time for mutiny. Because obviously, if the top general says “no” the prez will say “you’re fired” (unless those words are trademarked) and say the next guy in line is promoted. Then it’s the next guy’s turn to decide. Or the prez appoints his favourite pet military guy, and the ranks then choose wheter to accept that or not.

(As a side note, in recent demonstrations about decapitating the Israeli justice system, a large number of military and reserves threatened to no-show if the measure went through)

You might also end up with a standoff where the president says “do it” and the great majority of the generals say “nope”. The solution to this is political. If it’s a prelude to the president being told by almost everyone to back down, or quit (as happened to Nixon) then it just helps trigger the situation. Otherwise, the president cleans house. Such a standoff cannot last very long.

The previous responses are spot on - there is no magic means by which someone embedded in the command chain can second guess or ignore the formal processes that produce a political leader. It can only succeed if it is part of a massive reaction and much of society refuses to accept the result.

(The Shah had to exit Iran in a hurry, for example, when he told the army to fire on rioting civilians and they - many draftees - refused to obey. The Russian government collapsed when the soldiers en masse refused to obey the generals. That’s the alternative to accepting results.)

22

Although the legal details of determining who won the election can get hairy, Constitution authorization is pretty clear. Congress decides who won. If there are issues it can be challenged in SCOTUS, who then becomes the controlling authority. If Congress and SCOTUS can’t figure it out by noon on January 20th, then the Speaker of the House automatically becomes President.

The above (in a nutshell) is what they’re legally required to do. Of course the Constitution only works if people follow it, but if they don’t follow what I summarized above, then they’re breaking the law and violating their oath of office, and there’s no wiggle room. They’re not authorized to do their own legal analysis, or break out the loupes to look at hanging chads.

23

No, he absolutely cannot decide what is and isn’t a lawful order. The law decides that, and the courts adjudicate it.

Granted, Flynn could say “I’ve received an order to kill all Trump’s political opponents. I believe this is a lawful order and I will carry it out.” Obviously that order is unlawful. Flynn saying it’s lawful doesn’t make it lawful. He can tell all his subordinates to carry out the order, but crucially, they are still required to refuse the order. If they carry out the unlawful order, they can later be prosecuted for it, regardless of whether they were “just following orders.”

Now could they actually get away with executing an obviously unlawful order? That’s a different question. If the Executive Branch assures Flynn that they won’t prosecute, then lawful/unlawful is no longer a meaningful distinction. But that’s not a loophole in how the Constitution is written. The Constitution is a legal document, not a mind control ray. If enough people in power decide they’re not upholding it anymore, then it becomes toilet paper.

24

There is no concrete answer to this. The situation leading to the point where Chair of the JCs has to make that kind of decision, will also offer some directions that the Chair can decide between. At any point, you can expect them to act in a way that demonstrates impartiality, and whatever decision they take will have to be constitutionally water-tight.

25

That’s actually happening right now in the House of Representatives. The tiny Republican majority of members represent a minority of the population and they are using that power to investigate imaginary crimes.

26

I think this is a situation where common sense with the most senior military leadership dictates that the rule of law is not a suicide pact. It’s comforting to me to believe that this is the case, that in unique, extreme, obviously-wrong-though-apparently-legal circumstances, true leaders understand that “legal” may not be the guiding principle. Such situations should be exceedingly rare.

Seems similar to January 6 where Pence was forced to step in and direct the National Guard when, AIUI, he didn’t have the legal authority. Military leadership, I assume, recognized what a singular circumstance it was, that the catastrophic cluster@#$& underway demanded obvious action, and that the shit bird-in-chief was derelict in his duty.

These actions do violate the letter of the law. And, again, it’s comforting to me to believe that senior leaders have the wisdom to recognize the rare, rare situations where “legal” equals “catastrophic” for the people they swear to protect.

To the OP, I think this “unofficial X factor” would be an element in evaluating an order, depending upon the circumstances and the order itself.

27

This is also why the widespread suborning of the upper few tiers of military and other executive branch agencies is an important prelude to a full-bore “legal coup” as has been done in so many other countries over the last century or so.

The US institutions in 2016 were just barely resistant enough to not have them fall apart by 2020, despite a LOT of effort spent hiring the pliant and firing the principled during the four years of Trump. It was a very close call.

The timeframe from 2020 to 2024 has seen some gains back towards normalcy, but also widespread radicalization of Congress, SCOTUS, statehouses, and much of the the public in a vast swath of politically homogenous land area.

If a severe test occurs in 2024 I expect the Pentagon to do the right thing, some lower level military mutinies, and Congress, SCOTUS, and enough critical state houses to matter to totally drop the ball on preserving the Constitution and the government of righteous laws actually followed. Instead they will embrace partisan / criminal theft of our government.

Then the gloves come off and it gets exciting.

28

Maybe that’s a good thing, partisan ship tends to cloud judgment.

29

The question is thoroughly answered in Dr. Strangelove.

30

How can a never-ending media circus about fake crimes do anything but persuade much of the public that “where there’s smoke there must be fire?”

Investigations that exist only for partisan propaganda purposes are actively undermining democracy and constitutionalism. They’re treason, not patriotism.

