By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A former US Marine Corps colonel and combat veteran resigned after 24 years of service due to concerns about Donald Trump’s perceived disregard for the Constitution. The resignation occurred on the same day Trump addressed military leaders, prompting Krugman to reflect on the importance of questioning potentially immoral or illegal orders. Krugman cited the January 6th riots, pardoning of insurrectionists, and the administration’s treatment of Afghan allies as key factors in his decision, claiming Trump was testing the limits of presidential power. He warned of a potential “collapse” if the gaps in the laws regarding presidential power were not addressed.
Read the original article here
Marine Colonel quits after 24 years citing concern for future of US under Trump. The announcement, and the underlying circumstances, are certainly generating a strong reaction.
The core of the matter centers on Colonel Doug Krugman, a respected Marine Corps officer, who made the significant decision to retire after a long and distinguished career. His reasoning, clearly articulated in a Washington Post op-ed, boils down to a fundamental disagreement with the direction of the country under the leadership of Donald Trump. Krugman’s oath, like that of every military officer, is to defend the Constitution, a principle he clearly holds sacred. His departure, it seems, is a direct consequence of a belief that the current Commander-in-Chief is, in his view, undermining that very Constitution.
Now, this decision isn’t just about personal feelings. It touches upon a much larger, and frankly, quite alarming concern: the potential hollowing out of the military’s leadership. If seasoned, principled officers, those who have dedicated their lives to service and upholding the law, are choosing to leave, the question arises: who will replace them? The worry is that this exodus could pave the way for a military filled with individuals more loyal to a single person than to the principles of the nation. It’s a concern that is being voiced with increasing urgency.
Of course, some might argue that it’s a bad time to leave, that dissenting voices are needed more than ever. The idea is that these officers, with their experience and understanding of the system, could have stayed and fought against what they perceive as detrimental changes from within. The counter-argument, and the one Krugman seems to embrace, is that remaining would be a betrayal of the very principles they swore to protect. He chose the freedom to speak out and defend the country from outside, rather than being complicit in what he sees as its internal erosion.
This is a really pivotal moment. It’s not just about one colonel. It’s about a pattern. The comments suggest a fear that those with the most integrity will leave, leaving the path open for the less scrupulous. This creates an environment of concern that the military leadership could become increasingly influenced by political motivations, potentially leading to decisions that are not in the best interests of the nation or, even worse, run contrary to the Constitution itself.
The situation is made even more delicate by Trump’s public pronouncements regarding the military. He has, on multiple occasions, expressed a preference for loyalty over competence, signaling a potential shift away from the traditional values of the armed forces. It raises the specter of a military that would be willing to carry out actions, even if illegal, simply because they were ordered. This is a point of significant fear and anxiety.
Krugman’s case underscores a deep moral dilemma faced by many in the military. It’s a choice between duty and conscience, between serving under a leader they disagree with and upholding the values they have sworn to protect. It’s a decision that highlights the profound implications of political polarization on the very institutions that are meant to defend the country. The fact that the Colonel had served under previous presidents and made the decision based on actions, rather than political affiliation, really solidifies the gravity of the choice he made.
It’s natural to have questions, even if the general consensus is on Colonel Krugman’s side. Some people wonder why he didn’t stay and fight, why he couldn’t have worked from within. It is a valid question, but one that perhaps only Krugman himself can fully answer. However, from his perspective, it seems he felt the situation had reached a point where he could no longer, in good conscience, serve under the leadership and direction of Donald Trump.
The response to Krugman’s decision is mixed. Some see it as an act of patriotism, a stand for the Constitution. Others are worried that it further destabilizes the military, potentially leaving it vulnerable to political influence. Some of the comments are even making light of the fact that it is not considered quitting when you retire at the standard retirement age.
Whatever one’s perspective, the story is a reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions and the constant vigilance required to protect them. It’s a reminder that service members, just like any other citizen, are grappling with the political climate. Whether the departure of Colonel Krugman becomes a precedent or an isolated incident, it certainly signals a moment of deep division and uncertainty for the nation.