TRADOC ordered to watch President?

[patmc]

Yesterday afternoon, we were informed that all students in the CCC would watch the President's address to Congress and discuss it the following morning. RUMINT indicated that this came down as an order through the TRADOC chain of command. Being at the bottom, I cannot confirm or deny that, but was told it came from GO levels.

Does anyone in the know have any further information on this?

It made me uncomfortable that I would be directly ordered to watch a Presidential address. Officers and Soldiers have a personal responsibility to stay informed, but an apolitical military should not be telling its members, "You will watch this speech." During our discussion, which had to be greatly caveated to prevent inappropriate political discourse while in uniform, the instructors with over 20 years service stated this is the first time they were ever ordered to watch a political speech. Comments from my fellow students were almost entirely negative, focusing on being ordered to watch it. Quite a few references to Brown Shirts and 1930's Germany came up, which was probably not the intended response. The discussion of actual policies fell along normal political fault lines, and did not really add anything positive to a class on targetting.

I take great effort to remain neutral while in uniform, and while publicly discussing leaders and issues, and this just did not sit right. What was so important about this speech, or this President as to warrant that order? This is very easily a slippery slope.

Those in the know, please let me know.

[Ron Humphrey]

Yesterday afternoon, we were informed that all students in the CCC would watch the President's address to Congress and discuss it the following morning. RUMINT indicated that this came down as an order through the TRADOC chain of command. Being at the bottom, I cannot confirm or deny that, but was told it came from GO levels.

Does anyone in the know have any further information on this?

It made me uncomfortable that I would be directly ordered to watch a Presidential address. Officers and Soldiers have a personal responsibility to stay informed, but an apolitical military should not be telling its members, "You will watch this speech." During our discussion, which had to be greatly caveated to prevent inappropriate political discourse while in uniform, the instructors with over 20 years service stated this is the first time they were ever ordered to watch a political speech. Comments from my fellow students were almost entirely negative, focusing on being ordered to watch it. Quite a few references to Brown Shirts and 1930's Germany came up, which was probably not the intended response. The discussion of actual policies fell along normal political fault lines, and did not really add anything positive to a class on targetting.

I take great effort to remain neutral while in uniform, and while publicly discussing leaders and issues, and this just did not sit right. What was so important about this speech, or this President as to warrant that order? This is very easily a slippery slope.

Those in the know, please let me know.

Not sure myself hadn't heard that, however;

Do have to ask though why exactly would it be of concern that your leaders highly recommended you watch something which concerns greatly what is going on in relation to the state of the union the services have the sole role of protecting and defending.

Being at least aware of that type of thing doesn't seem like it would require anyone to necessarily be any more political than they already are. And as this forum is so great at showing no matter how hard you try politics in general affect greatly the direction services are likely to take. Best thing is practicing being able to discuss it in relation to your job without having to take any given side but rather focusing on factors ad effects on the environments you work in.

Sidenote: if your on a mission and blank shows up belonging to an organization that may not reflect your personal preferances does it not affect in some ways initial impressions and perhaps make the initial communications rougher. If you have practice sticking to the facts your probably going to be better equipped to work with those who are or even cannot be as apolitical as yourself.

And are perhaps the reactions that you experienced reflective of the fact that for so long "don't be political" has equated to don't talk about it only those at echelons above have need of even being around it. I've often wondered how much that has effected the larger evolution of our services
For good or bad:confused:

[Cavguy]

Quite a few references to Brown Shirts and 1930's Germany came up, which was probably not the intended response. The discussion of actual policies fell along normal political fault lines, and did not really add anything positive to a class on targetting.

.... What was so important about this speech, or this President as to warrant that order? This is very easily a slippery slope.


First, it wasn't a TRADOC or CAC order, because it certainly didn't come to Leavenworth, which is the higher for all the branch schools and part of TRADOC. So I imagine its local.

Second, the State of the Union address is not your normal political speech. It is a constitutionally mandated executive report to Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_Address). However, it is given by politicians to politicians, so of course it will be political in tone.

