Wow. From the New Yorker: John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/john-kelly-and-the-language-of-the-military-coupArgument 1. Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military. To demonstrate how little lay people know, Kelly provided a long, detailed explanation of what happens when a soldier is killed in battle: the body is wrapped in whatever is handy, flown by helicopter, then packed in ice, then flown again, then repacked, then flown, then embalmed and dressed in uniform with medals, and then flown home. Kelly provided a similar amount of detail about how family members are notified of the death, when, and by whom. He even recommended a film that dramatized the process of transporting the body of a real-life marine, Private First Class Chance Phelps. This was a Trumpian moment, from the phrasing—“a very, very good movie”—to the message. Kelly stressed that Phelps “was killed under my command, right next to me”; in other words, Kelly’s real-life experience was recreated for television, and that, he seemed to think, bolstered his authority.
-snip-
2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do. Kelly went on a rambling explication of speaking to the President not once but twice about how to make the call to Myeshia Johnson. After Kelly’s son was killed while serving in Afghanistan, the chief of staff recalled, his own best friend had consoled him by saying that his son “was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that one per cent.” Trump apparently tried to replicate this message when he told Johnson that her husband, La David, had known what he was signing up for. The negative reaction to this comment, Kelly said, had “stunned” him.
A week earlier, Kelly had taken over the White House press briefing in an attempt to quash another scandal and ended up using the phrase “I was sent in,” twice, in reference to his job in the White House. Now he seemed to be saying that, since he was sent in to control the President and the President had, this time, more or less carried out his instructions, the President should not be criticized.
3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs. A day earlier, the Washington Post had quoted a White House official saying, “The president’s conversations with the families of American heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice are private.” The statement contained a classic Trumpian reversal: the President was claiming for himself the right to privacy that belonged to his interlocutor. But Myeshia Johnson had apparently voluntarily shared her conversation with her mother-in-law and Congresswoman Frederica Wilson by putting the President on speakerphone.
Now Kelly took it up a notch. Not only was he claiming that the President, communicating with a citizen in his official capacity, had a right to confidentiality—he was claiming that this right was “sacred.” Indeed, Kelly seemed to say, it was the last sacred thing in this country. ...
-snip-
4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.
-snip-
When Kelly replaced the ineffectual Reince Priebus as the chief of staff, a sigh of relief emerged: at least the general would impose some discipline on the Administration. Now we have a sense of what military discipline in the White House sounds like.
= new reply since forum marked as read
all have constraints on their behaviors and rules to follow, and those emphatically include not taking over our government.
One thing we have in common with the right is uneasiness over so many of "the generals" brought into this administration. In fact, a good number are so carried away over on that side have been insisting for some time that we'll wake up any morning and find ourselves living under a military dictatorship.
Probably not.
And by the way, a huge thing to remember is that we do NOT have a centralized government. Not only would the other two thirds of our federal government have something to say about it, if only from prison, but fifty states, plus sundry other elements, would have a whole lot to say. No way would California or any other of the blue states, for instance, go along. While most of the red states have practically made a religion lately out of states' rights and opposing the federal government.
And then there are all the military personnel themselves...
as he's tried to remain officially apolitical, and my observations are that that usually acts as a limitation on thinking, though varying wildly in degree. 
Interestingly, his role in charge of the U.S.'s Southern Command of 32 nations reportedly included disaster and humanitarian relief. Wonder what he thinks about Puerto Rico, but of course what he could say about Trump and his administration means that if he writes a book someday I'll certainly read it.
War is how they make rank and go up the ladder. And then retire to take very lucrative positions with the civilian war industry.
I grew up in a military family and have seen the system up close and personal. 
We are going to crash and burn before we are able to build a new society. One would think that history repeating itself would be a good teacher, but evidently, a large portion of the population doesn't get it.
Don't they know their place in the world? 
"Would it have killed them to use upper case T's?"
