Daily Show: Marines in Berkeley

[SDNalgene]

Military service has a lot to do with politics. We are the ultimate executioners of the administrations foreign "diplomacy." I don't see why someone would or should join the military if they disagree with the direction that our government has taken, as many people in the U.S. currently do with Iraq.

So I suppose I should be resigning my commission if a commander in chief is elected with whom I disagree? We aren't talked illegal orders, we are talking differences in policy. And how what if I only disagree on one thing, do I still resign? I think that is an incredibly short sighted view of military service. As others have pointed out, civilian leadership will change throughout the course of a professional officer's career if he or she stays in for the full 20 and beyond. We live in freedom and relative comfort in this country because in every generation men have stood up and served. I guarantee you that like today many of them did not agree with the decisions of their civilian leadership, but they served anyway. Not everyone got to go kill Nazis and liberate Europe. Some wars are more murky, less glamorous, and far more unpopular, but the need for people to serve in the nation's defense will continue.

And while Code Pink's arguments are idiotic, I do think that it's a civic duty for Americans to put up a fight when they think the government is doing something unjust. Many of our founding fathers felt the same way. I don't think it's fair to call someone "unpatriotic" simply because they are speaking out for an opinion opposes our government.

If you had read my post you would see me point that my problem is not with dissent; it's with idiotic, hateful, uninformed dissent. Uttering Code Pink in the same sentence with the founding fathers is a blatantly fallacious argument. Just because both engage in civil disobedience does not put them on anywhere near the same level. They absolutely do not get to claim to be patriotic when they are maligning the nation's leaders and military based on arguments you yourself admit are idiotic. Please tell me you don't seriously think that the dissent exhibited by grunting old hags in Pink getting tossed out of a Senate chamber is on the same level as the dissent found in the thoughts, writings, and actions of the founding fathers.

 

[armada1651]

He said that historically, there was a clear delineation between military and politics....our forefathers felt it necessary to include a clause in the Constitution that specifically prevents such a thing from happening.

Yeah, that clause in the Constitution IS the clear delineation between military and politics.

When I brought up that a lot of our Presidents and other politicians have a background of military service, I simply meant to say that there is more of a link between military and politics than m0t seems to think.

The fact politicians have served in the military is not a "link" between military and politics because those politicians are no longer in the military at the time they hold office. This is because, as you pointed out, the Constitution prohibits such an occurrence....because, as you pointed out, our founding fathers wanted a CLEAR DELINEATION BETWEEN THE MILITARY AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP. The point here is that civilian control over the military is a key, foundational element of our republic. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the political views of an officer (especially a junior officer) are; if you're given an order - unless it's unlawful - you follow it. If someone has a problem with that concept, they shouldn't join the military. But disagreeing politically with the current administration's policy is not, in and of itself, a legitimate reason to not serve in the military.

 

[m0tbaillie]

I didn't refute my own argument at all; m0t misinterpretted what I said entirely. He said that historically, there was a clear delineation between military and politics. That's an incorrect statement, since most national leaders [of every country in the world on the whole] have been military leaders as well. I think the part in brackets was clearly implied when I went on to say that our forefathers felt it necessary to include a clause in the Constitution that specifically prevents such a thing from happening. When I brought up that a lot of our Presidents and other politicians have a background of military service, I simply meant to say that there is more of a link between military and politics than m0t seems to think.

Within the context of US history, as you yourself mentioned, the Constitution says that the President cannot be active duty. Now, many past presidents have previously been prior military, but I doubt any of the older gentlemen on these boards would argue that political dealings/doings within the upper echelons of the military (flag rank) is a relatively new thing. I remember that my father's biggest complaint about the military when he retired earlier this year was that it was becoming too politicized and that "New Navy" wasn't what he joined years ago. To say that politics and military have always overlapped within our leaders would, therefore, be historically incorrect.

Worldwide however? Definitely not the case, but for the sake of our argument, let's stick to the context of the US.

Spekkio: there are people on these boards - JOs and senior officers alike - people with years upon years vested into their Naval careers that probably disagree with quite a bit of what this Administration has done. So, by your logic, they/we should all jump ship, right?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Don't confuse "sevice politics" with serving officers interfering in politics. When people complain about Navy politics (aka Corporate Navy, etc etc), they're usually talking about the Byzantine games played at the upper echelons - who's in, who's out, who's kissing whose ass, that sort of thing.

I will agree - to a point - that if someone disagrees with current foreign policy and military actions, they shouldn't join the military. Otherwise, we get idiocies like that National Guardsmen who deserted and ran to Canada rather than go to Iraq, because he thought he'd just be rescuing puppies from floods and shooting rioters, or some damn thing.

However comma I strongly disagree that serving in a conflict constitutes endorsement of a policy or action. The orders given by our civilian leadership are no different than orders given by a superior officer. An officer who disagrees may contest the order up to a point, or raise points of disagreement; but ultimately, it's your duty to carry out those orders. We do not have the right to decide which orders to follow and which to ignore. What's the difference between deciding you're not going to fight a war because it hasn't been adequately justified to you, or I'll fight in this war I approve of but not the one I don't, and deciding that the President is ignoring a present threat and we should nuke country X?

Of course, illegal orders should not be obeyed. But all the noise about this being an "illegal war" are patent nonsense (as many times as I've heard that phrase tossed around, it's never been explained which laws it's supposed to have violated). The invasion of Iraq was legally ordered by the Commander-in-Chief, and authorized by Congress, which, BTW, isn't even a Constitutional requirement. Those of us in the military are obligated to follow the resultant orders...we swore an oath to do so. If you refuse to follow them, you accept the legal consquences.

