Politics while in uniform: the No, Sir, and Yes of it
[ by Charles Cameron — trying out a new look for DoubleQuotes ]
.
I’m aware that testifying under oath when questioned on a specific topic by Congress is different from promoting a presidential candidate at a campaign rally — but even so, the contrast strikes me as interesting:
As for the question of orders to torture which Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford was addressing, I personally am with him. My point here, however, is not to play politics, but to raise the issue of “justice” — in this case, “fair play” might be a better phrase — “not only being done, but being seen to be done”..
**
Sources:
zen:
March 19th, 2016 at 6:26 am
A superb point.
.
The military’s reputation for holding officers, much less general officers, to the legal, ethical and moral standards expected of enlisted men has suffered of late.
Cheryl Rofer:
March 19th, 2016 at 12:38 pm
The distinction here is the occasion, not the rank. If the Marine were asked to testify to Congress about something having to do with his being a Marine, he would wear his uniform. If the general campaigned for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or the local dogcatcher in his uniform, he would be in trouble.
Charles Cameron:
March 19th, 2016 at 5:31 pm
Thanks, Zen — I wasn’t even sure whether or not to post this piece.
.
I tended to the opinion Cheryl indicates as describing the legal situation, but as I said, appearances are also significant: indeed, we appear to be living in a semiotically seismic environment.
larrydunbar:
March 20th, 2016 at 12:34 am
But the bottom line is: there would be a coup if our military, covert or not, was asked to carry out a Trump mandate to kill all terrorists, their women and their children, to name a few.
*
I mean, like Reagan, there would be busloads of dead nuns, but eventually Trump supports would understand that there is a consequence to their actions, even if they have given their permission to Trump, as Commander and Chief of their Armed Forces, to do so.
*
In the end, Trump can only act as we the people allow him too, no matter how great a winner he thinks he is.
*
Because, like India, we are a democracy, it is our actions who will be judged, not Trumps.
*
So, like most 3rd World countries in the Americas, a coup is the best possible outcome of any bad actions, unless we decide to be more than just another American 3rd World Country, and reject Trump’s Orientation (Orange).
zen:
March 20th, 2016 at 3:01 am
Hi Cheryl
.
GO and FO are in a delicate situation when testifying before the Congress. They are in the chain of command that goes to the Commander-in-Chief whose orders and policies they are obligated to carry out. They are also obligated to give truthful testimony and independent military advice to the Congress without regard to the political preferences of the administration. In a phrase, civilian control requires that they serve two masters. It is not easy to serve both equally well.
.
The go-to example of doing it right is General George Marshall. The story goes that shortly after Marshall finally -finally – made brigadier in the slow promoting interwar Army – he was summoned to an important meeting with President Roosevelt and many other VIPs. At some point, FDR was pontificating, erroneously, on military matters when he turned suddenly to Marshall and said “Isn’t that right, George?”
.
As Marshall related the anecdote, he was irritated at being called “George” because “the President did not know me on that basis, but a President can pretty much call you whatever he wants” and FDR did not know what he was talking about either. So Marshall said ” No, Mr. President, I don’t think that at all”. At which point the room went silent. Marshall had equal candor with Congress, Churchill and Truman and it certainly did not hurt his career. Other generals with an urge for truth-telling to power like Brute Krulak or Shinseki did not fare so well.
.
My opinion is General Dunford crossed a line in his remarks and unwisely ventured into partisan politics by personalizing them to a specific candidate for POTUS. There were probably more tactful ways to make the same point in general terms.
Charles Cameron:
March 20th, 2016 at 3:47 am
Well, I’m very glad I did decide to post this piece.
.
Zen, your comment sent be back looking for Dunford’s testimony, which brought me to this Reuters headline and these more detailed paragraphs:
As you can see from the image I used, the headline in that case implied that Dunford was directly contradicting Trump. Whether disagreeing with what Trump had suggested without naming him “rises to the level” of inappropriateness you suggest remains a fascinating question.
.
What say you?
Nathaniel T. Lauterbach:
March 20th, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Zen-
.
