If Trump decides to use the military to take Greenland by force will we see a subset of service members who will refuse to take place in such an operation?
While I think the President is merely engaging in his usual bluster and won't actually engage the military to do such a thing it will be interesting to see how the military might respond.
I'm an old field commander who commanded loosely attached groups to the 5th SFG in Viet Nam running groups in 12-30 men missions. Our allies were everything. Leftover French, South Koreans (yeah, no one really realizes how many South Koreans fought in our Viet Nam war), Aussies, etc.
I don't know how you pull a trigger with an ally in your sights. How could a pilot press a missile launch on a plane from Denmark, Norway, etc. where you may personally know and have trained (or even fought together in Afghanistan) with the pilot in that plane. And we aren't fighting the Afghans or Iraqis - the Norwegians, Swedes, French, etc. fly similar equipment and are equally trained so this isn't Venezuela with no casualties. US solidiers will die and US planes will be downed - by OUR ALLIES.
I'm a diehard republican, conservative, military person. If he releases commands to actually engage NATO allies this is a clear 25th amendment case. Anything less and we will be a dictatorship. And I wasn't wounded twice and lost countless good men for that.
Military archbishop says it might be 'morally acceptable to disobey' orders to attack Greenland I am hearing rumblings that I haven't heart about other decisions, mostly among the officer corps I work with, and retired officers at work. It's mostly a "this makes no sense" type sentiment, and some discontent about breaking up alliances. I don't think most Americans join the military to be part of a campaign of conquest and land acquisition for security or resources (like Russia and Crimea or China and Taiwan). So I do believe there will be people that will attempt to sit it out. I also believe that many generals and admirals will likely submit resignations should it come to it. They will likely be replaced by "yes men." But I also don't think we will attack Greenland. Nor do I think Europe would engage in a shooting match with us. I still can't figure out if this is a big "wag the dog" situation or what. Because it just doesn't make sense.
If Trump decides to use the military to take Greenland by force will we see a subset of service members who will refuse to take place in such an operation?
While I think the President is merely engaging in his usual bluster and won't actually engage the military to do such a thing it will be interesting to see how the military might respond.
Take a breath and think happy thoughts and it will be over.
I think some of y'all don't realize how few "fighting" forces our "Allies" have, especially the Nordics.
If you're interested, there are some really good foreign language films and series from the last decade where the premise of the show is, them fighting with the Americans in AFG.
I don't think the dozen or so trigger pullers from Denmark or Norway are going to offer much resistance. And hasn't Germany already gone home?
There's nothing to see here. We're not going to launch any military action by force in Greenland.
If you're interested, I recommend this Danish show (Kriegen) "A War".
And this Norwegian series called "Nobel"
And.. did you know there was a Swedish equivalent to James Bond called "Hamilton". That's a good one too. Here's a trailer for "In the Interest of the Nation"
But it is the answer. If monkeys fly out of my butt would you catch one and keep it as a pet? It is irrelevant if you would because that particular event isn't going to happen.
But it is the answer. If monkeys fly out of my butt would you catch one and keep it as a pet? It is irrelevant if you would because that particular event isn't going to happen.
Go back and read the original post. Reading comprehension…. it's a thing.
That's fine and dandy. However, you're clearly quite confused. No where did I mention the European nations ability to counter a possible US military move on Greenland
The simple question was…. should the US military actually launch an operation on Greenland will there be a subset of American service members who refuse to take part?
Ultimately it's a yes or no question with the person answering explaining their answer in greater detail, or not. That's it.
If your completely implausible scenario occurs, then I'm sure that some small subset of service members will refuse to deploy. And that small subset should rightfully get to spend some time in Fort Leavenworth.
Service members have a right (and duty) to refuse ILLEGAL orders. Not orders, policies, or strategies that they disagree with or find distasteful/immoral. Like it or not, the President is the Commander in Chief and has the legal right to employ military force in pursuit of US policy and National interests. The check on that power is Congress, not the individual service members. If the President authorizes and orders military action, then get on the plane. If he orders you, in the course of said action, to machine gun the civilians and bayonet the babies, then you have a case to refuse orders.
If your completely implausible scenario occurs, then I'm sure that some small subset of service members will refuse to deploy. And that small subset should rightfully get to spend some time in Fort Leavenworth.
Service members have a right (and duty) to refuse ILLEGAL orders. Not orders, policies, or strategies that they disagree with or find distasteful/immoral. Like it or not, the President is the Commander in Chief and has the legal right to employ military force in pursuit of US policy and National interests. The check on that power is Congress, not the individual service members. If the President authorizes and orders military action, then get on the plane. If he orders you, in the course of said action, to machine gun the civilians and bayonet the babies, then you have a case to refuse orders.
But it is the answer. If monkeys fly out of my butt would you catch one and keep it as a pet? It is irrelevant if you would because that particular event isn't going to happen.
