(no title)
dannypgh | 5 years ago
You're underselling this, I think.
It is "respect for the institution" why the military accepts the civilian authority of the POTUS as commander in chief. If we are only considering the ability to use violence to enforce one's position as legitimate, it's the military and police forces who rule. Once you factor in laws, the SCOTUS is authoritative as to how the laws can be legally interpreted.
cconstantine|5 years ago
"In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the name of the gods.’ ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me – who lives and who dies?”
The more interesting question to me than "who lives and who dies?" is "who holds the most power?" The three great men have enormous resources to influence the sellsword, but in this situation isn't it the sellsword ultimately making the decision and being the agent of change? Does the military let POTUS pretend he has ultimate power, or does "respect for the institution" really overpower the military?
I really hope "respect for institution" is more powerful than our military. I think so far we've seen that it is, but the current administration seems to be attacking our institutions pretty aggressivly.
alasdair_|5 years ago
A huge portion of the military really comes down to who has money to keep paying the soldiers, fueling the bombers etc. If the military revolts but no one ends up paid, a problem ensues.