I agree with you, except to point out that, in actuality, the officer’s oath differs from the enlisted oath in that the officer’s oath says nothing of “obeying the orders of the president and the officers appointed over” them. Rather, it speaks to fulfilling “the duties of the office of which I’m about to enter.” That’s a telling difference, and it implies a much greater burden of responsibility that an officer has than an enlisted has. Officers have more room to speak with candor, especially to Congress, but they also bear a much greater constitutional responsibility.
.
As for Marine seeing Trump, I don’t know the specifics of the meeting, but the Hatch Act (which is law, not purely a DOD policy) is very clear: Service members shall not appear at political rallies in uniform. Was it a political rally? Yes. Additionally, he violated DOD policy which supports execution of the Hatch Act, and actually the Marine Corps uniform order (MCO P1020.34G), too, as the particular variant of the Dress Blues he was wearing was the “Dress Blue Alpha” variant, which is not authorized for wear while on liberty unless permission is granted by a commander to do so. Dress Blue Alpha is purely a uniform for official duties (military balls, ceremonies, etc.) Were I there, I would have absolutely NO problem ordering that Marine to GTFO and/or read him his rights on the spot. That’s enforcing the law, and that’s my duty as an officer.
.
My opinion on Gen Dunford (speaking purely as a citizen in a private capacity) was that he was giving his military opinion on a question given by Congress about the execution of military orders. That’s fair and reasonable, and he was acting according to his duties to Congress. This is not dissimilar to the various officers who opposed EITs during the Iraq War, giving their opinion to Congress. That was work in the performance of duty, and not a violation of the oath of office.
.
Nate
Nate
Charles Cameron:
March 20th, 2016 at 3:12 pm
I’m learning a lot here.
.
FWIW, it appears the Marine, Cpl. Jason Perkins of Marine Forces Reserve, wasn’t just present at the Trump event, he sang the National Anthem:
.
Nathaniel T. Lauterbach:
March 20th, 2016 at 3:34 pm
Charles Cameron-
.
I know. It’s awful. An egregious violation for standards. The Marine has no right to wear that uniform at that rally, or to sing while wearing it. The Marine Corps has no policy supporting or opposing any candidate. He violated the law, DOD policy, and the uniform order for his service.
Even retired Marines, who still have the right to wear the uniform, are prohibited from doing so at political rallies, let alone reservists and active duty folks.
.
Absolutely atrocious.
.
If HRC is elected, will the Marine Corps execute their duties differently? No. But the uniform at the rally has very political implications. This is wrong.
.
Nate
Grurray:
March 20th, 2016 at 7:10 pm
I agree after reading the specific directive, DoD 1344.10. It’s pretty clear that you can’t wear your uniform at political rallies, and that includes reservists.
.
However, (from the comments in the linked article) this may be another one for the juxtaposition board:
4.1.2 A member of the armed forces on active duty shall not
4.1.2.10. March or ride in a partisan political parade
.
The Pentagon was walking a fine line with this section when it authorized uniformed troops to attend gay pride rallies
http://www.stripes.com/news/controversy-surrounds-dod-s-decision-on-gay-pride-parade-1.184120
larrydunbar:
March 21st, 2016 at 12:07 am
“The Pentagon was walking a fine line with this section when it authorized uniformed troops to attend gay pride rallies”
*
I don’t know, doesn’t recruitment practices come under a different set of rules?
zen:
March 21st, 2016 at 4:17 am
Charles – if GEN Dunford did NOT chastise Trump by name and related his opinions to actions, then he is fine. I inferred from the image that he took Trump to task before the committee and it looks like that was not what happened.
Charles Cameron:
March 21st, 2016 at 5:34 am
Yup, me too, Zen. The question was clearly framed with Trump in mind, but without naming him, and Dunford responded in the same manner.
Grurray:
March 21st, 2016 at 2:47 pm
Good one Larry. Maybe there’s method to the madness and the Pentagon is secretly assembling a modern day version of the Hieros Lochos ton Theban, but somehow I don’t think so.