As for CP: fringe, excessivley-sheltered screeching fools. I don't lump them in with those who have a principled objection to the war. It's your right as a citizen to dissent, but "right to assholeness" is nowhere in the Bill of Rights.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Don't confuse "sevice politics" with serving officers interfering in politics. When people complain about Navy politics (aka Corporate Navy, etc etc), they're usually talking about the Byzantine games played at the upper echelons - who's in, who's out, who's kissing whose ass, that sort of thing.

I was specifically referring to the politicking that top brass does outside of the military. I have heard a lot of lifers complaing from time to time that the Navy has changed in that top brass is often more considered with landing themselves that book deal and sitting on executive boards of various companies after they retire than taking care of people while they're in, and in that respect are often swayed and drive to politicking in Congress and with various other special interest groups while in uniform. I could be completely wrong because I don't have experience with this myself, but I've definitely heard this sentiment from more than one person.

 

[Flash]

I was specifically referring to the politicking that top brass does outside of the military. I have heard a lot of lifers complaing from time to time that the Navy has changed in that top brass is often more considered with landing themselves that book deal and sitting on executive boards of various companies after they retire than taking care of people while they're in, and in that respect are often swayed and drive to politicking in Congress and with various other special interest groups while in uniform. I could be completely wrong because I don't have experience with this myself, but I've definitely heard this sentiment from more than one person.

There are certainly some Admirals and Generals who are like that, but I think they are the exception instead of the rule. Sounds more like whining than a legitimate complaint.

 

[m0tbaillie]

There are certainly some Admirals and Generals who are like that, but I think they are the exception instead of the rule. Sounds more like whining than a legitimate complaint.

Guess it depends on who you talk to and how often you're around flags, then.

 

[squeeze]

Guess it depends on who you talk to and how often you're around flags, then.

I'd venture a guess that Flash is/has been around more brass than you. Just a hunch.

 

[Spekkio]

If someone has a problem with that concept, they shouldn't join the military. But disagreeing politically with the current administration's policy is not, in and of itself, a legitimate reason to not serve in the military.

This is the key right here...let me try another approach:

Would the President be able to conduct his current foreign policy without an obedient military that would carry out his orders? No

Following that, is joining the military contributing to the force which enables the President to make and carry out his policies? Yes

So if joining the military makes you personally responsible for enabling a President to continue to make policy with which you disagree, why would that be a poor excuse for abstaining from service? Moreoever, how can you say that the military and politics are not intertwined?

Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent of taking arms and violently revolting against leaders that the public disagrees with. For better or worse, it seems that much our population has simply chosen to abstain from the military or dress in ridiculous pink outfits in such cases.

Note: I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that officers should resign their commission just for being given an order with which they disagree. I am not saying that this is the reason that everyone decides to abstain from service. I'm simply saying that there are people out there who, unlike me and other military members on this board, cannot put personal viewpoints aside and assist in carrying out a policy with which they strongly disagree.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Military service is a long term commitment. 4-6 years at a minimum. Presidents come and go every 4 to 8 years. Unless you're looking to go to boot camp on 20 January in the year that your perfect candidate takes office (and you're on a 4 year obligation of service), odds are very strong that you'll be serving under a Commander in Chief that you don't see eye to eye with politically. Big deal.

I came in under President Bush 41. I served all through President Clintons 2 terms. I'm still in. I didn't agree with everything that all 3 of them had to say, but I executed every order I was given. I went where I was told. That's how it works.

I'll do the same for President Obama, should that come to pass.

You can't pick and choose your bosses, from your fire team leader up to the President. You certainly can't pick which orders you will follow, illegality not withstanding. Deal with it. If you cannot, then military service is not for you. That doesn't make you a bad person, just incompatible with military service.

And one more thing, just because what the President orders conflicts with your personal code of ethics (DADT, Iraq War, Rwanda intervention/lack thereof, whatever) does not, in and of itself, make it "illegal".

We have lots of checks and balances for that. If you want to worry about illegal orders, start with the ones closer to your paygrade. Shoot/no shoot, ROE, budgetary priorities, legal matters, etc.

If you do decide that the order that you were given was illegal, then you have an obligation not to follow it. The person who gave it, though, can appeal that to somebody above both of you who might find in his favor. It then becomes time to shut up and color or take the consequences.

You do NOT have a right or obligation to challenge orders, be repeatedly and legally overruled, and then get off without consequences.

 

[Spekkio]

If you cannot, then military service is not for you. That doesn't make you a bad person, just incompatible with military service.

You do NOT have a right or obligation to challenge orders, be repeatedly and legally overruled, and then get off without consequences.

This is the point I was making. Not everyone is okay with this concept.

 

[m0tbaillie]

I'd venture a guess that Flash is/has been around more brass than you. Just a hunch.

I wasn't speaking for myself personally, I was just making a general statement that YMMV.

 

[Harrier Dude]

This is the point I was making. Not everyone is okay with this concept.

Then they'd better get on board with the concept, or not join. Misery will follow, I assure you.

President McCain could send us to war with Iran. You're going, like it or not.

President Obama could let gays openly serve in the military (lets please not debate that again today). You'll work with/for a gay person after that. Deal with it.

The military exists to protect democracy, not practice it.

*note: these are hypothetical examples of what could happen. Not predictions or endorsements. Don't read too much into them. For training purposes only.

 

[SDNalgene]

*note: these are hypothetical examples of what could happen. Not predictions or endorsements. Don't read too much into them. For training purposes only.

I love it.

 

[MasterBates]

Tra is everywhere!