How can a man who sees our Constitution as fundamentally flawed take an oath to support and defend it? Oh wait; never mind.A better question: how would a general officer, who has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, react if given a controversial order of questionable lawfulness? Would he honor his oath and ask to see a birth certificate, or would he just follow orders?
There is an observable change in many mid-grade military officers that is affectionately termed the O-5 lobotomy. This, in my opinion, is the career point where men answer less to their unit than they do to the political winds that sit on the O-6 selection boards.
I attended a Navy change of command ceremony not too long ago. The career-track O-5s are wired tight. One beer with dinner. Flattering remarks towards the Admiral. Another beer later at the blackjack tables. I can only imagine how anal things get among the 3-stars.
Marines are much more comfortable in their own skin. This confidence probably comes from the demanding physical nature of their work. The traditions of the Marine Corps are drilled into officer candidates, and recruits, from the beginning. These traditions are celebrated. The goal of the recent prosecutions may just be to weaken the fabric of this very strong organization. If you ever get the chance to attend a Marine Corps Birthday Ball, go. It will make you feel better.
One fundamental flaw that would face any scheme to use the military in an unconstitutional manner is that military officers, of all ranks, take the same oath.
1 comment:
It may be a dangerous assumption, but most persons contemplating the use of force against the Federal gov't consider that most company grade officers will not give an order to fire on US citizens.
There's a lot of angst about this, and the NorthCom experiments are a direct answer to the Feds' worry that the assumption might be true.
Post a Comment