Political Statements Pt II

I agree with you on this to some extent. I think that given the nature of this new war and how the battlefield has shifted into the world of politics, service men and women have an obligation to speak up in the face of....well...

bullshit.

And I hear alot of it out there, too.

Still, this was too 'in your face' for my liking. Things are best kept subtle and professional, through op-eds, interviews, etc.

We shouldn't take sides, Republican or Democrat, not in uniform at least. But supporting the mission in open forums?

Fair game, I say.

Is trying to enlighten people who seem to have a problem grasping the facts of the situation really "taking sides" though?

How about using a reporter as an analogy. I know most reporters do in fact take sides. Does Michael Yon? If he's just trying to report what he sees?

He clearly *benefits* one side.. but maybe he does so by simply being less biased?

I guess what I am trying to say is, I see a distinction between "this is the situation, as I see it" and "... and therefore here is what we should do about it."

Advocating a policy is political. Stating what you believe to be facts is not, necessarily.

How about another example: scientists. If a scientist says "our experiment showed that exposure to 1mg of mercury per kg of body weight per week can lead to brain damage", that's quite different to saying "therefore dumping of mercury in lakes should be made illegal". The first statement is a statement of scientific discovery, the second is advocating a policy based on that information. Scientists should probably stay out of politics, just as military members probably should. But we rely on both of them to provide information on the situation so that politicians can make decisions.

Realistically, neither scientists nor military members will stay out of politics. Both are becoming increasingly politicised, unfortunately. But an injection of facts, observations and information from either party is welcome IMO.

As with all laws and rules, there's the letter and the spirit.

No problem then, for a Reservist's chain of command to make a formal counselling.

Once that's done, then any further infraction get's the Soldier, legally, under violating an order.

And it's possible in the present case that a sufficient counselling has been done already--there's some indication that SGT Aguina may have done similar things before.

In addition, we attend annual briefings and sign statemetns to the effect that we've been counselled on those subjects (death by powerpoint weekend). If the subject has been covered then, he meets similar jeopardy.

You serve as a Marine. Great!

But who do you serve? The American people, for we are a country, "of the people, by the people, for the people," or is it the establishment in Washington.

Consider the recent immigration battle. NEVER before in American history have the American people spoken out in such opposition to a piece of legislation, at least not since the election of Lincoln.

And yet that establishment, in the teeth of a hailstorm of opposition, from ALL parties, still came within an ace of passing that damn thing. And they resorted to parliamentary maneuvers never before resorted to, in their effort to put the fix in for that legislation.

Where was America's officer corps?

Every year America absorbs 2 MILLION PLUS illegals, across a border that is about as secure as the border between Pennsylvania and New York.

Year after year.

And yet America's officer corps has remained strangely silent on an issue that very much concerns America's national security, as well American sovereignty.

Well, what do you suggest the officer corps have done?

Have you ever considered simply having a march, of only officers, past and present, surrounding the capitol, carrying signs that said: "Secure the border, or we will!"

Have you ever pondered for a moment the transformative impact such a march would have? The American people would then know, without any doubt, that their Army, THEIR Army was behind them, with them, supporting them, against the media, against the cultural elite, against the establishment.

You would have only had to do that once, to put the fear of God in the establishment, and Congress, the bureaucrats, and perhaps most importantly, THE SUPREME COURT would have tacked accordingly.

Or here's another little issue.

The Iranians are bleeding us daily. They're blowing us up, they're maiming us, disfiguring us, killing us, and all the while, proceeding towards the completion of their Manhattan Project.

What do I suggest you guys do?

The next time the President comes to deliver a little speech to assembled troops, why not have an officer cry out loud and clear, real close to the platform, so he has to be heard by the President and the media too, why not have him cry out: "WHEN CAN WE GO AFTER THE IRANIANS?" Or how about having him cry out this: "HOW MANY AMERICANS DO THE IRANIANS GET TO KILL, BEFORE YOU FIND THE MANHOOD TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?"

That would put the issue of Iranian involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan front and center. Don't ya' think?

Don't ya' think the blogs would pick up on that immediately, and talk radio almost as fast?

