522

Marine colonel quits after 24 years citing concern for future of US under Trump (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

He quietly urged other military personnel to reflect on their own positions. “They should be confident in questioning possibly immoral or illegal orders,” he said, “remembering they are responsible for their own actions, and knowing others are asking the same questions.”

“If they have doubts about their orders, they are not alone,”

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 91 points 9 months ago

All these comments are telling him to stay and fight, but they’re ignoring that could be devastating to his family.

He’s over the 20 year mark and can retire. If he stays and gets a dishonorable discharge, his family gets none of his retirement, no medical, and a family member with financial mobility akin to a felon.

What would you do in that situation?

I don’t think I’d be willing to put my family through that. We don’t have enough in the bank to take a blow like that. I’d probably do what he did. Try to fight another way.

[-] bagsy@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Bullies and fascists do not stop unless they are forced to stop. If every american capitulates like this, then we are lost.

This is what it means to fight for country and freedom. It's not just words in a country music song. Standing up for your beliefs sometimes means real risk and sacrifice.

If the armed forces want to be recognized for their service and sacrifice, this is how its done.

[-] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago

It's not that Americans can't and will not fight, it's that half the population is illiterate. How do you fight 175 million neighbors?

[-] bagsy@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Something like 50% of humans are hard wired to follow their gut. They rely on fairh, authority, and feelings to guide their everyday descision making. They do not live their lives based on facts or logic. If they believe something, then, its true.

Right wing media takes full advantage of this. They spent 40 years making people "feel" a certain way.

So, to answer your question, I think we need to stop the constant flow of poison flowing into their ears. The poison needs to be replaced with a better message.

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I wish there was a better way to sabotage that signal. At this point, those rage-pundits thrive on embarrassing themselves and can say the most heinous and vile things without their audience turning on them. Heck, the worse it gets, the more their audience shifts into insanity!

Even the fact that they're filthy rich while screaming at and demeaning their audience with "self reliance" and "rugged individualism" messages hasn't phased them.

The fact they claim to be Christian but are the most useful tools of hell is simply shrugged off because the Bible is too "hard to comprehend" but this media is always right there, screaming at them to hate and be afraid. It's "simple."

But just hypothetically silencing them somehow will lend more credibility to the narrative that they're the ones with the truth and everybody's out to get them.

This is literal destabilization PsyOP strategy.

How do we stop a constant bombardment that wires people to indulge in the worst parts of their nature?

I'm not being a doomer here. I lost my dad to FOX's bullshit and at a point in my life it threatened to take me too. I really want to know how we can counter this at scale...

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago

its 4th grade reading level now, math is probably worst than arithemetic.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago

one of the first thing fascists do is getting rid of the people that are more likely to oppose them, which is usually top military generals, and Intellectuals; scientists, teachers,,,etc. thats why scientists are usually to flee the country long before the conflict gets worst.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 15 points 9 months ago

People are having their entire livelihoods destroyed for mocking ICE or not rending their shirt with sufficient passion over the death of a nazi. People are risking everything you listed every time they go to a protest and wonder if THIS will be the day that the cops swarm through.

Everyone needs to decide what risks they will and won't take. But I am not going to say "Come on now. He figured he would be fine either way and didn't want to risk any repercussions. Cut him some slack".

[-] wulrus@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Could be even worse, look at what happened to Stauffenberg's family.

Arguable whether he signed up for that.

Fight and die in defence of a NATO ally? Yes. Same as the aggressor, if the elected government decides so, such as in Iraq? Also yes.

Risk having his wife, children, grandchildren taken away and put in Sippenhaft (collective punishment) or put in a reeducation orphanage? Not sure there is a moral obligation to that. Safety for his family was one of the things he got out of all this.

His risks for resisting beyond what he already did are higher than they would be for the average citizen. On the other hand, he also could do more than the average citizen.

A tough call, and I would not judge.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago

plus trump and the gop can SIC thier supporters on the people opposing him. stalking, death threats,,,etc.

[-] BlackVenom@lemmy.world 62 points 9 months ago

He made the problem worse?

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 56 points 9 months ago

He’s been there long enough for retirement. If he fought Trump he’d be dishonorably discharged and lose all retirement pay, all medical benefits, and you’ll have a record that is equivalent to having a felony.

By quitting now he’s ensuring the welfare of his family.

[-] frongt@lemmy.zip 22 points 9 months ago

It's not ensured. They can still take away his rank and pay in retirement.

[-] SoleInvictus 17 points 9 months ago

They can, but it's far less likely than if he stayed in and was put in a position where he had to refuse orders.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

True. But retiring now will reduce risk.

[-] jasoman@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Like that could stop Trump at this point. He do it and DOJ would just watch.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 20 points 9 months ago

And if instead, he later said "I didn't want to do these bad things, but I had to play the part, because if I left someone worse would replace me!" then the comments would also say he's part of the problem.

