Maybe time to wake the president if you're chaining the defense condition...
Schlesinger (Secretary of Defence) ordered military not to react to orders from the White House unless he cleared them first. Nixon ordered bombing raids that were silently canceled by Kissinger.
Comforting at least that there are people responsible enough to ignore those orders.
“Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward.
Mattis reportedly assured Trump that he would look into it, but then told a senior aide: “We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to be much more measured.”
At Mattis’s direction, national security officials allegedly drew up options for a more conventional response, including the cruise missile strike on a Syrian military installation that Trump eventually approved.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/04/mattis-trump-demand-assas...
The DoD was even one of the more prominent examples of an executive agency choosing to buffer Trump’s impulses—when Trump announced a ban on transgendered people serving in the military (which was, according to Woodward, in response to a more nuanced discussion about whether the military should pay for or perform reassignment surgeries—Trump was in the discussion and hours later abruptly decided to tweet), DoD responded with a statement that they had received no Presidential order and that no policy change would be made until an order was received and a plan for implementation was devised.
Another repeated theme in the book was the apparent fact that Trump just basically says things and makes decisions and then doesn’t consistently remember to follow up on them, meaning that offhand Trumpian pronouncements that nobody ever put into writing would go forgotten—at least until Trump was provoked into pressing the issue, perhaps by one of his more sycophantic aides.
I actually feel just a tiny bit sorry for Trump. I have the increasing impression that he’s a deeply simple man being manipulated in competing directions by everyone around him. It’s an impression I’m very dubious of, because Republican presidents are routinely perceived as charismatic, naive simpletons being manipulated by conspiracies of sinister right-wing advisors. Both Reagan and W. Bush were suspected of this, but there’s considerable behind-the-scenes evidence to the contrary. I’d be interested in any other reports or memoirs from behind the scenes of the Trump administration, but so far it looks like Trump really is the real deal. The only difference is that the rise of Trump was enabled and precipitated by a complete fracturing of the Republican Party, and many different factions are all trying to pull Trump their way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
He literally watches Fox News and tweets about it immediately afterward sometimes.
He really seems to be that uninformed / scared / elderly person who doesn't know any better ..... with a lot of ego.
No one would hire a surgeon who had never been to medical school, or a mechanic whose only knowledge about cars came from watching Top Gear, but for some reason we're willing to elect a President based primarily on his lack of expertise in (and disdain for) politics and the law.
Such as the likelihood that he trusts Fox News more than his own cabinet, or his calling out hits on people likely because he just assumes that's how government works.
I agree with your assessment, but I feel sorry for the rest of the world more than the useful idiot.
To be born with incredible privilege combined with such a lack of insight and a feeling of entitlement would not be the heaviest cross ever borne.
This is not how it works, the president has the sole authority to decide to launch a nuclear attack. Quoting from Wikipedia[1].
> This verification process [involving the Secretary of Defense] deals solely with verifying that the order came from the actual President. The Secretary of Defense has no veto power and must comply with the president's order.
And from another article[2]:
> If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.
That quote is paraphrasing e.g. this source in the New York Times[3]:
> “There’s no veto once the president has ordered a strike,” said Franklin C. Miller, a nuclear specialist who held White House and Defense Department posts for 31 years before leaving government service in 2005. “The president and only the president has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.”
Furthermore, the reference to the "button" (nuclear football) and the Secretary of Defense being involved is only a reference to the protocol around that specific launch system, but there's other methods of launching nuclear weapons available to the president, and which operate at his sole discretion.
Here's what ex-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry said about it[4]:
> “What is clear, is that the secretary of Defense does not have veto power on it. This is a decision of the president’s,” Perry told Politico’s “Off Message” podcast.
> [...]
> “The order can go directly from the president to the Strategic Air Command. The Defense secretary is not necessarily in that loop,” Perry said in the interview.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football#Operation
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/science/donald-trump-nucl...
4. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/360277-former-pentagon-chi...
There’s also no obligation for the military to obey an illegal order.
The verification step is just that they have to acknowledge that the person ordering the launch is indeed the president. They get no say in whether it happens.
> There’s also no obligation for the
> military to obey an illegal order.
Once the launch order goes submarine crews or crews in various missile silos aren't going to be given the chance to check what Trump has been saying on Twitter, and they have no independent way to verify that North Korean / Russian / Chinese ICBMs aren't already in-flight heading towards every major city in the US.
OTOH, an illegal attempt by the President to order a nuclear first strike could conceivably be stopped before the order left the National Command Authority, and the apparent violations of policy would be legally defensible after the fact.
If the President orders a blatantly illegal, unjustified nuclear first strike, the outcome will be millions of innocent deaths and the probable complete devastation of the United States. Refusing to verify the order, physically isolating the President from the ability to communicate down the chain of command, or even more drastic actions could be papered over and excused after the fact a lot more easily than “just following orders” that would lead to the largest and most pointless loss of life in human history.
I believe that was before Kelly came in as chief of staff. He seems to have things more under control, although that means he's in control of a lot more than he really should be. The latest report is that Trump wants to fire him but can't figure out how because he relies on Kelly to fire people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house...
To really believe that, you'd have to discount or be ignorant the massive military spending advantage.
