Trump vs the U.S. Military

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Life's a Hillary

It's pretty impressive how Mattis went from being one of the baddest mfers around to just some old, overrated general in a couple of Trump tweets

---

This is going to be heresy but there are those serving who believe his biggest accomplishments are knowing how to turn a phrase.

This is looking across a long series of decisions and actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABNAK

I just keep circling around to the question: how unwilling (or vocal about it) would the military be if asked to help enforce the "law of the land" regarding non-compliant individuals and some future gun ban? Don't know why but I have a gut feeling they'd be a little more in lockstep with whatever administration is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at the time. Not sure why I feel that way, but I do.

---

I NEVER held out hope OR believed that the majority of cops/LE and/or military would go against unconstitutional orders.
We have TOO MANY precedents as proof. For decades theyve enforced illegal laws, in emergency & non emergency situations. Look at what happened in Katrina- goblins shooting at Med-flight helos, murder/rape/looting as of then unprecedented amounts..they were taking guns from citizens & literally 90 year old women, AFTER body slamming them{see the vid on THAT}.
I never recall them going after the thugs-only the EASY targets, law abiding citizens. They WILL come for your guns when ordered. The military WILL do so too. Very few will refuse or quit.
Ive already seen that the last week or so too. They WILL NOT "have our backs" at all, I believe.

Officers at his pay grade and appointment are political animals. Those that aren't, don't get too that position. He's entitled to his thoughts and as a civilian more than welcome to air them.

That said, I think he needs a short history lesson about US troops operating on American soil during this 50 years in uniform. I'll give him Kent State as that was before he enlisted, but during his time as a Marine, we had the US military involved at Wounded Knee in 1973, the LA Riots in 1992 (and in LA the Marines put rounds downrange supporting the LAPD), Waco in 1993, and gun seizures during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. So I think his comments may be a bit disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrbieler

That said, I think he needs a short history lesson about US troops operating on American soil during this 50 years in uniform.

---

I suspect Mattis is familiar with recent military history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Straight Shooter

I NEVER held out hope OR believed that the majority of cops/LE and/or military would go against unconstitutional orders.
We have TOO MANY precedents as proof. For decades theyve enforced illegal laws, in emergency & non emergency situations. Look at what happened in Katrina- goblins shooting at Med-flight helos, murder/rape/looting as of then unprecedented amounts..they were taking guns from citizens & literally 90 year old women, AFTER body slamming them{see the vid on THAT}.
I never recall them going after the thugs-only the EASY targets, law abiding citizens. They WILL come for your guns when ordered. The military WILL do so too. Very few will refuse or quit.
Ive already seen that the last week or so too. They WILL NOT "have our backs" at all, I believe.

---

I don't think it's the majority, but it's certainly a sizeable minority. As I've said before, the segment that will turn against us is made up of true believers who support the mission, impartial mercenaries who follow any and all orders, and those who follow orders in order to survive but personally disagree with what they are doing. On the other side, there will be the saboteurs, the defectors, and the intentionally ineffective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeriousStudent

I wonder if anybody here is old enough to remember when Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock back in 1957?

http://armored-column.com/little-roc...orne-division/

He flew a 1,000 troops in to assist with the civil rights movement.

---

Don't remember it personally but know of the event from history. But there is a rather large distinction between sending the National Guard to enforce school integration in an area that hasn't really gotten out of control and sending in the National Guard to end something like the Watts riots.

Both had to be done, but one looks really, really bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1168

I suspect Mattis is familiar with recent military history.

---

then he's at best disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

Don't remember it personally but know of the event from history. But there is a rather large distinction between sending the National Guard to enforce school integration in an area that hasn't really gotten out of control and sending in the National Guard to end something like the Watts riots.

Both had to be done, but one looks really, really bad.

---

Understood, but that was not really what I was referring to. The Guvnah of Arkansas owned the National Guard in his state, unless they were federalized and came under the control of the DOD. At that point, they report up to the President and are paid out of a different bucket o' cash.

Ike deliberately bypassed him and sent not just Regular Army, but members of an Airborne Division. I know you are intimately familair with their role in the ETO, you have studied history as much or more than I have.

Sending the 101st was a very deliberate message, which was received by people who had either seen or heard of their deeds in Europe. It was not an accident.

Not ragging on ya at all, just expanding on it for our viewers at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeriousStudent

Understood, but that was not really what I was referring to. The Guvnah of Arkansas owned the National Guard in his state, unless they were federalized and came under the control of the DOD. At that point, they report up to the President and are paid out of a different bucket o' cash.

Ike deliberately bypassed him and sent not just Regular Army, but members of an Airborne Division. I know you are intimately familair with their role in the ETO, you have studied history as much or more than I have.

Sending the 101st was a very deliberate message, which was received by people who had either seen or heard of their deeds in Europe. It was not an accident.

Not ragging on ya at all, just expanding on it for our viewers at home.

---

I had actually forgotten the specific details of that tidbit. I was assuming Ike sent the NG to enforce the rules. And yeah, the 101 did send a rather specific message. Curious how he squared that with Posse Comitatus specifically. Did the requirements of the Insurrection Act get satisfied?

Just sounds like pay back for getting fired to me, especially since the good general's spiel sounded like he was quoting CNN.