Would the military obey orders from a President Hillary Rodham Clinton

[bluestateguy]

I was walking around the ROTC building the other day and I saw on the wall a big picture of George W. Bush on the wall with the inscription "Commander in Chief". Then there were pictures of Rumsfeld, Pace, etc. Then I imagined those military types having to hang a picture of Hillary Clinton on the wall if she were elected in 2008. Somehow, I think they would come up with an excuse not to do it, not to submit to the authority of Hillary Rodham Clinton as their Commander in Chief. Would the manly military types salute her, follow her orders and respect her office? I am cynical and I have my doubts. The military establishment, and far too many young officers and enlisted persons have been trained to believe that the military is the personal property of George W. Bush, and an extension of the Republican party. If a Democrat like Mark Warner or John Kerry became president I think the military would twiddle their thumbs while they waited around for their old bosses to come back, but they would not be openly hostile. On the other hand, with Hillary Clinton as president I could forsee a major hostility from the military establishment. They just won't ever respect her, no matter how hard she tries.

[MADem]

1. Yes, they would, and they would no matter who the president is

You think I leaped for joy when that addled actor Reagan got the job?? I bit my tongue, I shut the hell up, and I did my job.

That's what professionals do.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. They damn well would have no choice!!!

[Vincardog]

3. Too fkng bad. The Military has to follow the lawful orders of the

President. Do not fall for the RW BS

[William769]

5. To late already happened, sad to say.

I will leave it at that any more I say will undoubtedly get me a deleted message.

[EST]

4. The time of Bill Clinton was marked by a

Limbaugh-inspired open hostility toward him in the military. There were even not so thinly veiled threats of a "fragging," should he be so bold as to review the wrong, insolent assembly of soldiers.

My memory has it that Clinton actually based some of his attention to the military planning on those threats.

No, I do not believe that a Hillary president would receive the same respect as a male, or a republican.

There is and will be much saluting of past bipartisan respect and military tradition, but this military, today, is not that of even a generation ago, let alone an era of clearer boundaries and more mature acknowledgment of responsibility.

[Vincardog]

7. What have the Republicans done to earn the respect of the military?

Cut their pay and benefits? Charge them for staying in VA hospitals? Cut their retirement?

Oh OH I know. Exposed them to DU and give the increased chances of having deformed children and cancer.

Thank you sir, can I have another?

[Solo_in_MD]

9. Treated the military with respect

Rightly or wrongly, it was perceived that the Clintons treated the military poorly and at times with contempt.

[dorktv]

16. Republicans have never treated the military with respect.

They either force them to break the law, treat them with distain in regards to equipment or refuse to stand up to America's real enemies (remember the barracks bombing? We invade where again?)

There is respect in words, and then respect in deeds. Clinton tried to do both. He did not send them into unwinnable wars (Somalia he inheirted, Haiti he had as a limited engagement and he also tried to make sure our guys stayed off the ground in Kosovo.)

[Solo_in_MD]

18. The military perceives that they do and that the Clintons do not

Which is really what matters, since it is all about perception.

[dorktv]

19. Yep...and they percieve those who do only the talking as the better.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Presidential Fragging? Get Real

The miltitary and purportedly other parts of the Government perceived that the Clinton Whitehouse held them in contempt. Inevitiably, there was some fricition.

Your memory is wrong, if the Clintons let it influence them, it would have gotten out and no one would have wanted that. Politicians who act due to fear of their military is a something normally ascribed to banana republics and neither the Whitehouse or the Pentagon want that perception of the US.

[ShaneGR]

13. That's a harsh view....

Yes, Clinton was generally disliked as a person. But when he gave the order to attack or withdraw it was followed. Remember, we conducted a very effective war with Serbia to liberate Kosovo and end the Balkan conflict.

Also, remember that while a majority of military families supported Bush in both 2000 and 2004 if a vote was held today do you think that same majority exists? If Hillary Clinton conducts an effective campaign (Something the Clinton's have a small reputation for doing) I think, to answer your question, that they would certainly support her decisions as Commander in Chief. A lot has changed. Not everyone is locked into their support of Bush or Republicanism in general. 30% proved that and I'd guess it's no more than 50% in the military right now. A clearly thought out, well intentioned, and thoroughly carried out foreign policy is in order. I think she'd impress some people, she's certainly impressed the people of New York State. And sometimes, as many a successful corporation can attest to, having an incredibly strong, dedicated, and tireless bitch on your staff can work wonders for your profit margin.

[oasis]

6. The 2-star generals want to be 3-star generals and the 3-stars want to

be 4. And so on and so on.

[man4allcats]

10. They would either obey her orders or face Court Martial,

and that is as it should be. If as you say, "The military establishment, and far too many young officers and enlisted persons have been trained to believe that the military is the personal property of George W. Bush, and an extension of the Republican party.", then perhaps they need to re-educated, and if court martial, especially in time of war or armed conflict, is what it takes to accomplish that re-education, then so be it.

[pooja]

11. has anyone not paid any attention to the issues

that Hillary Clinton is addressing. She is attacked all the time by her stance on the war and the support she has toward the troups. She sits on the armed service comittee for a reason. don't discount her loyalty to the soldier... She might actually go with a party line... protecting the nation like a mother bear in defense of her cubs... something like that.

"At this critical time in our nation’s history, we must show our veterans - not just tell them - that we are grateful for their service to our country. One of the most important benefits we provide to veterans is health care. I am working to maintain, enhance, and guarantee an adequate level of health care funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs – fighting to provide more funding for veterans health care, to make VA health care funding a mandatory instead of discretionary budget item, and to keep New York’s VA facilities open. This should be a time when we do more for our veterans, not less. Our nation made a pact with the Armed Forces - a commitment that those who served their country would have access to quality health care through the VA health care system." http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/veterans/

[sweetheart]

12. As she abides in the constitution, yes.

Bush has taken leave of the constitution, and the miltiary is violating its oath, every single one
of them is violating its oath to protect the constitution by serving bush. His administration has
shown repeated violations, serious, substantive violations of the constitution, and a protector of
said document needs be on-side with the people to whom the oath was pledged.

[Buck Laser]

14. I think it's a stupid question!!

No doubt the Freepers and assorted loonies would press for something like that, but speculation about whether it might happen is just stupid--and probably part of the right-winger's hope to create some sense of "inevitability about Senator Clinton because they really believe the entire american populace would rise up against her.

[dorktv]

15. She would need to follow the example of Harry S. Truman.Fi

fire anyone who refuses to respect the office of the commander in Chief.

They owe her respect as the CinC and if they refuse, she has the right to relieve them of command.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

17. She's a woman....

She wouldn't have the respect a man has.

Our country (and most of the world, for that matter) sucks!

Women don't have the same respect men do in some situations.

It's unfair, and I hate it.... but it's the way it is.


If she is our candidate in 2008, I will support her with every bone in my body.. and I will attack all Freepers who put her down if she becomes our President.

But to answer your question.. I'm sure at least 50% of our troops are sexist.

[Solo_in_MD]

20. Any stats to back up your belief?

Because IME the military is quite a bit more of a meritocracy than civilian life.

You are right about world opinion and female leaders, with the exception being Europe. Progressives are not immune from it either, such as when Chavez called Condi Rice "girl".