Not to mention it would demonstrate to the American people that your morale is fine, and you want to go after the enemy.

Here's another example. The surge. When the surge was first proposed, it didn't consist of another 15% in manpower. You allowed The White House to whittle that plan down. You allowed Gates to be imposed as Sec Def, and you allowed him to do everything he could to kill the surge behind closed doors.

What would have happened if the high command told Gates and the President in no uncertain terms, the surge plan will go forward without alteration, or we're going to take a walk, and not just the high command. What if the President was told face to face, "We'll fight this battle to win, we're through with your whack-a-mole bullshit, we're through with your ridiculous tinkerings."

What do you think would have happened?

Here's another little issue, the distribution of oil proceeds to the Iraqi people. State has allowed a commonsensical and easy pro-rata distribution scheme to become a complex negotiation between various blocks, {the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds}.

So instead of BYPASSING tribal and denominational leadership, and thus marginalizing them, and empowering the people, against their would be leaders, instead of doing that, you guys allowed that oil distribution plan to be held up for how many years now?

Why haven't you guys simply told the Iraqi government, "you guys had your chance, now we'll distribute the money as we see fit, and we see fit to distribute it pro-rata, right now!"

Have you any idea how transformative that would be in Iraq? You would be able to say, "your previous governments gave you nothing, the money you have in your hand right now, we put there, and your tribal leadership, your religious leadership, the terrorists in your midst, want to take the money we gave you, away from you, so which side are you on?"

WE ARE MOVING INTO UNCHARTED WATERS!

America has never known, at least not since our Civil War, a domestic and foreign drift towards the erasure of sovereign prerogative. Take a look at Britain, who were just unceremoniously informed that regardless of whether they pass the EU Constitution or not, their traditional rights are already vested in Brussels.

Don't think for half a second similar discussions aren't taking place in Washington. THIS PRESIDNET, I don't know if you've guys have truly noticed, but this President is funnelling almost the entirety of AMERICA'S foreign policy through the flawed and failed United Nations. EVERY MAJOR decision since 9/11, he's run by the UN, as if our national security should depend on getting the ambassador from Mexico or Zimbabwe to raise his hand.

Take a good look at what's going on vis-a-vis Iran.

Iran CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GET THE BOMB, such a thing shatters to its foundations the very structure of Western security. But State, and guys like Thomas P. Barnett, are determined that Iran SHOULD GO NUCLEAR, so that by the acquisition of regional prominence and dominance, "the Grand Bargain" can be realized.

Much of the Navy Officer Corps has already bought into this patent nonsense.

Are you guys going to be heard on this or what?

Have you guys ever watched flag officers testify before Congress?

I've seen whipped dogs with more gumption, more passion, more combativeness.

It's downright mortifying!

You guys need to start talking, AND I MEAN REALLY TALKING, amongst yourselves.

The Chinese are threatening our economy, but Washington refuses to get its economic house in order. We're sitting on a mountain of coal, what ALL of OPEC is to crude, America ALONE is to coal. But with all that coal that God has graced us with, we're told that there is a vast energy shortage.

Take a look at the recent contribution to Congress from the ranks of America's officer corps: Congressman Joe Sestak, Congressman Patrick Murphy.

Take a look at some of the more prominent of the retired officers, pronouncing on foreign policy: Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Wesley Clarke.

So we have incompetents, and we have those in bed with the house of saud and the petrosheiks. Zinni almost parrots the line of the Arab League.

Those are the men America hears.

They're not hearing men like Thom McInerney.

At the press conferences in Iraq, why are you obeying orders to glide over Iranian involvement. Ignore the orders, lay it all out, lay out in detail, incontrovertible detail, Iranian involvement, Rev Guard involvement, Al Qods involvement.

Couldn't you at least do that?

Don't you think it's time?

Don't you think the dead, the wounded, DESERVE the truth to be spoken?

Slab, by blogging on this forum, you're involving yourself in the political process. Maybe there isn't a picture of you in your dress blues attached to it, but everyone here knows you're a Marine and an officer.

