Putting this in Cafe Society since it has to do with fiction being written:
Suppose you take a modern NATO-like situation - say, someone like Putin attacking NATO (but it doesn’t have to be Putin, and doesn’t have to be NATO) - and then a president like Trump orders U.S. forces to stand down and do nothing despite the defense treaties that obligate intervention - to what extent could individuals within the U.S. military or government agencies provide assistance anyway in secret and not get caught?
I would assume it must be extremely tiny and low-level, given that no secret would withstand being held by more than a few people.
If caught, would the penalty be akin to the level of full-blown treason itself - whichever U.S. official or commander provided help would be getting Ames/Hansen-type sentences in trial?
What if, instead of direct assistance, it took the form of some sort of passive-aggressive help from U.S. agencies or militaries that “fits the letter of what the president ordered but not the spirit of what he ordered?”
So the details are important. Are we talking about troops in the country being attacked being told to stand down?
That would seem it would give more leeway, as in a modern war they are going to be in harm’s way. In a major modern war there is no way an odd shell or bomb is not going to fall on a US base.
Then they are just acting in self defense, if anyone asks
Would an order actually telling US troops to not respond to a direct attack be legal one?
In a case like this I can see Generals taking things into their own hands. I can also see full support from congress against the president. As far as secrecy goes You would be lucky to get 24 hours.
I really don’t see that. It’s the president deciding not to go to war with a foreign power. Ultimately that’s the president’s job to decide, not a general’s. Whatever personal feelings the chain of command would win out IMO
Why would they even get involved? Any repercussions would be handled by military court martial, Congress has no power to intervene (they could impeach the president but that wouldn’t stop the court martial)
I was assuming the order would come before the attack. As in “I’ve made a wonderful deal with Mr Putin, it’s the best deal anyone has ever made. So stand down and do nothing as he invades Poland. I mean it do nothing even if you are directly attacked, mr Putin assures me it would be an accident, so you cannot respond or take any violent action to defend yourself”
In the story, the enemy nation knows the MAGA president doesn’t want to intervene, despite the treaty. So they go out of their way to ensure that U.S. forces are unharmed, so as to make it less likely America will intervene.
Though there is only so much they can do, I think. It’s not like the US bases are situated in out of the way places they are located where they be of most strategic use (and presumably close to other bases occupied by the host nation). So they would inevitably be in harm’s way to some degree, if a major war breaks out, even if it is the odd stray mortar round.
And hey don’t you know, in the esteemed strategic opinion of the top brass on the ground, the best way to respond to that stray mortar round is to launch a huge pincer movement against the enemies flanks with all their available troops. You know, for self defense.
Isn’t this exactly what happened with Trump, Gen. Milley and China? Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Milley call up a counterpart in China to say “don’t worry about Trump, he’s just talking shit, no need for any kind of aggressive military posture”. Trump was of the opinion that Milley should have been put to death for this. But for some reason Trump kept Milley on staff and never ended up doing anything about it other than complaining. So I guess that is our answer.
That’s not quite the same, though, if the MAGA president himself announces in public that he has no intention to intervene if an enemy attacks an ally - which Trump did when he said he encouraged Russia to attack NATO allies who weren’t spending enough on defense.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
All that is specified is that nations will take actions as they deem necessary.
As to how much a general officer could get away with insubordination of the president, the answer is, well, as much as he could get away with. See Douglas MacArthur, who had a long history of directly defying orders until Truman sacked him in Korea, after which he returned to receive a hero’s welcome on the floor of Congress. Probably his most blatant act of insubordination was the attack on the Bonus Marchers, in direct defiance of not one, but two direct orders from the commander in chief:
Although the troops were ready, [President] Hoover twice sent instructions to MacArthur not to cross the Anacostia bridge that night, both of which were received. Shortly after 9 pm, MacArthur ordered Miles to cross the bridge and evict the Bonus Army from its encampment in Anacostia