4 ms·
Yes, I agree that the ideal standard is holding responsible the person making the bad orders, and relieving them of duty. That said, it is often impractical, o
by toss1 8y ago
Yes, I agree that the ideal standard is holding responsible the person making the bad orders, and relieving them of duty.
That said, it is often impractical, or would create too much of a problem. E.g., the person currently occupying the President's chair and CIC title, is apparently issuing illegal orders (e.g., 'kill Assad'). The ideal solution is the 25th Amendment to relieve him of duty. The problem is that this requires the VP, majority of the Cabinet, then 2/3 of the Senate to execute. Even bigger hurdle for impeachment
This will simply not happen in today's environment, so what is someone in Mattis' position to do? Simply follow orders and become complicit in the crime, or find a way to undo them?
One of the key lessons I learned from several people I worked with who had held US Mil command positions, was that leadership is NOT about giving orders -- many civilians think that mil leadership is easy because of the Chain of Command and orders.
If you think that, then the best case is that you order "Do X" and your second in command says "Do what the chief says" -- i.e., he adds zero value. Leadership is about making those under your command want to execute your orders to the best of their ability.
The person currently occupying the President's chair fails miserably at that basic standard, the party supports his every move for a variety of reasons. Therefore, those under his command are stuck with workarounds.
- rtpg 8y ago> This will simply not happen in today's environment, so what is someone in Mattis' position to do? The man has a press secretary. He could resign today, talk about this, and actively campaign for impeachment. The man has a pension, it’s not his god given right to be a cabinet member. Nobodys asking him to shoot his mother. Not only would this be a Big Fucking Deal, it also forces stuff like congress passing more laws to prevent attempted beheadings of foreign governments. Principles only exist if you’re willing to pay a personal cost to enforce them. Otherwise it’s just lip service.
- toss1 8y agoBy taking the steps you propose, Mattis would promptly eliminate his ability to do any good, and likely fail at preventing the harm he is trying to prevent. And yes, if the person occupying the President's chair had actually given a specific direct order, as in "As President, I'm hereby ordering you specifically to implement a plan to attack and kill another head of state, specifically Bashir Al Assad; do it by next week or I'll relieve you of duty and court martial you for insubordination", Mattis would have little choice to either comply, resign, or wait for the MPs to arrest him. However, it is extremely unlikely that the order was that specific, and so both creates the moral dilemma referenced above, and the opportunity to use discretion in how the request is implemented. And even if such a "Big Fucking Deal" happened, in this environment, it's a fart in a hurricane, and if you actually expect this congress to act as you expected, perhaps we should talk about this bridge I have for sale...