You ARE actively involved in the political discourse of this nation, whether you like it or not... and whether you realize it or not.

And don't resign. God knows we're losing enough good people right now.

Dan,

Move to Turkey, I think you'd like the military's role in political discourse there.

You want the military to be a political force rather than an instrument of the state and to impose it's will upon the populace when you think they don't "get it".

Just when did the threat of military coup become acceptable to citizens in the United States?

Dan, you are talking mutiny. You are talking a violation of the oath of office.
If you are an officer and you find that you can no longer follow the orders you are issued, then you resign. Period.

Again, I go back to what MacArthur said,

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government; whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing, indulged in too long; by federal paternalism grown too mighty; by power groups grown too arrogant; by politics grown too corrupt; by crime grown too rampant; by morals grown too low; by taxes grown too high; by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as thorough and complete as they should be. These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your Guidepost stands out like a beacon in the night---Duty, Honor, Country.

But, and I'm only playing devil's advocate here, at what point does your obligation to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC mean that it's time to take the reins and set things right?

I'm not saying we're at that point (or anywhere close), but isn't there that remote, one-in-a-million, chance where the military would take control and prevent things from spiraling beyond all hope? Or would the military simply sit and play the fiddle while the whole thing burned down around it?

MacArthur made that speech at a time in American history where citizens were far more involved in the political process, were more knowlegable about it, and weren't simply voting for their own interests.

That's not the situation anymore.

So what is the role of the military in America NOW? Not fifty years ago or a hundred and fifty years ago.

I don't support marching on Washington or something crazy like that. My argument is that, in this day and age, the role of the military in the political process has changed and we must embrace it.

Dan, if military officers march on Washington, it's a very bad thing. I would rather resign than be a part of that. It's not a perfect system, but it was created for a reason, and I believe those reasons to be more important than the issues you mentioned.

Joel, I would argue that this blog does not exist for partisan purposes, unlike the YearlyKos convention. For the most part OPFOR leans a bit right of center, but we don't blatantly align ourselves with a political party like Kos.

Joel,

You make a good point, though I would disagree that Americans weren't motivated to vote for their own self interests 50 years ago. They were more knowledgeable, but less selfless?

But the advocation of increased involvement in the political process by the military is a slippery slope. The implications for the civilian command of the military is grave, but graver still is the implication that politics will become even more ingrained within the military culture. Could you see a day when officers and NCO's are denied promotion due to their political beliefs if we allow politics to penetrate further into the military?

It's a double edged sword.

Not politics penetrating into the military, but the military penetrating into politics.

Joel, our military is based upon our officer corps remaining separate from our elected officials.

We cannot become part of that process.

I concur that the officer corps marching on Washington is a very bad thing. It is indeed.

But the drift of events in Washington, in The White House, in Congress, in the bureaucracies, especially in The Supreme Court, doesn't leave any other option.

The establishment deems the officer corps of this country thoroughly domesticated.

The people they ignore.

So increasingly, and it's getting worse by the day, so we have a government more responsive to parlour criticism of foreigners, than to the American people.

The situation at the border is but a SYMPTOM, and what is it symptomatic of? Does it reflect a government responsive to the desires of the electorate? Or does it reflect disdain, derision, barely veiled contempt? Do any of you recall the words of Arlen Specter, during the height of the immigration battle? He said: "THE WILL of the Senate will prevail."

Not of the people, not of the electorate, but the Senate.

"The WILL of the Senate!"

Something needs to be done.

And I think it's a good start to demonstrate to the establishment that you aren't, in the famous words of Brendan Sullivan, more than "a potted plant." They're taking you for granted.

That's got to end.

The people they will ignore.

Look at the Dubai Ports deal. Not just the specifics of that particular proposal. No. Look at the mechanism that was created to enable these types of squalid deals to go through, WITHOUT ANY POLITICIAN having to sign off on it. The whole thing was devised to allow establishment views to be implemented, without the people knowing, without the people exercising proper oversight and audit.

It's profoundly troubling.

Here's another little example.

Today, in our country, there are more students from "saudi" arabia than there were on September 10th, 2001. Does that seem rational to any of you?