I guess I have a hard time making the mental leap from being required to watch the Commander and Chief's State of the Union Address to Nazification and indoctrination. Given he is our CINC, I don't see the harm in military officers watching and understanding the national priorities outlined in his annual mandatory report to Congress. Hell, 53 million citizens watched it. Perhaps it wasn't necessary, but making the analogy to Gobbels-like propaganda is silly. You weren't ordered to repeat what he said or turn off your brain, were you?

Now if your "discussion" afterwords was poorly guided by instructors, that's a different question.

We have formations all the time where the president or other dignitaries speak to military audiences - welcome homes, service academy graduations, ship commissionings, photo ops (anyone remember "Mission Accomplished?"). It isn't endemic to any president, all of them do it. They all make political and foreign policy speeches in front of a cheering background of soldiers. Watch any USMA graduation speech or addresses to staff colleges (which are all mandatory). I'm pretty sure this goes back to the founding of the republic. Welcome to the military.

Now I suspect much of the b*tching is simply because your peers had time taken away that could have spent doing something else (which I suspect it is). If it's also because some of your classmates don't approve of the President's party or image, tough luck. He's the CINC now, and you can be ordered to listen to him anytime for any reason, like any other superior officer. You even have to obey his lawful orders and salute him.

I may be reading too much into this, but I just don't see the issue with being forced to become an informed citizen. I also imagine the class watched the opposition response? (not that it matters)

[Ken White]

directed to watch a televised address by the President before. I truly don't know but I've never heard of it. I've gone to formations for a few and to a Field House to hear one speak in person so I know that's normal and is so for pretty obvious reasons -- but I haven't heard of this before.

Anyone?

That speech incidentally was not a State of the Union. The man has only been on the job for a month so it was legally and technically a formal address to Congress. The SOU for the calendar year after an election belongs to the outgoing President; Bush like all since Carter (who sent a written one which used to be the norm) elected to not send or do one. It is not constitutionally an annual requirement, it's just traditionally done in January or February of each year.

I did notice most of the left wing web sites are referring to last nights as a State of the Union. S'okay. Even the historians accept that as an SOU -- but with an asterisk... :D

Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 also gave non-SOU addresses about their budget to Congress in their first month so Obama's just following the recent pattern.

[carl]

Serving soldiers being ordered to watch the address while they are off duty makes me a bit nervous also. It strikes me as being one thing to be dragooned off to be the audience while on duty but being ordered to watch what was essentially a political speech while off duty doesn't seem right to me. Guided discussions about political speeches also make me think of "political cadres" from the bad old days across the seas. That perhaps is a stretch but it makes this civilian a tiny bit jittery.

Also, I wonder what would have been the press reaction if the same order had been given for the Bush's address'?

[Entropy]

...and did not really add anything positive to a class on targetting.


You were directed to watch the speech for a class on targeting? That doesn't make much sense to me. In principle, in an academic setting, I wouldn't think the order is that big of a deal and is fair game. Had my line commander given such an order I think it would be different. But for a targeting class?

And as Ken note, the yearly speech is more tradition than anything else. The Constitution says:


He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient

[Bob's World]

Why would anyone be nervous about a lawful order to listen to their Commander in Chief? Really? This makes you nervous? Does it make you nervous when ordered to stand in a Change of Command formation? Does it make you nervous to attend PT formation in the morning?

There are better things to get nervous about. If you say you are nervous about what you heard at any of those events, fine, that is your right. But to simply attend if directed? To me that sounds like your duty.

[patmc]

First, it wasn't a TRADOC or CAC order, because it certainly didn't come to Leavenworth, which is the higher for all the branch schools and part of TRADOC. So I imagine its local.

Sir, I was told that the email traffic discussing it started from GO at Leavenworth. Can't confirm or deny that, but that was what I was told.


Second, the State of the Union address is not your normal political speech. It is a constitutionally mandated executive report to Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_Address). However, it is given by politicians to politicians, so of course it will be political in tone.

It was not the State of the Union. It was an address to both houses of Congress. State of the Union should come later. That is why we wondered this specific speech.


I guess I have a hard time making the mental leap from being required to watch the Commander and Chief's State of the Union Address to Nazification and indoctrination. Given he is our CINC, I don't see the harm in military officers watching and understanding the national priorities outlined in his annual mandatory report to Congress. Hell, 53 million citizens watched it. Perhaps it wasn't necessary, but making the analogy to Gobbels-like propaganda is silly. You weren't ordered to repeat what he said or turn off your brain, were you?

