I have to give grudging approval to such a masterful display of moderation. Naturally, the highest ranking military officer cannot come out in partisan fashion, but I cannot help but wonder if the part about the Oath
and being responsive to the National Command Authority
and instilling confidence
in the military in the new administration
can be read two ways? First, he did not state clearly that the responsiveness to the NCA should not be so blind that the Oath to the Constitution
can be undermined for that would clearly be a technical violation of the Oath
to follow an unlawful (unconstitutional) order as well as a perversion of bearing true faith and allegiance
to the same...but sadly as we all know...when corrupt forces codify things and force them to be Constitutional...do responsible parties see them as fraudulently forged and contrary to Founding Principles or do they nod their head in acquiescence and carryout once unthinkable orders? And is the purpose of this statement to reinforce allegiance to existing NCA should one candidate expire after the result and edicts be issued? Is it to ensure an opposition party candidate transitions smoothly...even if the current NCA issues orders contrary to the policies of the incoming CIC? How does he see his role if the election is stolen and bitterly contested? What if the losing party who happens to belong to the current incumbent party refuses the results or the opposition party clearly had the election stolen and violence breaks out on the streets...whose side does this guy fall on? And this stuff about being neutral...is that mere CYA or is a warning also being issued? Is rank and file loyalty going to be questioned should circumstances go sideways?
I guess I don't recall a message of this type or length being issued before any election before and it is generating some concern. My gut tells me this guy is sees something coming. Not that I am not alert already...but this is amping it up a bit.