Do you think the American people would sign off on such a kooky, whifty, brain-dead policy?

How did that come about? Easy. The ruler of that pathological family visited Crawford, and personally asked Bush to allow in more students. And Bush, eager to ingratiate and appease, immediately agreed.

Which of us thinks the President's behavior was anything other than arrant knavery?

Here's some history, moving away from the events of today.

Chief Justice Marshall once wrote an opinion, and a ruling, which required then President Andrew Jackson to comply with. Jackson said: "Marshall made his ruling, let's see him enforce it." Meaning, Jackson wouldn't comply.

Here's another little event from our history.

The Boston Tea Party. That was lawlessness, it was borderline treasonous, and it tended towards insurrection. Yet that's what our forefathers did. And just about the entirety of Boston was in on it.

Who fired the famous shot heard round the world? Does anyone know?

Answer: No one knows the man who first fired that shot. What's more, there was no order given to fire. Somebody, on his own, on his own initiative, started the ball rolling.

Is it mutiny to insist on victory?

Is it mutiny in refusing to tolerate defeat?

Is it breach of duty to refuse failure?

Is it breach of duty to refuse to tolerate ANOTHER defeat, 'Nam being the first that our Armed Forces had to swallow.

Our officer corps is about to RATIFY the verdict of 'Nam, that America is a push over, a paper tiger, who doesn't have the grit to grind one out.

Our officer corps is on the verge of demonstrating that the verdict of 'Nam was some damn aberration, but the norm. That defeat for the United States is now PAR for the course.

That's what we're looking at, and we're staring it dead in the eye. We're staring at defeat.

We're staring at capitulation.

We're staring at American sovereign prerogatives being absorbed by organizations and institutions hostile to America, hostile to Capitalism, and not much fond of the West itself.

Is this what we won the Cold War for, so that we could fritter away the fruits of that victory by allowing the Iranians to go nuke, by allowing American Exceptionalism to become a thing of the past.

Is that what you're fighting for?

When American soldiers were told to wear the dopey blue helmets in Korea, what did they do? When American men were buried in cemeteries under that nauseating blue flag of the UN, what did our fathers do, did they stand still for that crap? Was that mutiny too?

MacArthur cautioned young men about politics. But he did so confident that if the military had to speak clearly to the establishment, that it wouldn't be without cause, that the stakes would be huge, and that those officers burdened with that somber duty would be able to distinguish how their circumstances is the EXCEPTION that proves the rule, that otherwise obtains.

YES, THE GENERAL RULE is do not interfere. But all rules admit of exceptions, do they not gentlemen?

Do not emulate the mistake of the German officer corps in the interwar years! They too tried to be above the fray, they too repeated banalities to themselves, they too made a fetish of their political agnosticism.

Look where it led them.

Somebody warned me of Turkey.

Turkey is a damn good example. Should the Turkish officer corps countenance radical islamists in power, or sweep them aside, in keeping with the DELIBERATE secular bent of their society?

For me the question is a no-brainer.

Don't any of you recall what happened when the Ayatollah took over Iran.

Let me refresh your memory. The Shah split. The Ayatollah arrived. And the Iranian high command had some decisions to make, and not loads of time to make 'em. They could either take over like Pinochet, take over for a while, hold elections later. They could tell the Ayatollah he could take over, but they were going to be keeping an eye on him, so if he did something stupid, he'd be dead fast.

Or they could profess themselves neutral, throw up their hands, and let events be their master.

They chose passivity.

They too embraced the German model. They too rationalized their decision, they too pretended it was the will of the people.

And what happened thereafter? The smart ones split with their families. The dumb ones stayed, and were promptly shot, their women raped, then shot, many a distant relative hunted down to boot.

And as for Iran..........????? Well, if this pack of kooks has their druthers, it looks like Iran is on the fast track to a nuclear exchange with the Israelis.

Now tell me somebody, how the political agnosticism of the Iranian officer corps BENEFITED those whom they were sworn to defend.

It can't be done. It can't be done.