Now if your "discussion" afterwords was poorly guided by instructors, that's a different question.

Again, it was not the State of the Union, and nobody remembered ever being ordered to watch a Presidential address. We've been at war 7 years, and suddenly we have to watch an address? The question arose to why now? Someone asked when the last time military officers were forced to watch speeches, and someone answered 1930's Germany. Answer was in jest, but slippery slope. My brain is still on, but this smelled of endorsement of a politician or a party, which is what bothered us.


We have formations all the time where the president or other dignitaries speak to military audiences - welcome homes, service academy graduations, ship commissionings, photo ops (anyone remember "Mission Accomplished?"). It isn't endemic to any president, all of them do it. They all make political and foreign policy speeches in front of a cheering background of soldiers. Watch any USMA graduation speech or addresses to staff colleges (which are all mandatory). I'm pretty sure this goes back to the founding of the republic. Welcome to the military.

This comparison did come up, as we had been forced to do a Q+A with some local Congressmen a few weeks ago. I think there is a difference between a local Q+A with give and take, or an actual speech to a military audience vs an order from higher for all pax to watch a partisan political address or to attend a political rally. Maybe there isn't a difference though.


Now I suspect much of the b*tching is simply because your peers had time taken away that could have spent doing something else (which I suspect it is). If it's also because some of your classmates don't approve of the President's party or image, tough luck. He's the CINC now, and you can be ordered to listen to him anytime for any reason, like any other superior officer. You even have to obey his lawful orders and salute him.

Sir, I was planning to watch it anyway because I am interested and have a duty to stay informed, but that said, Americans, including military officers, have the right to ignore politics if they want to. One has the right to be as oblivious or ignorant as they wish, which includes not watching political addresses on tv. Not my MO, but its their right. Welcome to America. That said, I understand he's in charge, and I salute and follow orders. And your statement "ordered to listen to him anytime for any reason, like any other superior officer..." is not correct. Not all orders are legal. Not calling this specific order under that banner, but simply saluting and executing is exactly what happened in Germany. Also, I understand that when Captains complain, it is b*tching, but I am pretty sure the Majors at ILE or SAMS would have had similar responses if they were ordered to watch a political speech without explanation why.


I may be reading too much into this, but I just don't see the issue with being forced to become an informed citizen. I also imagine the class watched the opposition response? (not that it matters)

Again, I like to be an informed citizen, but it is one's right not to be. We were NOT ordered to watch the response, and it was not discussed. This was basically endorsement of one party's speech, and not the other. Would you be comfortable with a Company Commander ordering his Soldiers to go home and watch the speech, with questions to follow in the morning? You can suggest Soldiers be informed and vote, but can you force them?

[patmc]

Nervous to listen to his orders? No. Being ordered to go home and watch his speeches? Yes. The question was why this speech, why now? What if being informed means Chain of Command orders to start watching every Presidential speech? What if the discussion sessions become partisan debates? Is that good for the military?

Standing in Change of Command or PT formation while on duty is a pretty weak comparison to being ordered to watch a Political Policy address off-duty. If I was ordered to attend a poltical rally or campaign meeting in uniform, I would be nervous. It is not my duty to attend a political rally or speech in uniform. It is the opposite.

Entropy, we're in Targeting block, so that was the setting. It had nothing to do with the material. All students in the CCC were told to watch it, with discussion to follow.


Why would anyone be nervous about a lawful order to listen to their Commander in Chief? Really? This makes you nervous? Does it make you nervous when ordered to stand in a Change of Command formation? Does it make you nervous to attend PT formation in the morning?

There are better things to get nervous about. If you say you are nervous about what you heard at any of those events, fine, that is your right. But to simply attend if directed? To me that sounds like your duty.

[Cavguy]

Again, I like to be an informed citizen, but it is one's right not to be. We were NOT ordered to watch the response, and it was not discussed. This was basically endorsement of one party's speech, and not the other. Would you be comfortable with a Company Commander ordering his Soldiers to go home and watch the speech, with questions to follow in the morning? You can suggest Soldiers be informed and vote, but can you force them?