Go back and read the original post. Reading comprehension…. it's a thing.
Might want to check your reading comprehension, you know, it is a thing after all. You brought up a hypothetical that won't happen and wondered what the reaction would be. I countered with another hypothetical that won't happen with a question of response to that hypothetical. Bottom line, the answer is irrelevant because neither hypothetical will occur. We won't be the aggressor (which is your hypothetical) therefor the answer is irrelevant (whether we see service members decline to participate or not).
We won't be the aggressor= President Trump won't give orders to invade Greenland therefor service members won't have to disobey an unlawful order.
But it is the answer. If monkeys fly out of my butt would you catch one and keep it as a pet? It is irrelevant if you would because that particular event isn't going to happen.
Go back and read the original post. Reading comprehension…. it's a thing.
Might want to check your reading comprehension, you know, it is a thing after all. You brought up a hypothetical that won't happen and wondered what the reaction would be. I countered with another hypothetical that won't happen with a question of response to that hypothetical. Bottom line, the answer is irrelevant because neither hypothetical will occur. We won't be the aggressor (which is your hypothetical) therefor the answer is irrelevant (whether we see service members decline to participate or not).
We won't be the aggressor= President Trump won't give orders to invade Greenland therefor service members won't have to disobey an unlawful order.
You're missing the forest for the trees.
The question, albeit a hypothetical one, merely asks how service members might react to a an order from the Commander in Chief to engage in military actions agains an allied nation. It, in very simple form, is merely a thought experiment. As I stated in my OP I don't believe Trump will do such a thing. My assumption, given your somewhat emotional response, is that you're taking this as an attack on Trump. It wasn't, if I want to go after Trump I'll take it to F16.
The googles says that the US has "taken" territories at least 25 times since 1812, with "taken" meaning by treaties, annexations, purchases and occupations. We have turned out pretty awesome by doing the above, and the precedent has been set for well over 200 years. Why are people wringing their hands about Greenland when the US is who the US is because of what we have done in our past?
I saw a graph that said that our defense spending is very near the TOTAL of all other NATO members combined. It is that high because we have been protecting Western Europe, all NATO countries and damn near every other country on earth minus six or seven malcontents. If we are to spend so much on the protection of others, why not make the others, ours? Especially places that are now so necessary to our safety?
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if Trump comes out and says that Iceland is next on the acquisition list as it would make a good bookend to Iceland.
Lets call it the International level version of Adverse Possession. We have pretty much protected it for decades so now it is ours.
And as for those who would refuse to deploy? I hear Ft Leavenworth is nice this time of year.
The googles says that the US has "taken" territories at least 25 times since 1812, with "taken" meaning by treaties, annexations, purchases and occupations. We have turned out pretty awesome by doing the above, and the precedent has been set for well over 200 years. Why are people wringing their hands about Greenland when the US is who the US is because of what we have done in our past?
I saw a graph that said that our defense spending is very near the TOTAL of all other NATO members combined. It is that high because we have been protecting Western Europe, all NATO countries and damn near every other country on earth minus six or seven malcontents. If we are to spend so much on the protection of others, why not make the others, ours? Especially places that are now so necessary to our safety?
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if Trump comes out and says that Iceland is next on the acquisition list as it would make a good bookend to Iceland.
Lets call it the International level version of Adverse Possession. We have pretty much protected it for decades so now it is ours.
And as for those who would refuse to deploy? I hear Ft Leavenworth is nice this time of year.
Jesus Christ, what a convoluted, scary, demented view.
That's fine and dandy. However, you're clearly quite confused. No where did I mention the European nations ability to counter a possible US military move on Greenland
The simple question was…. should the US military actually launch an operation on Greenland will there be a subset of American service members who refuse to take part?
Ultimately it's a yes or no question with the person answering explaining their answer in greater detail, or not. That's it.
Why would a subset of US Military members refuse to take part?
That's fine and dandy. However, you're clearly quite confused. No where did I mention the European nations ability to counter a possible US military move on Greenland
The simple question was…. should the US military actually launch an operation on Greenland will there be a subset of American service members who refuse to take part?
Ultimately it's a yes or no question with the person answering explaining their answer in greater detail, or not. That's it.
Why would a subset of US Military members refuse to take part?
It's a simple question.
Is it a stretch to believe there would be service members who might take issue with launching a military operation against an allied nation? As some of the comments here make abundantly clear this is something of a contentious issue. Correct?
And, on a personal note, I've spoken with several friends who are on active duty who are quite uncomfortable with the idea of taking Greenland by force. Now, does that mean they would refuse to take part in such an act? We'll probably never know as I don't believe it will actually happen. But merely asking the question seems to have upset people. Why?