Are we a government "of, for and by the people?" Or is that all claptrap? The stuff of memories, a cherished thought, but an anachronism nonetheless.

The easy platitudes that are so quick to the tongue aren't going to cut it.

Whether you want it or not, you're going to have some decisions to make.

Are you going to allow Washington to ratify the evil verdict of 'Nam?

Are you going to allow the expenditure of your blood to have been poured out for nothing?

Are you going to allow the whole world to careen wildly towards the abyss, by another demonstration of American fecklessness?

The war that Washington won't fight and win in the Near East, is a war that America almost courts in the Far East.

What do you think will be the response of the Japanese to all of this pusillanimousness?

Washington is letting the Iranians to go nuclear, the foremost terror sponsor on the planet, a government that has established terror cells in South America, Europe, London, the United States. A government that makes almost weekly genocidal utterances.

Are you guys going to rationalize that development?

Are you going to excuse inaction?

I don't know if it's dawned on some of you, but there comes a time when prattling about duty becomes a dodge to the performance of genuine duty.

Hi Slab, thanks for following through with the effort after promising to look into this. Speaks to your character and self-organization.

RTO Trainer, a commentator at Hot Air, had this to say:

The regulation AR 670-1 says that reservists not in IDT status are not authorized to wear the uniform, except in certain specific kinds of cases, no ne of which apply here.

The UCMJ cannot be used to apply this regulation to a Reserve component soldier, even though the regulation describes activity beyond teh scope of the UCMJ (not in IDT status).

Therefore, once the troop’s chain of command becomes aware of the infraction of the rule, they should make a formal counseling, instructing the Soldier of the rule.

Now, if the Soldier chooses to do it again, despite the counselling, he’s now subject to the UCMJ for violating an order (the counseling).

The operation of the law in this case kind of builds in a Strike 1, Strike 2 requirement.

Now, I myself am a National Guardsman. Do you know that I’m not subject to the UCMJ even in IDT status, only on active duty. When drilling I’m subject to the Oklahoma Code of Military Justice. Each state (and DC and the territories) has one which never ever applies to a member of the Army Reserve.

So, the regs don’t apply as a matter of law, but they still apply as a matter of function and can be made to apply under law as a matter of process.

I didn't know if he was on to anything, but armylawywer says this:

Assuming he’s quoting 670-1 correctly, then he’s basically right. AR 670-1 is non-punitive. Meaning that if you are found in violation of it, you cannot be punished. You can be corrected and ordered to fix the deficiency and if you fail to do so you would be punished for failure to obey a lawful order, not a failure to follow the uniform regulation.

The specific mechanics of that I’ll leave to the Guardsmen and reservists. But it remains that if you’re not on active duty, you aren’t subject to the UCMJ (exceptions exists, but are not relevant here).

This is all above my non-pay grade as a civilian layman, but it's the only answer I've found so far.

Speaking as a non-military, non-resident, non-US citizen in Malaysia, Dan, way to go.

However, what you are asking from YOUR military is very much beyond, make that WAY, WAY beyond normal operating procedure. To use, inaccurately perhaps, a common phrase attributed to the military, this is a decision to be made above the pay grades of the rank and file (and even junior officers).

My guess is, the US military as a whole must decide who and what their allegiance belongs to. As I recall, it is to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the People of the United States of America.

If so, then the JCOS had better consider long and consider hard what that allegiance and that duty means. And if it means going against the current (elected) leadership, FOR the people AND the preservation of the Constitution, then I can only pray that they will go so far and no further.

Have things become so bad? I don't know, I can't know. I'm not an American. I wish I was, but I'm not. Should soldiers be marching in protest? I tend to say no; maybe some mild remonstration is needed and that's it.

My apologies for butting in. I'll go away quietly now.

PS As for the Sgt - woo hoo! Way ta go! And next time, don't wear your official uniform. That way, nobody going to bust your chops. Or try to, any rate.

Bullnav, I think the time has come for the military to become more involved in the process.

This simply is not the mid-twentieth century anymore.

Our society and our military have never been SO separated as they are now.

It is not up to the military to fix any perceived separation between society and the military. That is up to society, if in fact such a separation does exist.