This wasn't a party's speech. It was an address to both houses of congress. There is a major, major difference. More later.

[jkm_101_fso]

This wasn't a party's speech. It was an address to both houses of congress. There is a major, major difference. More later.

No, but it contained easily discernable shades of partisanship, as most speeches made by politicians do.

PAT: I'm reporting to FACCC next week. I'll ask around and see if the same happened at Sill. I think maybe your instructors/leadership just wanted to have a healthy discussion about what the CCC students thought about the speech and/or message. Did the OBC students there do the same? It's possible this effort was coordinated from "the top"; I guess it's plausible the new Commander in Chief cares about what his military officers think. If I were him, I certainly would.

[Shek]

A few comments:

1. I’m not seeing the issue here. Since it was part of the curriculum, it was duty time, just as if completing a paper outside of classroom hours is a duty. On-duty/off-duty is not the way to frame this.

2. Being apolitical is not the same as avoiding watching political events. It means not taking a position publically as a military member and being actively involved in a partisan fashion.

3. I think its relevance to a targeting class is excellent. Just as Ken alluded, this wasn’t a traditional SOU address, and so it begs the question as to why the President and his team decided then to address a joint session of Congress. To target particular audiences to garner support for their policies! As military professionals, we should be able to remove ourselves from our own political views and evaluate the address from the perspective of the target audience (the various segments of the American populace). This sounds an awful lot like being able to view Iraqi/Afghani/wherever events from the lens of that local population (cultural relativism) instead of from the lens of American culture (ethnocentrism), and using that information to both craft the message and be able to gauge the effectiveness of the operation.

4. When I was at the gym yesterday morning, what I saw on the news were polling experts pontificating on whether the President was effective in his rhetoric (i.e., in doctrine speak, was the information operation effective?) through the use of focus groups that were representative of the American demographic. If the instructors didn’t include this type of analysis to help the discussion, then they missed an opportunity.

5. It sounds like your class was unable to do this to a large extent based on your comments; whether it was due to the immaturity of your classmates or the unpreparedness of your instructors or some combination of both, don’t target the assignment as being off the mark, target the execution.

6. Lastly, while it wasn’t detailed in nature (and I didn’t catch his whole address), I think that there definitely parts of the address where President Obama addressed the nation with his Commander-in-Chief hat on. His comments on torture, while applicable all servicemembers, was especially important for the Army Intelligence School to hear (I’m assuming that’s where you’re attending the CCC base on your location). Could this have been broadcast in class in a condensed fashion? Absolutely, but then again, the expressed purpose was to analyze targeting, and so watching the entire address was appropriate.

[Steve Blair]

What I don't get is why the instructors didn't simply tape the address and replay it in a focused classroom setting. That would seem to me to be far more useful than relying on peoples' memories and running a poorly-focused session after the fact.

[patmc]

JKM,
I don't know if OBC or other CCC's were given similar instructions, we just got word as we were about to call it quits for the day. We were told that the order came down from TRADOC for all Captains in the course to watch the address, and be prepared to discuss it the next morning. No perspective, angle, or what to look for was given, just told, go watch. Sorry about Lawton, but Sill is nice at least. Enjoy the CCC.

Shek,
As for the curriculum, the first half-hour each morning is used to discuss the night's readings. The next morning, discussion of the speech replaced the reading discussion. The speech had nothing to do with our material, and all CCC, regardless of what block/subject, were told to watch.

I agree there is a difference between being apolitical and not watching politics. The issue was with being ordered to do so, which none of us nor the instructors could remember happening before. Using it for a targetting class would probably have led to political motivations, and I'm not sure the discussion would have stayed apolitcal after that.

The instructors got the word the same time we did, and the morning before class they were given instructions on how to frame the debate to avoid political ideology from coming up. SGI's are good dudes, but were not given a real prep or focus other than "discuss." Again leads to ask why we were instructed to watch if no prep or reasoning were given?

