>># Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States
>>against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not
>>swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”

Although as officers, they are required by law to follow the lawful orders of their superiors, of whom the President is the most superior. People hinting at military overthrow could, however, be considered part of “all enemies, … domestic.”

>># Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being
>>trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

That’s an interesting claim. I’ve read the US Constitution and I don’t see how this is possible. I wish he’d have elaborated.

>># They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under
>>President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012
>>election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

Based on what the US looks like now, I fail to see how this possibly could be considered a bad thing except by a religious fundamentalist douchebag.

>># They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment,
>>and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

I guess he forgot about the guy who ran up the deficit and accompanying debt for the last 8 years. Political memory is always so short.

>># They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence
>>community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed
>>services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

Someone needs to rein them in. They’ve run roughshod over rights, the US Constitution and good sense for nearly a decade. Maybe if US foreign policy didn’t present the USA as dicks, there wouldn’t be an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

>># They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation
>>by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.

Realistically speaking, there are no such things as effective missile defence. That said, the ABM treaty, signed decades ago, pretty much seals this one up. Man, that author needs to attend a history class.

>># They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and
>>possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

If that happens, it will be because America starts the wars, and thus won’t have to react.

>># They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and
>>honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

I’d be insulted by this one if I was a US military officer. I think they see their honour being restored, and by (hopefully) defusing some of the heightened tensions that were aggravated by previous governments, restoring US security. I wonder what the author is basing this claim upon.

So after all that, maybe the military will take out a nest of right-wing nutters. That would seem to be the best for everyone concerned.

It wasn’t that many years ago that a certain member of parliament sent letters to Francophone military officers in this country, asking them to defect to the Army of Quebec when Quebec separated after the referendum.

Personally, I felt that MP should have been hauled away in chains as that is an unequivocal violation of the Criminal Code for the crime of “sedition”, but TPTB did equivocate and called it “free speech”.