I don't think there is such a separation, at least not any more than has existed in the past. Hell, prior to the World Wars, a military career was not seen as anything close to a noble endeavor. Military personnel lived on base in garrison or were stationed in foreign ports and had little contact with the general population as a whole.

Today, our military live out in town, no matter what base. As far as the general population, I know of at least 5 people here at work who have childern either serving in OIF/OEF or getting ready to go. The people here care and are interested. They might not know much about how the military operates, but they want to learn and want to support.

Now, what you might read in the paper, that might paint a different picture...

Statistically speaking, the number of Americans serving in the active duty, Guard, and Reserve amount to about one percent of the total American population. Add to that the immediate family members who are affected by deployment (parents, siblings, spouses, and children) and I'll generously say that the number is two percent.

The inter-war years were a lean time for our military, yes. However, during WW2 and the years following, there was a significantly higher percentage of veterans. For many, serving your bit in the military was considered a "passage" to manhood of sorts.

Obviously, this all changed during Vietnam.

However, during the later Cold War years (the 80's), the percentage of those serving compared to overall American population was greater than it is now.

Civilians and veterans have two different outlooks on life. My worldview is one shaped by privation and hardship... by the notion that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Not many of my peers share that same worldview.

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

That is a very Star Trekian/leftist philosophy: socialism.

Not so much a Trekkie... I'm a Heinleinian.

What I'm asking for is a something like a shot across the bow.

Our establishment is WAY TOO COMFORTABLE right now.

They're not tethered to the electorate, to the aspirations and desires of that electorate, and increasingly, they've nothing but disdain for the attitudes of that electorate.

This isn't a complaint about a certain administration, this is a conclusion that is supported by close observation of our three branches of government over the last several decades.

For a legal take on where we're heading, please check out Robert Bork's recent book. He lays out how our courts are increasingly looking to foreign law to inform their decisions of American law, and more ominously, our American Constitution.

How many times has the American people passed state referendums on a variety of subjects, which subsequently were struck down as unconstitutional by federal courts? Have you guys any idea? Do you think that it's wise for the federal judiciary to habitually strike down referendum results of the American people?

Because that's what's going on.

Have any of you lately read or listened to some of the decisions or public statements of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg?

Clearly you haven't.

If 30,000 members of the officer corps marched on Washington, carrying placards that said things like: "Either you secure the border, or we will." Or: "If you force us to pick between imposing the will of the establishment, or that of the American people, we'll pick the later every time." Such an event would rattle the establishment, and they can be rattled. It would slow them down, it would slow down the enactment of their agenda, which is going on day by day, in our federal agencies, the executive branch, State, the federal courts, etc. It would make them understand that there is a new player in town.

That's what I'm suggesting.

You are going to come to it, sooner or later.

Take a look what's happening in Europe.

The people have repeatedly been asked to sign off on a EU "Constitution." They've voted no. But no votes don't have any validity, only those votes that support the EU process count, votes against simply mean the continual rescheduling of votes, until the vote becomes ratification, at which point the vote becomes set in stone.

That's what's going on over there. And that's what we're seeing to a certain extent, albeit not as bad, in Washington.

And during all of this, you guys point to some regulation that says you can't be political.

We're heading down the tracks, and you guys seem content to make a fetish of a regulation.

So to sum up, Greg asks if the situation has become that bad to even begin pondering such things. Yes. they're bad.

BUT, I'm not calling for any insurrection, what I'm suggesting is that the American officer corps begin to demonstrate a certain restiveness, a certain discontent with how things are developing, and I'm suggesting that they make that known publicly, not individually, but the officer corps as a whole.

I think it's long past time that you guys demonstrate that you stand with the American people, that you're increasingly hostile to the views and attitudes of the establishment, which seems determined to end American Exceptionalism.

Is that so much to ask?

Some have said I'm suggesting mutiny. No, nothing so grand as all that, nothing so melodramatic.

I'm expecting you guys to express some serious discontent, I'm expecting you guys to tell Washington you're pissed off, that you're feeling the same things that the American people are.