Saturday, May 5, 2012

Military Intelligence

An open letter to a person I know....

During the Iraq War, there were a few US soldiers, among them Gens Eric Shinseki and Ricardo Sanchez, as well as more than a few enlisted men, who criticized the effort in Iraq.

The thing is, they did it AFTER leaving the service.  This isn't a coincidence.

When I was in college, I was in Naval ROTC.  I eventually had to leave NROTC for a physical issue, but I was able to join the National Guard and then the US Army Reserve. I was standing around one day in college listening to a speaker rail against abortion.  While doing so I was wearing my dress whites.  I was a freshman, and really didn't know better than to not stand and listent to a politcal speech in a way that might convey support or dissention from a political opinion.

Suddently, I was grabbed from behind and pulled away.  Our adjutent NROTC officer, Major Von Wald (USMC), simply said, "When you're in uniform, you don't have a political opinion."

It was a lesson I've never forgotten, it was a sentiment I've passed along to more than a few members of the military, and a concept I've explained to more than a handful of civilians.

A legal point for the neophytes out there.  When you are in the military you are governed not by the Constitution, but intead by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  While in uniform you can have your equipment randomly searched, and most important to this point, you have NO right of freedom of speech, especially not against or about the orders you've been given.    One other thing - the President is the "Commander in Chief", meaning, he is the highest ranking member of the military.  You swear an oath to obey the orders of the office of the President, everyone does, every enlisted man/woman, every officer.  No exceptions, ever.  Refuse the oath, you can't join or stay. Ever.

So the deeper lesson that I have taught goes like this; When you're in uniform, the orders of the President (e.g. the policy of the President), like the orders of your officers, aren't open for public rebuke or review.  You are an instrument of policy, you are expected to support any President, any time, whether you like him or not IF you chose to remain in the military.  You are expected to do so quite simply because failing to do so tells your subordinate staff that THEY get to pick and chose the orders THEY want to obey.  In short, if a President orders you into combat in a war you don't like, then, IF you want to continue to wear the uniform, you go to war, and you keep your mouth shut.  What would happen to our military structure if the military got to vote about the wars they wanted to fight?  What would have happened to morale if General Tommy Franks had said, "This war in Iraq is crap!"  You keep your mouth shut because failing to do so is insubordinate (as an NCO) and "Conduct Unbecoming" for an officer.  It also violates a primary military edict to ensure your actions always support "the good order and discipline" of the troops.  George Patton was nearly casheired in WWII for making an obliquely critical reference of US policy.  He was out of line for saying anything and he knew it.


Consequently, for those of you who may think that the right-wing, vocal critics of the President who wear the uniform are within their rights to criticize the President, you are wrong.  You aren't slightly wrong, you are dead wrong, wrong in every facet of every way.  Openly questioning the policies/orders/conduct of the President is a direct violation of your oath.  It undermines discipline.  Those of you on the right who balley-hooed about US Congressmen criticizing the war effort while Bush was President as "undermining morale" need to check yourself - you need to consider what the impact would be if a few sergeants said "F-it, I am not dying for this chuckle-head."   Acting in such a manner is grossly unprofessional, doing so is profoundly insubordinate, it is conduct unbecoming an officer.  THAT's why Ricardo Sanchez left the service THEN criticized the war, that's why William McCrystal was sacked for doing so while in uniform.  You are an instrument of policy, and you keep your damned mouth shut while you wear it.  You obey your orders, you do your duty, you don't pick and chose the orders you'll obey.  Picking and chosing orders, in the guise of creating a lack of respect for the officers above you (in this case the President) is the height of unprofessionalism for a soldier.  Doing so means you don't deserve your stripes, you should be cashiered, you're a pig, you're less than a civilian, you have no honor.  You've failed to keep faith with the millions of soldiers before you who may not have liked their orders, but they SOLDIERED on.

Nuff said? 