Maybe you believe that our government is in such shambles that they wouldn't _respond_ to an attack. If any error would be made, it would be an overwhelmingly.. excessively disproportionate response to any aggression.
MAD is still in play... If anyone wanted to immenitize the eschaton, now's the time to invade.
The reality, given what we know about Nixon, is likely simpler: he was drunk.
https://www.alternet.org/drugs/huge-role-alcohol-has-played-...
If the president is incapable, as Nixon was in your description (and in https://www.alternet.org/drugs/huge-role-alcohol-has-played-... linked down-thread), then there's a procedure wherein the VP takes over, isn't there? Not performing this procedure is deciding to contradict the democratic will of the people.
Now, I can see how you might not want to publicly remove the president in a military crisis situation; but the way it was done seems completely wrong, just assuming power without due process, countermanding the president whilst they remain the president .. (as Nixon was CinC surely that's reason for a Court Marshall?)
Did the people ever react to that, have anyone punished? Or are the USAmerican people happy to have a VP secretly assuming power, a Secretary of Defence that chooses when to obey orders, etc?
On the scale of the presidency not carrying out some particular bombing raid is like some minion in an office setting not complying with an order from his boss because he knows it's the right thing. You're somewhat risking your job, and if the boss really cared he could get it done with or without your malicious non-compliance.
Democratic order, democracy and the law pale in significance compared to the need for the nation to survive or human race to to survive in the worst case.
When the global nuclear war is on the table, I hope that everyone involved understands that all vows and laws should go out of the window if need be. Only thing that matters is preventing the war, whatever means necessary. Even murder is morally acceptable.
Also, all military personnel are not only allowed to disobey any unlawful order, they have a DUTY to do so. Trumps order to kill Assad is an example. [1]
Moreover even with potentially legal orders, there are orders that present military professionals with moral dilemmas, "...decisions wherein the needs of the institution appear to weigh on both sides of the equation. Whether the issuer of the order is a superior officer or a civilian leader, the same principles apply. In the face of such a dilemma, the military professional must make a decision, which cannot simply owe its justification to the principle of obedience, and must take responsibility for that decision. " [2]
It was rather firmly established at Nuremberg that "following orders" is no excuse for immoral or illegal behavior. Up and down the chain of command, every person is expected to take responsibility for their actions. Those actions may include modifying or refusing to implement orders. The consequences may be anything from commendation or promotion to court martial or death.
Yes, they are taking a risk in countermanding the POTUS/CIC. They are also exercising responsibility.
[1] http://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-l...
[2]https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking_ranks_dissent_an...
The crux of it as I see it is that if you decide your orders aren't legal, then your SO surely should be relieved of command, isn't that the proper process? Not relieving them of command, but "simply" choosing to not follow some orders is breaking the visibility of who is in charge. In the case of the president the people aren't being informed that their elected nominee (or the electoral college that they voted in's nominee) is no longer in charge -- this is why I consider it a breakdown in democratic order. Not that the orders were countermanded, but that it was covered up.
Now, as I said you may not want it to be public immediately; but executive/cabinet members should be aware, and their should be official record and once the immediate crisis has passed then there would need to be a process to follow to keep the incapable/immoral officer (eg POTUS) out of command and quickly establish a new figurehead/leader.
That said, it is often impractical, or would create too much of a problem. E.g., the person currently occupying the President's chair and CIC title, is apparently issuing illegal orders (e.g., 'kill Assad'). The ideal solution is the 25th Amendment to relieve him of duty. The problem is that this requires the VP, majority of the Cabinet, then 2/3 of the Senate to execute. Even bigger hurdle for impeachment
This will simply not happen in today's environment, so what is someone in Mattis' position to do? Simply follow orders and become complicit in the crime, or find a way to undo them?
One of the key lessons I learned from several people I worked with who had held US Mil command positions, was that leadership is NOT about giving orders -- many civilians think that mil leadership is easy because of the Chain of Command and orders.
If you think that, then the best case is that you order "Do X" and your second in command says "Do what the chief says" -- i.e., he adds zero value. Leadership is about making those under your command want to execute your orders to the best of their ability.
The person currently occupying the President's chair fails miserably at that basic standard, the party supports his every move for a variety of reasons. Therefore, those under his command are stuck with workarounds.
The man has a press secretary. He could resign today, talk about this, and actively campaign for impeachment. The man has a pension, it’s not his god given right to be a cabinet member. Nobodys asking him to shoot his mother.
Not only would this be a Big Fucking Deal, it also forces stuff like congress passing more laws to prevent attempted beheadings of foreign governments.
Principles only exist if you’re willing to pay a personal cost to enforce them. Otherwise it’s just lip service.
And yes, if the person occupying the President's chair had actually given a specific direct order, as in "As President, I'm hereby ordering you specifically to implement a plan to attack and kill another head of state, specifically Bashir Al Assad; do it by next week or I'll relieve you of duty and court martial you for insubordination", Mattis would have little choice to either comply, resign, or wait for the MPs to arrest him.
However, it is extremely unlikely that the order was that specific, and so both creates the moral dilemma referenced above, and the opportunity to use discretion in how the request is implemented.
And even if such a "Big Fucking Deal" happened, in this environment, it's a fart in a hurricane, and if you actually expect this congress to act as you expected, perhaps we should talk about this bridge I have for sale...