All Activity
- Past hour
-
I don't think there's a simple objective answer to your question. The framers clearly understood that Congress could not be relied upon to act swiftly in times of military necessity. Thus the commander-in-chief. And more recently, the last few decades, Congress has happily offloaded unbelievable amounts of their authority to the executive. That includes many of the powers to wage war, despite retaining the now largely ceremonial function of declaring it. So I think the real answer in light of that, is that the president has the authority wage war until a veto-proof majority of Congress decides to take it away. The president is, after all, a direct representative of the people, and the only true representative of all Americans. The alternative to this construct is incredibly dangerous. Not to say that the current construct is danger-free, but I would rather we over-war, than under-war, if that makes sense. The former can be fixed with the existing structures of our government. The latter is existential. And my suspicion is that if we end up nation building, which I absolutely don't think is happening, you'll have more than enough Republicans vote against him to break a veto.
-
The question becomes who determines the lawfulness of the order? I know there are plenty of members here who are textbook examples of Dunning Kruger effect, however I’m pretty sure said members aren’t attorneys in good standing with a state’s bar. Therefore, their “legal analysis” of whether an order is lawful or not is moot.
- Today
-
Because as an officer, it is quite literally his job to understand the legality of orders before carrying them out. One of the unique and saving graces of the US military: The officers swear no allegiance to the president, but rather to the constitution, and specifically in the oath, are required to follow lawful orders.
-
Aside from the college-essay-esqe nature of your question and the interesting philosophical debate it could engender: why do you feel you have any legitimacy in questioning the legality of this conflict as an officer? I mean I get the rules of war and not violating clearly illegal bounds ala My Lai massacre, but in sooooooo, soo many cases in the modern era, this is how "war" is fought. WTF is "congressional approval" for anyway? Funding, right? Congress gets to declare war - which they don't do - so you and I know that in the real, modern world, the President has full and complete executive authority to launch whatever type of operation he deems serves our national security, Congress be damned. That's it. ROE is determined by government / military lawyers - not Congress. So, why do you think you have any legitimate basis upon which to question this operation vs any of the others you've been fine carrying out? Congress doesn't get any say whatsoever in what the scope of an operation is, whatever the label is you want to apply to it, be it 'limited,' 'temporary,' no 'boots on ground,' etc. So your question is inherently a red-herring. If you have (or had) a serious personal issue with how military operations have been conducted since WWII and Congress' (lack of) authorization, then you should have resigned your commission and stopped collecting retirement pay a long time ago.
-
They were just pretending to be interested in inputs to keep up appearances Saw that multiple times in my mediocre career, soliciting suggestions/applications for a position/program when the selectee was already decided on or the COA was set. But do what you can and what is reasonable, career self-immolation is rarely the right choice for anyone but an O-5/6 or above and even then only at the right time. Yeah, it’s going a certain way but I would say that the Borg could be convinced that quality is worth it in the long run. Sufficient flight hours, good equipment in reasonable quantity to keep production steady, specialized advanced flight training. This isn’t rocket science.Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following: This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board: When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)? And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line? For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.Can't remember the derogatory name given to the flag officers that came up with the current program, but it's obvious that when they opened up the conversation for ideas, their bandwidth was extremely narrow and recognition of valuable inputs from outside their staff was extremely short-sighted. With contracts awarded it's probably just too damn late to do anything about it. It'll be like the airlines, courses won't be changed and problems solved until it starts costing more money.Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7. Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26: *{3) F-15E fighters - $300M * (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M * (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless *(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B *(1) F-35 damaged - $135M * (1) E-3 AWACS - $700M Cost to replace: $3.145B
- Yesterday
@disgruntledemployee First, you put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. There are several things to be frustrated with on the tactical and operational level. That said, there is no war or great achievement without frustrations. So, yeah, there are actually sensible and good objectives with plans and contingencies addressed. Also, it was never all going to get done in 2-3 weeks. That was a dumb timeline from the beginning, but that doesn’t mean we barged in without a plan or zero thought put towards contingencies, off-ramps, etc. Bottom line: it’s a lot better than the MSM and you would like it to be. The red line for me would be mass ground invasion for longterm “nation building” (aka the last 25 years). I don’t support that one bit, and would view it as a leadership failure.
