For John, BLUF: All who served deserve our respect. But, their vote isn't any bigger. Nothing to see here; just move along.
There is a fine line between a retired officer's First Amendment rights and the abuse thereof. Contemplating a missive from some 700 Special Operations personnel to the US Congress over the Benghazi Imbroglio, retired Army Colonel Robert Killebrew♠ has penned an opinion piece for Armed Force Journal. The title is "Rank partisanship: Why retired officers shouldn’t lend their titles to political causes".
This is why I am always a little uncomfortable when, on City Life, retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel George Anthes refers to be as Colonel, or "The Colonel". Yes, I have a lot of experience I bring from my time in the military, as does Registrar of Deeds Dick Howe, Jr, or Democratic Operative Jack Mitchell or MIT Sloan School student and former Dog Robber for the Mayor, Greg Page. The point is, while our experience may merit some deference, our rank does not.
Here are the first paragraphs from the article. The article is free on line, so if you are interested, click the link and read all of it.
On April 8, a letter titled “The Benghazi attacks on 9/11/2012” and signed by “a representative group of some 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals” was sent to members of the House of Representatives. The letter urged lawmakers to dig deeper into the militant attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.Regards — Cliff“America failed to provide security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked,” it said.
Whatever the facts are behind the Benghazi case, the signatures on this letter represent still another example of retired officers throwing their military ranks and influence into partisan politics. Sincerity is not an issue; doubtless, many of the signatories were genuinely troubled by the Benghazi tragedy. But the more important question is whether the military’s self-policed “wall” between the military profession and partisan politics is being eroded, perhaps irreparably, by actions like the Benghazi letter and other recent episodes.
This article argues that the use of retired commissioned rank to influence partisan political issues is never proper, is injurious to the military services and is demeaning to the officers concerned.
“Use of military rank” is the key. This is not an issue of freedom of speech, but of propriety: Is it ever proper for retired officers to use their rank to influence a partisan political issue? Certainly, all American citizens have the right to speak their minds, and though retired officers retain their rank and are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they have been traditionally afforded a different status from that of active members. There is no question that retired officers have a right to speak out. But in so doing, they threaten a long and vital American tradition that holds the military aloof from partisanship.
♠ In the interest of full disclosure, Colonel Killebrew was a professor at the Army War College when I was there as a student.
5 comments:
Just where does partisanship end? At the borders of the US Constitution, or beyond it? Here is a hypothetical question I pose to my officer friends in the military. What if you were a military officer, sworn to uphold the US Constitution and realized one day the president as commander-in-chief was constitutionally unqualified to hold the office. Furthermore, what if he intentionally abandoned US citizen and military personnel. That action contributed to their death at the hands of our enemy? What would you do? Would you plot to remove him from office? Would you suspend the US Constitution to save it? Would you in good conscience resign your commission?
We need more context for a decision, but I would say, building in my mind based upon the first Comment, from "Anonymous", resign one's commission and go talk to one's Congressman.
Regards — Cliff
This one is indeed hard to pin down. I agree that, in the end, rank has to remain a military distinction, and not a political one. It's to your credit that you would deflect the honor of your service in political contexts, even while I hope you remain benevolently indulgent of the rest of us who will remain respectful and want to honor your service in every appropriate way.
Here is the oath: Oath of Commissioning
I (state your name) having been appointed a 2nd Lt, United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.
There is nothing partisan in that oath....and it obligates COMMISSIONED officers to "support and defend the Constitution." NOT a political party....or a given POTUS. IMHO....if a POTUS becomes an enemy of the Constitution....it is the commissioned officer's obligation to oppose such action.
Many officers will disagree with me......they will insist that their obligation is to support the CINC....even if he is a dictator......and in that assumption.....I would suggest is the seeds of the political correctness that has been our Achilles's heel.
Having served my country.....the Constitution.....for 33 years of my life.....honorably......I think I am entitled to what most today will regard as a dissenting view.
I think Neal's point is a key one regarding the oath of office. It is to the Constitution and not to a person. Germany tried that in 1934 and up to 1945 and it was a problem. I believe it troubled people like Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. As WIkipedia notes, "The oath is prominently featured in the film Valkyrie, about the 1944 military plot against Hitler."
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment