Joint Chiefs remind U.S. forces that they defend the constitution

Its not an idea or a principle or a law. It’s culture. It’s a norm that has been socialized into members of the military, especially the leadership, for hundreds of years. I live in Annapolis now by the Naval Academy and it’s quite a joy to see each new cohort of naval officers carry on the tradition.

**

Edit to respond to reply below asking if there are no honorable people in the military.

**

Not saying that there are no honorable people in the military. There are plenty.

What I’m saying is getting to leadership position in the government, business or military requires a lot of political savvy.

Of course everything the Joint Chiefs said is accurate, but also view it through the lens of how saying it now benefits the person saying it.

It’s pretty apparent that the Capitol Riot has led to a major shakeup across the entire government. It’s apparent that everyone is looking to position themselves as best they can for the post-Trump world.

Think of it like after Germany was defeated in WW2. Collaborators told stories of how they bravely resisted. Those who just laid low painted themselves as brave partisans. Some hated Germany for their own selfish reasons but post-war could exploit their resistance and claim to be nationalists. Others saw a power vacuum and realized now was the time to exploit it.

It’s quite interesting to watch.

On the other hand, it's distressing to know why this letter to the military had to be issued reminding service members that the law prohibited them from engaging in insurrection: the presence of military (active and retired) among the insurrectionists, and the danger that would also be the case in the imminently-planned follow-on attacks.

They’re actually not. Thanks to a (trump era) SCOTUS ruling, EC votes are now fully regulated by the states.

Another is that there is so much money to be made in the military and the surrounding defense contractors, and in the modern day glory with violence and conquering is less pleasurable than big houses and luxury cars.

In general, I suspect this change stems from a few things. One is that generals do not lead soldiers into combat as directly any more. Another is that soldiers no longer stand to personally profit from combat or war -- there is no taking of booty, raping and pillaging are at the very least heavily frowned upon, etc. And another thing is that combat actions are less frequent these days, so any given soldier has a shorter sequence of experiences and victories with a given commander.

But I'm not an expert historian. These are just some guesses.

Even before the Roman Empire, all people in public life had to spend time in the military. In the Roman Republic you were elected to office, by a very limited voting pool, which included your military connections. It was thought of as more civil than the Roman Kings, who got to be in charge by right of military force.

The Empire grew out of the Dictatorship, which had been a title you were appointed to for a limited term. The term limits went out the window, and they never really established an orderly transition. It was ad hoc for four centuries. They had hardly two successions in a row decided the same way.

Americans, by contrast, prided themselves on their rules. They explicitly contrast themselves with the UK, which had a hereditary monarch. They pride themselves on their orderly democratic transitions.

It helps that George Washington voluntarily limited his term. I believe that his decision not to run again is one of the most important events in history. Americans have almost literally deified Washington; there's an incredibly embarrassing statue of him dressed as Zeus in the Smithsonian.

Washington was a military leader who respected the orderly transition, and that had been a huge part of American self-image. For a military leader to use the military to seize power would be almost unthinkable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_honorum

The letter is a message to those in uniform reminding them that they are to protect to constitution. Considering the police, military and ex-military involved in the Capitol violence it seems reasonable.

The troops are conditioned to follow orders. That is why, the troops are always gauged and defended on the basis of the orders and their faithful execution of the orders, no matter how horrific they are. Troops are punished for not following orders.

Those in the administrative side of the army, they are punished for orders and decisions.

So, to subvert the military, you don't have to control the whole of it, just the leadership.

In the present case of America, the military is under the full command of trump. He holds all power and that power is absolute.

Unfortunately, he is a fascist moron with dreams of authoritarian rule.

These statements from the military are essentially telling him, the military will take a decision when push comes to shove, and that decision by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be on the understanding of law, and their oath to the constitution, even though they are bound to follow the orders of the president

Considering the seemingly high number of military veterans among the Capitol mob and the fact that several Capitol police officers have been suspended because of their "friendliness" with the mob, I think there are pretty serious questions on loyalties, indeed.

I mean that’s a pretty safe assumption in any organisation of 1.3m people.

There’s also no harm in any organisation of that size in reminding people explicitly what their orders are, in no uncertain terms.

2)Unambiguously leadership on core principles is not a PR stunt.

This move matters, because it is important that members of the armed forces be able to distinguish between lawful orders, which they must obey, even if they do not like them, and unlawful orders, which they must not obey.

The use of nuclear weapons is clearly covered by that clause and several others giving Congress the power to regulate the military, whereas the Executive has the authority to execute those duly regulated rules.

Just before the election, he reminded Trump administration that all this nonsense is not going to dwell anywhere in the military: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMaI1Hg8dl8

Not likely. Loyalty to the Constitution, and not the President or any one person, is the living cultural bedrock of the US military. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Milley spoke about this recently in the most explicit terms:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nMaI1Hg8dl8

Aaaannnnd it's gone front the front page, that was quick

That doesn't mean that all political submissions are cool on HN. If you want to read about how we approach this, see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If there's still a question after reviewing that material, I'd like to know what it is.