There's a story breaking of a Marine who has gotten himself in trouble with speaking out against the President, apparently on a Facebook site. We've been through this before, and the answer is always the same. Not a good idea, unless you're looking for a General Discharge. Here's how I responded to a similar situation thirteen years ago; it was an editorial featured in the November 13, 2024 edition of the Washington Times, in response to an editorial written a few days earlier.the link is dead, but you can get the gist of what he wrote from context.
My retirement in April 2008 removed the restrictions I speak of below from my own writing.
Bryan McGrath
--------
Injecting military into politics
By Bryan McGrath
hen
the American people say their prayers at night or when they take the
time to reflect upon the many advantages they enjoy as a birthright,
protection from a politicized military is probably not on their minds --
and with good reason. Military aloofness from the political milieu --
based on tradition and regulation -- is one of the fundamental
contributions the military makes to maintaining the critical covenant of
trust that exists between it and the people it serves. When men and
women in uniform publicly air their political viewpoints, it is more
than just a violation of service regulations; it is a threat to the very
fabric of this covenant. Without the trust of the American people, the
military will lose its way and may ultimately become a threat to the way
of life that it is designed to protect.
. . . . The
last 50 years notwithstanding, the American Republic has demonstrated
an historic discomfort with large standing armies. The pre-Revolution
experience with quartering British troops left a bad taste in the mouths
of the framers, and this unease manifests itself in several basic
constitutional ways. The president was invested with the power of the
commander in chief both to facilitate emergency response and to codify
civilian control of the military. By placing the war-declaring function
in the Congress, the framers sought to ensure that the decision to fight
would represent the will of the people, and not the military or even
its commander in chief. Finally, the Constitution prohibits military
appropriations in excess of two years, a move specifically designed to
frustrate the growth of a military establishment.
. . . . For
150 years, a cycle of mobilization and demobilization was sufficient to
suit the security needs of the United States. Yet, the emergence of
this country as a superpower and the global security requirements of the
Cold War left us with little choice but to maintain a large, peacetime
military. Consequently, military political neutrality came to represent
not some quaint vestige of a day gone by, but an absolute necessity for
the national support such a military would need for its maintenance.
. . . . The
tacit agreement into which the American people entered states that they
will do what is necessary to provide for a military second to none, all
the time knowing that should that military develop a political agenda
of its own, no force could oppose it. The American people trust their
military not to assert itself in the political process because they know
that if the military did get involved, this country would cease to
exist as we know it. Neutrality is the military's end of the bargain.
. . . . This is why articles such as Maj. Daniel J. Rabil's (Nov. 9, 1998)
(Note: dead link) are so damaging. That he holds strident political opinions is
irrefutable; that he can lawfully air them remains to be seen; that he
has crossed the line into an area of dangerous conduct is without
question. By publicly calling for impeachment of the president, he has
injected himself -- not as a private citizen, but as a United States
Marine -- into the political process.
. . . . What
if such conduct were to become the norm? What if the military were to
follow Maj. Rabil's prescribed course and simply ignore the orders and
directives of its civilian leadership? The answer is a military junta,
and the answer is anarchy. What if the Congress decides not to impeach
the president? What would Maj. Rabil have us do then -- ignore both the
Congress and the executive because neither would uphold his personal
political values?
. . . . Military
service does not disqualify one from participation in the political
process. In fact, the Department of Defense is aggressive in seeing to
it that its members and their families have every opportunity to
register and vote, irrespective of the unit's location or operational
tasking. Service members are also guaranteed the right to correspond
with their elected representatives without reprisal, and often do so to
report situations that they deem unfair, unsafe or contrary to good
order and discipline. A service member's decision to air his opinions is
not the issue; each member has every right to convey his or her views
to our representatives on Capitol Hill. The mistake is in airing them
publicly. In doing so, service members bring discredit upon the entire
military.
. . . . The American public
places considerable trust in its armed services; survey after survey
reveals this truth, and it is something of which the military should be
both justifiably proud and zealously protective. Essays such as Maj.
Rabil's are detrimental to this relationship, and service members should
view with grave concern these threats to our place in the public's
confidence.
Lt. Cdr. Bryan McGrath is a Surface Warfare Officer on duty at the Pentagon.
No comments:
Post a Comment