this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
354 points (96.8% liked)
Pleasant Politics
215 readers
65 users here now
Politics without the jerks.
This community is watched over by a ruthless robot moderator to keep out bad actors. I don't know if it will work. Read !santabot@slrpnk.net for a full explanation. The short version is don't be a net negative to the community and you can post here.
Rules
Post political news, your own opinions, or discussion. Anything goes.
All posts must follow the slrpnk sitewide rules.
No personal attacks, no bigotry, no spam. Those will get a manual temporary ban.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Generally speaking, the American military leadership is very mission oriented and not interested in politics. POGs wouldn't muck around in that. I think the bigger concern would be state guard forces being ordered to do something illegal by a governor, and the federal military brass going "we don't want anything to do with that, sort it out in court and congress" and other states following suit.
You’re assuming that Project 2025 won’t succeed at firing all the sensible military leadership (like all of it down to the O-7s) and replacing them with True Believers.
In Ukraine in 2014, they had retired military people coming out of retirement and joining up with the protest movements and kind of showing them what to do, in the semi-shooting war… would it play out that way in the US? Or some other way?
I’m a little bit exaggerating what level it might realistically get to, and I sort of share your optimism on some level, actually… but it’s fucking terrifying to be in a position of depending on the military leadership to be the backstop against the takeover.
Fair, but I don't personally feel it would get to that level before courts or congress got involved. Congress has to approve appointments for senior leadership. The UCMJ has regulations related to dismissal. And if they fire all competent command and replace them with generally inept cronies...there would be a very big block of very angry and very competent ex military leaders to contend with.
Yeah. One thing I very much like about the US military is that the high levels of the brass have a pretty heavy sprinkling of people like Mattis and Milley who are pretty heavily pro democracy and not shy about speaking up about it.
Idk what happened with Mueller and just leaving to the hands of fate, but I feel like Milley in the analogous situation as regards a new civil war would just suit up and say yo we’re starting the Free ~~French~~ US forces, get the fuck on board loser, let’s go
True Believers, football coaches and racecar drivers:
https://www.newsweek.com/sports/nascar-news-donald-trump-makes-bold-driver-proposal-military-leadership-1930831
A number of high ranking US military officers have taken sidelong glances at the political scene. Colin Powell was kept out of the 2000 race by Bush, when he was offered the Sec. State position. Wesley Clark tried to run for the Dem nomination in 2008. Stanley McCrystal and David Petraeus flirted with the GOP nod in 2012, while both advocating for a "National Service" requirement for all US Citizens. Joe Sestak ran as a presidential nominee for the Democrats in 2016. 82 sitting US House Reps are ex-military as are 17 Senators, with the vast majority (72/25) aligning with the Republican Party. Plenty of aspiring state and local politicians use their military careers as launch pads for elected office.
The problem most officers suffer from is a complete lack of charisma. All these people suck at working a crowd. Put Mad Dog Mad Ass at the top of a ticket and it'll tank the moment he opens his mouth. It isn't that American military leadership lacks political ambition, its that they're a chronically awful picks. Even the ostensibly photogenic ones, like Tom "Unapologetically a Fascist" Cotton and Dan "The Pirate King" Crenshaw, absolutely suck dick at building up a popular base.