If not, then your political blinders have allowed you to be blind to one of the most profoundly well understood axioms of service among professional armies and professional soldiers.  If not, you don't know jack about the military, If not, your "intelligence" is at best, ignorant.  Put another way, every member of the military WORKS for the President, since when do you get to criticize, publicly, the CEO of the company you work for?  It's worse than that in the military though.  Your open questioning of orders may in fact cause someone to fail to obey an order because they don't like the President and think they're within their rights to not support him and so they fail to act when they should, costing someone their life.  Those of you who believe this kind of conduct is "ok" are  advocating for insubordination.  You are, quite simply, supporting the most grossly unprofessional thing a soldier can do.  IF you advocate for that, you don't understand anything about the military.  John Kerry was deeply criticized for criticizing the Vietnam War - John Kerry left the active duty militry before doing so.  Kerry was wrong to have done so while in the naval reserve, and doubly wrong to have testified before Congress and tossed his ribbons away while in uniform.  You didn't like it when he did, if you didn't like it then, why not?  When you anwer that question, you'll begin, maybe, to understand why it's NEVER ok to do while in uniform.  No exceptions, ever.

Nuff said.

10 comments:

  1. Thanks for elaborating, from your multi-service military experieces on what I wrote abouthttp://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/05/double-standard-much-right-wing.html here


    I'm sure when Mitch wrote about something from the Daily Fail, just one of the many altrenate names by which the Brits refer to it, he either didn't bother to do a proper job of vetting material (again), or he just didn't care, if what he passed on to his readers was accurate and substantive.

    I continue to be astonished that the right will believe the most bizarre stories and conspiracy theories -- and that our friend Mitch will promote each and every one of them on his blog. Either he is that gullible, himself, which we both think is unlikely (giving him the benefit of the doubt) or he is willing to promote falsehoods to suck up to the right wing powers that be (more likely).

    This has been true of the voting fraud stories he has been in the front of - I'm still laughing at the one about democrats buying (with a serving of ice cream) the votes of 3 bus loads of seniors from a public high school. There weren't three busloads of high school seniors, and I don't believe that you can buy ANYTHING from a high school senior with a serving of ice cream. From a five year old, maybe, if they aren't a particularly clever child, but not from high school students. Then there was the voter fraud in Crow Wing county claim by the guy who wasn't there when the individuals in question voted -- he didn't seem to think that not being present was actually a problem to making the claim... in other words he was willing to look the other way over fraud by the accuser. Then there was the snow plow slowdown story in New York City where FOUR investigations found that the plow workers in fact worked bone achingly long hours of overtime to plow streets that were packed by cars blocking the way, not because they did anything wrong but because the mayor was out of town and the snow emergency was called late --- but Mitch just LOVES to promote anti-union fears, no matter how unlikely the story. Then there was the phantom witness who did not as it turned out see in person the bogus claims of 103 invalid ballots being recounted in the last governor's race challenge. The list goes on -- why he does it, I don't know. Why the right loves to read--and believe- such obviously false crap I understand even less.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm still trying to figure out, to decide, if the right - particularly the Shot in the Dark audience - is simply seriously unsophisticated, or if they really WANT to be lied to so badly, they persuade themselve to overlook big wildly flying red flags in order to justify their unjustifiable positions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very Well Stated!!!!
    As I was the last of the Viet Nam vets and later South America, we were told under no uncertain terms that no matter how we felt about the Viet Nam War in a negative way, we could not be vocal, march in demonstrations, while in uniform.

    In the same light, those who were African Americans were told that they could not demonstrate while in uniform in any Civil Rights venue.

    By taking the oath of the UCMJ by your own free will at enlistment, you obligated yourself to the President, Country, and the Military Service to whom you served. In summation, any infractions of those rules WAS advocating insubordination!!

    To you Penigma I will say, we both did well when we served our country.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not sure how I got here*, but I really enjoyed your post. Many positions I'd never come up even though I was aware of them. Basic training must have changed in the last several decades. I was always taught the purpose of basic was to tear the man down to build him up so he had unwavering allegiance to his unit.