31

Democracy is something mutually agreed on - even if you don’t like the results, you go along with the decision that the majority agrees on. When that mutual agreement starts to break down, if the process is hijacked in the minds of enough people or they disagree with othe side, then you get Fort Sumter, or the Indian wars of the late 1800’s, or Waco, Japanese internment, or Brown v. Board of Education with federal guard. At that point, the question is who has the biggest guns - and in many other countries, the answer is whoever can persuade the military to be on their side.

Legal has little to do with it. The legal niceties of an election are almost as easily hijacked as by means of force. We saw in 2020 how fragile actual democracy could have been - and in 2024 there are some legislatures that have implementedquestionable means to possibly change the outcome of their state.

This isn’t to debate about that. The point is, when faced with what a general (or colonel, or lower) percieves is a hijack of the system, they have to decide whether (a) if the orders they get are legal (there are constraints on the use of the military inside the USA) and (b) if they choose to obey an order that on the face of it is legal.

For example, the president can order the use of the military for various reasons:

The President may employ the armed forces … to … restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition … the President determines that … domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order … or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such … a condition … so hinders the execution of the laws … that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law … or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws

I suppose whether the conditions are met is a judgement call for anyone involved. (“Only followink orders” is a questionable defence) Whether the order is legal, whether to obey the president’s order would depend on whether the general in question believes the conditions for doing so are satisfied. Again - like the Saturday Night Massacre for the justice department, then the choices are refuse, resign, or rebel, with whatever consequences ensue. The difference is, the military has actual firepower and casualties could result.

32

Aside from the point made by others that the Joint Chiefs don’t give military orders, the DOD has a shitload of lawyers for this.

33

Aren’t many of the situations i’m describing in need of an immediate decision? POTUS comes up with “Ya gotta invade country X. Start moving the troops now. That’s a direct order.” Doesn’t the process start right then? Subject to alteration, of course, as the alert is sounded, plans implemented, transport arranged, etc. but is there always time for a bunch of lawyers to palaver for weeks about this sort of thing?

Say the country is attacked. Planes from country X cross our borders and start dropping bombs–are you saying the POTUS can’t do a thing until the lawyers have decided that Country X is indeed responsible and that attacking them is perfectly legal?

34

Responding to actual invasion/attack is explicitly a constitutional authority, so no need to stop to question that you need to do that.

35

There’s a hell of an excluded middle there. And a pretty silly strawman.

How much concern the NCA-level folks have depends on how unexpected the event is, and how much it does, or doesn’t comport with the global military-politio situation.

E.g. NK attacking SK will only be a surprise as to the exact timing. And we spend a metric shitload of money on intel to ensure it won’t be a total surprise. As we saw with Russia’s very much not-a-surprise invasion. Implementing existing response plans that have already been legally vetted in those circumstances goes quickly.

An otherwise sane president wants to invade Canada right this instant minute? Eyebrows will be raised and much delay will ensue.

An already known untrustworthy president wants to do [whatever] right this instant minute? Eyebrows will be raised and much delay will ensue.

Remember that in the case of an attack on the USA, it won’t be the president who first notices the attack. The entire military apparatus will already know what is going on and will be the one to inform the president of the attack. The president’s decision is not then a random thought-fart. It’s a (possibly random) thought-fart in the context of an objectively known ongoing attack. Very big difference in the NCA response to that.

Of course if there is an attributable attack on the US and POTUS decision is to stand down, or to attack some random 3rd country that he’s been bickering with in the press, that will (and ought to) raise a bunch of eyebrows before concrete action is taken.

36

What if the POTUS orders troops to attack the wrong country? “Yes, General, you’ve told me that these were Russian planes, but I want you to attack Venezuela–them Venezuelans are tricky bastards!”

37

Sure, but please remember who we elected in 2016, which is why I’m asking these somewhat ridiculous questions. And please remember that we attacked country X in 2003 when country Y was actually responsible. POTUS (and VPOTUS) has a certain amount of sway over legal decisions that the military is reluctant to overrule him on.

38

You have drifted into how is any order obeyed at all.

If it is an order within the scope of the standing constitutional and legal authority it is presumed lawful.

And you could have used a Real World example e.g. Iraq 2003. It was wrong, it was based in misinformation and fearmongering, it ended up making things worse.

But you may recall it did not happen instantaneously.
And in the strict letter it was perfectly lawful of W & Co. to order it. Lawful does not mean “right” or “good”.

39

ETA: @slicedalone two above …

True. Which is exactly why I caveated my scenarios with “sensible president” versus “untrustworthy president.”

I have no doubt there was a whole layer inside DoD that was keeping a weather eye on Trump’s latest shenanigans for most of his administration and thinking carefully about how much they would or would not follow through on what he might say. Pretty good bet that informal network is not chewing their nails over Biden’s actual or potential decisions.

If Trump is re-elected the same situation will occur immediately. If we see him start firing most of the generals / admirals, and it sticks, we’ll know the coup is afoot and we’re about to see a replay of Türkiye under Erdoğan. Which will take at least 30 years to clear out then another 50 to recover from.

40

It was essentially a political decision to use military force. Don’t you think it would have been responsible, if not heroic, for Bush’s generals to tell him, “We’re not quite sure this is legal, sir, so no troops will invade Iraq until we reach that decision. Sir.” And to bollix up the works until Bush and Cheney came to their senses?