I don't think the immaturity of a squad with average age over 30, average over 5 years service, and almost all combat vets was the issue, but I may be wrong. With the limited guidance we were given, we tried to discuss the speech, but being it was a political speech, the discussion quickly resorted to debating policy, which I hope was not the intent.

And again, watching the speech had nothing to do with targeting. We just happen to be in that block. If we were in doctrine block, the doctrine instructor would have led the discussion. We get plenty of no-torture briefings, don't worry.

[Hacksaw]

Ditto on Shek's response...

To have concern regarding a directive to watch a presidential address as part of a classroom assignment, is akin to the response Bob's World provided...

This isn't politicization of the officer corps, rather it is the professionalization of young members of the fraternity...

Unfortunately it appears it resulted in a poor outcome, the same result as any other ad hoc, poorly planned and unenthusiastically executed mission...

[Ken White]

and dating from a time when regular officers did not vote -- my father cast his first vote ever for Eisenhower in 1956 at the age of 50, allowing me to have voted one election before him -- and thus am a strong believer in a totally apolitical military, I agree with patmc.

It was not a good thing.

It was, IMO ill advised on the basis of one cannot only do nothing wrong, one cannot even give the appearance of doing something that might be wrong. It was ill advised in that it could give the appearance of favoring a person or party (thus my earlier question , has anyone heard of anything like this before). As I also said above, formations are one thing -- being told to listen to a speech that is going to be acknowledgedly political is an entirely different thing and anyone who contends they're similar really ought to give that some thought.

That's an opinion and doesn't mean much.

This is fact -- from patmc's description it was very poorly explained and done. For anyone to order something -- and it was an order -- then blame it on 'some GO' is beyond pathetic. Has he or she who said that been counselled yet? If not why not?

Not that anyone cares but bothers me that anyone defends it, even with caveats on how it was done...:confused:

[Ron Humphrey]

It was not a good thing.

It was, IMO ill advised on the basis of one cannot only do nothing wrong, one cannot even give the appearance of doing something that might be wrong. It was ill advised in that it could give the appearance of favoring a person or party (thus my earlier question , has anyone heard of anything like this before). As I also said above, formations are one thing -- being told to listen to a speech that is going to be acknowledgedly political is an entirely different thing and anyone who contends they're similar really ought to give that some thought.

That's an opinion and doesn't mean much.

This is fact -- from patmc's description it was very poorly explained and done. For anyone to order something -- and it was an order -- then blame it on 'some GO' is beyond pathetic. Has he or she who said that been counselled yet? If not why not?

Not that anyone cares but bothers me that anyone defends it, even with caveats on how it was done...:confused:

1- Any opinion of yours is something I look hard at especially if I find myself questioning it. Tend to reflect on why I might see it differently.

2- As you state perception is prominent or at least should be in considering any course of action.

Question is why is it that the awareness of what those who make decisions related to what we do is deemed endorcement of one particular side.


I get the impression concern, not sure I get the practical concern with whether its appropriate or not?

[Ken White]

1- Any opinion of yours is something I look hard at especially if I find myself questioning it. Tend to reflect on why I might see it differently.Me too you too -- but we are all, after all, mostly expressing opinions and the idea is, I thought and do think to make people do that -- think.
2- As you state perception is prominent or at least should be in considering any course of action.True -- but we shouldn't forget it's also easy to miss in a rush to get things done...
Question is why is it that the awareness of what those who make decisions related to what we do is deemed endorcement of one particular side.Don't know that it is. Hmm. I said that, didn't I. What I do know is that that if you aren't supposed to be taking sides in anything and you do something that looks like you just might be thinking about maybe taking a side or even leaning a bit, you have a strong obligation to insure that your rationale is clearly explained. It does NOT have to be accepted by your audience but you must have explained your logic. Thus is the gospel according to Ken.
I get the impression concern, not sure I get the practical concern with whether its appropriate or not?Practically speaking it is immaterial, irrelevant and don't mean nuthin' -- philosophically, IMO it 's wrong (do recall I admitted I was doing the Dinosaur thing...). In the opinion of others it is not. The reality is it will bother some and not others for a variety of reasons. We'll have to get Marc to explain it... ;)

[patmc]

Ken, thank you, sir. I think my original position and intent has blown up a little. I'm not calling citizens to the rampart, warning of a politicized officer corps because we had to watch one speech. I wrote to see if anyone else had received the same order, or if anyone knew about it.