    Regarding voter fraud, I am personally aware of some during the 2008 primary and general elections. Although as a percentage of the whole vote, I'm not really sure if there was enough to warrant drastic regulations.

    * Reading on Engineer of Knowledge, clinked on Dog Gone comment link, and poof here I am.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Welcome 'e53e52bc-sff-1131-d16' to commenting on penigma. I'm not sure how you got here either, but I'm very glad you have arrived, and I hope you will come back regularly to read and comment!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello ALL,
    Francois Hollande has just become the President of France! This is truly good news my friends!! Hooray for sanity!!

    Maybe those “Independent Swing Votes” will sit up and take notice that maybe they too should carpetly throw out the Ultra Conservative Wing Nuts from not only the National level but State levels too.

    Vive La États-Unis

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, not to rain on the Champs Elysee's parade but their last hero was Francois Mitterand who was not a great man in any sense that I understand greatness. Politicians are, almost by definition, venal egotists--regardless their politics. I hope that the president elect in France is the exception to the rule and, no, I do not think Sarkozy was a good president.

    I did my four in the USAF and did my share of carping about U.S. policy in Vietnam and elsewhere. I did not even think of protesting in uniform, regardless it's legality. I dealt with my share of authoritarian assholes while in uniform and was also lucky enough to serve with some really good people. You always need to remember that your boss is your boss, until you decide to quit the job.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bon Jour! democommie - Francois Mitterand, Francois Hollande; we'll have to see if they have more in common than party and first names (or not).

    There was a 60 minutes segment on last evening about top pilots protesting serious safety issues with the Raptor jet. They did so appearing in uniform, on the record.......with a difference from the Daily Fail article. They appeared in the interview under a specific set of legislation designed to accomodate the specific kind of complaint they had, as whistleblowers. Their congressman appeared with them, to clarify and emphasize how completely and correctly their actions were covered under that legislation, so that there was no confusion about the propriety and legality of what they did.

    Further, THEIR speech, from two of the top ranked and most highly decorated for valor pilots, was not related to either specific criticism of the Commander in Chief or any other superior officer, nor was it in any way related to partisan politics.

    Some bloggers ought to pay more attention to how it's done, when done properly. Unlike, oh.....say General MacChrystal, or the marine sergeant who was discharged and censured just short of his honorably leaving the service if he had behaved more correctly and professionally.

    Like Pen, and Engineer of Knowledge, it is nice to have service veterans comment here on topics like these.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Demcom, EoK, E53 and DG,

    First, thanks very much for responding. I appreciate the reinforcement and support.

    As far as Hillebrande and Mittereand go, shifting too far left has the same problem shifting too far right does, it creates a dispparity which is palpably unjust in society. It also just plain fails. Hopefully Pres-Elect Hillebrande will protect Frecnh jobs and promote growth, including keeping French governmental workers employed in necessary jobs.


    As far as Mr. Berg, my friend goes, he once allowed my fidelity with my fellow soldiers to be insulted beyond any tolerance. I am neither surprised by his ignorance of military decorum nor am I surporised by his lack of regard for respecting the President. He would advocate for convvicting a ham sandwich if it suited a political purpose. Nuff said - other than it is a shame that honor means so little to certain people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A minor correction, the new President of France is Francois Hollande, not Hillebrande.

    I was speaking with another friend and colleague, Laci, a Brit who has a broader familiarity with the services of other countries besides the UK. It is standard Operating procedure, a core requirement of military professionalism, not something just unique or specific to the U.S. military. See my most recent post on the F-22, with top ranked decorated pilots speakign out under a very specific whistleblower law -- and they still don't specifically criticize the president or any superior officer. They make their criticisms with very great care so as not to be insubordinate, improper --- and they express concern about being kicked out of the military or ending up in Leavenworth for even doing what they did.

    This is something serious.

    If he has time, perhaps Laci will share a few scathing words about the lack of quality and credibility of the Dail 'Fail', LOL.

    ReplyDelete