That's fine and dandy. However, you're clearly quite confused. No where did I mention the European nations ability to counter a possible US military move on Greenland
The simple question was…. should the US military actually launch an operation on Greenland will there be a subset of American service members who refuse to take part?
Ultimately it's a yes or no question with the person answering explaining their answer in greater detail, or not. That's it.
Why would a subset of US Military members refuse to take part?
It's a simple question.
Is it a stretch to believe there would be service members who might take issue with launching a military operation against an allied nation? As some of the comments here make abundantly clear this is something of a contentious issue. Correct?
And, on a personal note, I've spoken with several friends who are on active duty who are quite uncomfortable with the idea of taking Greenland by force. Now, does that mean they would refuse to take part in such an act? We'll probably never know as I don't believe it will actually happen. But merely asking the question seems to have upset people. Why?
Because it's clear that you're using a TDS strawman to troll the Military Board.
Take it to the Politics Board and enjoy the responses.
I think you're overestimating the geopolitical knowledge of your average service member.
One of my favorite episodes of Fields of Armor from the Discovery Channel in the 1990s was the Desert Storm episode. In that episode, there is a scene with Aggie O-6 John Sylvester who states that when his unit got orders to deploy to Saudi Arabia, he was trying to figure out where that was.
I realize that everybody is a genius now that they have an iPhone in their hand but, three weeks ago, how many of these conscientious military members could tell you how many people live in Greenland, who owns it and even take a stab at the latitude and longitude?
Just for kicks, I couldn't find the original clip from the 1990s but here's one from the Bush School where LTG Sylvester talks about Desert Storm.
At the 3 minute mark, he says that he didn't know who Saddam Hussein was or where Kuwait was on 2 August 1990. That's a Senior Officer, not the kid who enlisted in the military because he wanted to get out of town.
And again, nothing is going to happen with Greenland but, try out your thought experiment for when we decide we've had enough from Mexico. Or when Alberta secedes from Canada.
That's fine and dandy. However, you're clearly quite confused. No where did I mention the European nations ability to counter a possible US military move on Greenland
The simple question was…. should the US military actually launch an operation on Greenland will there be a subset of American service members who refuse to take part?
Ultimately it's a yes or no question with the person answering explaining their answer in greater detail, or not. That's it.
Why would a subset of US Military members refuse to take part?
It's a simple question.
Is it a stretch to believe there would be service members who might take issue with launching a military operation against an allied nation? As some of the comments here make abundantly clear this is something of a contentious issue. Correct?
And, on a personal note, I've spoken with several friends who are on active duty who are quite uncomfortable with the idea of taking Greenland by force. Now, does that mean they would refuse to take part in such an act? We'll probably never know as I don't believe it will actually happen. But merely asking the question seems to have upset people. Why?
Because it's clear that you're using a TDS strawman to troll the Military Board.
Take it to the Politics Board and enjoy the responses.
I think you're overestimating the geopolitical knowledge of your average service member.
One of my favorite episodes of Fields of Armor from the Discovery Channel in the 1990s was the Desert Storm episode. In that episode, there is a scene with Aggie O-6 John Sylvester who states that when his unit got orders to deploy to Saudi Arabia, he was trying to figure out where that was.
I realize that everybody is a genius now that they have an iPhone in their hand but, three weeks ago, how many of these conscientious military members could tell you how many people live in Greenland, who owns it and even take a stab at the latitude and longitude?
Just for kicks, I couldn't find the original clip from the 1990s but here's one from the Bush School where LTG Sylvester talks about Desert Storm.
At the 3 minute mark, he says that he didn't know who Saddam Hussein was or where Kuwait was on 2 August 1990. That's a Senior Officer, not the kid who enlisted in the military because he wanted to get out of town.
And again, nothing is going to happen with Greenland but, try out your thought experiment for when we decide we've had enough from Mexico. Or when Alberta secedes from Canada.
The Mexico and Alberta scenarios would both make for interesting topics of conversation if the involved parties could refrain from immediately launching into their plaintive cries of "trolling" and "TDS"! Which clearly is a struggle for some, huh? Such lazy and unoriginal talking points.
The administration has made it abundantly clear it wishes to either outright obtain Greenland or gain greater control over the island. This is not debatable. The administration has even stated the military options in doing so is not off the table. This is not debatable. Although, thankfully the President at Davos is seemingly pulling back on that refrain. Yet, somehow to ask how service members might react to that is trolling?
If the President can pull off gaining Greenland through non-military means. Awesome. I hope he succeeds. Or, if he pulls off treaties guaranteeing a greater US military presence in Greenland to better protect or interests, also amazing. Trump is right about the importance of Greenland and I'm pleased he's focused on it. Wow, my TDS must be off the charts. I just supported and complimented President Trump.
The amount of people who thought there was more than a 0% chance of this happening and subsequently clutched their pearls and got themselves all spun up over it is quite amusing, if not a bit pathetic.