The opinion of my class was that is was very unusual, and since it was ordered, we questioned why and if it was appropriate? I also agree that in the scheme of things, it is small potatoes, but still not the right thing. If the intent was to make informed students, which was hopefully the reasoning, it was poorly planned and executed. The presentation and execution left more questions than answered, and it did not add to our class experience. The discussion focused more on why we watched it rather than tax cuts vs tax hikes (which maybe is a good thing).

Hopefully another victim of the good idea fairy.

[John T. Fishel]

as Ken. And I'm far more inclined to say that putting on the uniform did not deprive me of my rights of free expression as a citizen - this in my obligated first tour of duty 1969 - 71. But, having said this, I believe Ken is absolutely correct in his analysis and perception of this case. In the great schem of things, it's not all that important, but it is a bit troubling - even more so that the source of the order is less than totally transparent.

[Ken White]

I think "the source of the order is less than totally transparent" fact bothered me more than anything...)

[Entropy]

I think "the source of the order is less than totally transparent" fact bothered me more than anything...)

Additionally, what was the educational objective? It doesn't sound like there really was one. The problem as I see it is relevancy. The order appears irrelevant to the course material, hence people are left to speculate as to the order's purpose. Since it was a political speech, it's inevitable that people are going to connect the dots and ask questions about politicization. FWIW, I seriously doubt there was any political motive in the order. I believe it was lawful and everyone had a duty to obey it, but I agree with Ken that it was ill-advised.

SPECULATION ALERT: I've been around long enough to see subordinates to GO's take their often off-the-cuff remarks and run with them. A GO throws out an idea to elicit feedback, suggests it might be worth looking into and someone down the line (usually field grades - sorry, but there it is) turns it into a GO-directed order for his/her subordinates. It sounds to me like this might be such a case.

[Ski]

We were told at CGSC that we had to watch the speech and be prepared to discuss it in class the next day...which we did. There was an e-mail blaster sent out as well.

We were told to analyze the speech to see what ramifications it might have for the military.

I don't see the big deal about it to be frank.

[patmc]

Ski,

Thank you, sir. It was not received on our end in that manner. We were told go home, watch, and discuss. No guidance or emails. Even the instructors were wondering why we were doing it.

Presentation matters.

And George, it may not have happened, but we were told it was. And executed as such.

[Schmedlap]

and dating from a time when regular officers did not vote -- my father cast his first vote ever for Eisenhower in 1956
My vote in 2008 - less than a year after my ETS - was my first vote cast since 1996 (when I was a senior in high school). Unfortunately, I never met another Officer who thought such abstinence from the political process was necessary or even merited a moment of thought. I suppose a few of them are out there - I don't think I'm all that special - but I thought it odd that I never encountered any. I recall my S-2 on my last deployment actually stating, matter-of-factly, "I'm a liberal Democrat." I was the only person in the room who seemed taken back by that. When I pointed out, "no, you're an Army Officer" people looked at me like I was proclaiming that the Earth is flat.


It was, IMO ill advised on the basis of one cannot only do nothing wrong, one cannot even give the appearance of doing something that might be wrong.

Given the details, I agree. Aside from this being assigned for a targeting class, I'd be curious to know more context. In a course that included instruction regarding use of public affairs personnel and interaction with the media, we watched clips of Bill Clinton. Whether you like his politics or not, the guy was masterful when it came to keeping an interview on message and controlling the direction of the discussion. In that regard, watching him was relevant.

If this targeting class was concerned with parsing President Obama's speech into specific messages addressed to specific target audiences - then maybe I can see a targeting purpose. But, even then, it seems like a poor decision, because it could result in Officers treating the words of their CinC as little more than hollow, empty, disingenuous jibber-jabber.

[Bob's World]

I have to admit, I find this thread to be an interesting window into the psychie of those about me.