His choices are lose/lose, we made sure of that.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

While in service, he is bound by duty to follow orders that are legal... and the Supreme Court said anything the President does is legal. Once out of service, he can choose to follow his own conscious and fight how he sees fit.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Well, yeah. If he is serving an orange rapist then he is bound to serve said rapist.

Oh, are you still pretending the military serves The People? Because, homei, them mother fuckers have had PLENTY of opportunities to actually protect The People and The Constitution. They choose to Just Follow Orders and either be guns ready to oppress The People or stand by while The People are oppressed.

We 'bout to talk about how Joker's minions have no choice but to do what he asks them to and shouldn't be held accountable?

Yeah, he stepped down and that is one less soldier for the Nazis. But he has been getting paid and trained to "serve" for decades and the moment he actually had to consider serving The People rather than protecting his own interests? He bloomberg'd out.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Or: the moment he had to consider doing something that was against The People, he honorably left. You seem to have this rather naive and ridiculous notion that some colonel has access to some network of willing soldiers who will gladly become a ragtag group of unstoppable superheroes against a million strong military that for the most part loves what the President is doing. Yeah, there are a lot of individuals who hate what Trump is doing, but those are mostly officers who have a stronger sense of duty than the people whom they command. And colonels don't wield all that much power, either.

Also, since you seem to think he should have done something to "serve" The People in his role, what concrete ideas do you have for him to have done?

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 months ago

Or: the moment he had to consider doing something that was against The People, he honorably left.

I very much argue that moment happened back in 2021 when the military chose to do absolutely nothing while an outgoing government official tried to violently overthrow the government, but sure.

He left. Good on him. That is why I said, elsewhere, that there was one less body to support the nazis.

Absolute bare minimum? More of the military should be doing this. But that is the thing, it is the "bare minimum"

My issue is you, and many others, trying to justify serving a rapist because they are legally required to follow orders. We've been through this: if your justification for an atrocity is "I was just following orders" then you are a monster. And if your justification for other people oppressing you is "they are just following orders" you are a boot licker waiting for the leopards to eat your face.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

My issue is you, and many others, trying to justify serving a rapist because they are legally required to follow orders. We’ve been through this: if your justification for an atrocity is “I was just following orders” then you are a monster.

No, I'm trying to justify him NOT serving a rapist. You seemed to be angry that he chose to stop serving a rapist. Now you are saying I'm a boot licker because I am happy he is no longer serving a rapist and isn't doing stuff that is oppressing people??? He is no longer "just following orders," so why are you angry? Your anger is kind of all over the place.

You also never answered my request for what concrete steps do you want him to do other than retire. You are one of those people who get all angry and complain but then don't have any recommended solutions.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I am angry because he served a rapist up until two weeks ago. I am angry because people are so obsessed with worshiping the military even as the military is increasingly the backup dancers to ICE.

Again, this is the absolute bare minimum. It should be treated as such.

As for your ad hominem

You also never answered my request for what concrete steps do you want him to do other than retire. You are one of those people who get all angry and complain but then don’t have any recommended solutions.

Believe it or not but some things you don't discuss on a publicly readable message board. Weird, I know.

Also it is increasingly obvious he is going the "I'm going to pretend I care and write a book about it" route but...

You also never answered my request for what concrete steps do you want him to do other than retire. You are one of those people who get all angry and complain but then don’t have any recommended solutions.

[-] lemmylump@lemmy.world 46 points 9 months ago

I'm praying for a military coup, and for all these Nazi Republicans to be hung Mussolini style at a Buck ees.

In the meantime I'm putting on this frog suit and dancing in the streets.

[-] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't think you realize what kinds of people are in the US military. Be careful what you wish for.

[-] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 18 points 9 months ago

Given that this is the only way military members can legally protest I am glad to see this sort of action.

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

How is quitting the answer? Someone else will become the yes man.

[-] MojoMcJojo@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Jail time for disobeying, as per UCMJ.

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

There’s a difference between disobeying and incompetence.

[-] theluckyone@discuss.online 5 points 9 months ago

Not for this administration.

[-] D_C@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Jesus fucking Christ you fuckers in here saying "what he quit for" should read the fucking article.
The guy resigned to shine a light on the current administration, but all you can do is say "why he quit tho?"

If he hadn't have quit you'd be calling him a lackey or stooge, but when he does resign AND uses it to call out tRUMP you still think he's done the wrong thing!!

For fuck sake, take the win. Point at this guy and his message and use it. Christ.

[-] Purebred0880@lemmy.wtf 3 points 9 months ago

By quitting he is potentially allowing the administration to fill the position with a trump approved "yes man". I think he could do more good by keeping his position and defy/resist orders instead. I don't blame him, though. Getting the hell out of there seems reasonable too!

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Malicious compliance would be better in most cases

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

A nation of quitters, capitulators, and oath breakers.

America the brave, my dick.

[-] Wilco@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 months ago

Why quit? That is stupid.

this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025

522 points (100.0% liked)

News

38380 readers

2381 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world