The U.S. military is premised in its civilian control, those civilians are all "political" and either elected or appointed to office. The President is your ranking Commander. He wears no uniform and we are better off for that very fact. He is also a politician, and when he speaks, even if to a wholly military audiance it is "political." That does not somehow obligate the military professional to impose on him or herself some bizzare apolitical code of ignorance. It means you listen carefully, and you do what he says regardless of how you feel about either your politics or his, because he is your commander, and this is a special relationship you have with the president that civilians don't share.

War is Politics. So if one disagrees with the politics of the war one is asked to fight they don't participate? That is not an option that we enjoy.

I am reminded of the Edmond Burke quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Perhaps in some ways the military is the ultimate instrument of politics, and military leaders have a duty to advice the civilian leadership to the best of their ability as to the full impact of the the ways and means they have been asked to employ against the ends they have been directed to achieve. And when they believe that what they have been ordered to do is to the detriment of the Republic, and they have made their best case and have been told to execute regardless, the honorable military leader resigns. If he simply disagrees he salutes and executes. The military leader's personal political views mean nothing, the preservation of the Republic and the Constitution everything.

It seems there has been a blurring of "political" and "party politics." We are all political and can not escape that fact. We have no business in party politics and should never forget that fact. I believe this case fell firmly in the former.

[John T. Fishel]

as posted by Ski, makes sense. But, given the existence of this medium, the requirement to watch the Pres give it "live" outside normal duty hours does not. Any officer who knew that the implications of the speech for the military would be discussed the next morning had multiple options as to how to get that information off the net, to include (I bet), watching a recording of the speech on You Tube before coming in to the L & C Center.:cool: In any event, reading a transcript was always an option. So, at minimum, telling military students "how to suck eggs" is even more stupid than it always was..:eek:

Cheers

JohnT

[Old Eagle]

I agree with John T. I, too, was amazed that the staff at CCC felt it necessary to tell the captains they had to go home.:D

[Uboat509]

It is interesting to me that some people honestly believe that when we became soldiers, we somehow gave up our rights and responsibilities as citizens. The idea that we should become mindless automatons with no opinions because we have chosen to serve our nation is absurd. In fact it is dangerous. There were many officers in the Wehrmacht in the '30s who saw what was coming but did nothing because it was not an officer's place to become involved in politics. While that is an extreme example there have been several officers in our own military who have been taken to task for not resigning when they felt that what they had been ordered to do was detrimental to the Republic. Schmedlap mentioned an officer who referred to himself as a Liberal Democrat and that apparently offended him. My question would be why? Did this officer ever refuse a lawful order? If he did that is another issue. If he did not then what is the problem? Every body has opinions whether they choose to label themselves politically or not.

SFC W

[George L. Singleton]

Ski,

Thank you, sir. It was not received on our end in that manner. We were told go home, watch, and discuss. No guidance or emails. Even the instructors were wondering why we were doing it.

Presentation matters.

And George, it may not have happened, but we were told it was. And executed as such.

PATMC:

Thanks for your feedback.

As some on this thread said they then went back to class the next day and did discuss it, I would have to assume the discussion happened but was questioning where is a written General Order to do so?

I as many of you in our years of active even reserve service taught classes on various topics "as required" by my commands, some of which involved cultural and political considerations of other nations where we had or might in future be focused.

We all took an oath when commissioned to follow the orders of those over us. But there are Orders and there are alleged Orders, which is what in fewest possible words I was trying to question. That's all.

I agree that we as individual citizens should be aware of and intersted in the running of our government, but I also agree with some on here who observe our job is not to run the government but to follow Orders.

Freedom of speech is found in our civilian lives but to me, at least, the military has limits, rules and regulations which in effect have to do with doing your job, not debating whether or not you should do your job.

Interested in anyone else's feedback further on this topic. Thanks.

[George L. Singleton]

Just to clarify for some readers of this thread and it's postings, your reply which ended in "George..." was first answering Ski's posting, then secondly commenting on my posting.

Your entire posting was not to me.

Easy for some readers to misunderstand who posted what and said what, which you to my understanding clearly and in a delineated fashion then answered.

"Sir" is your comment back to Ski, as I go by George being a retired old coot.

Thanks.

[Steve Blair]

I still think that if it's going to be an assignment, it should be taped (or a transcript provided) and then scheduled into an appropriate class slot and discussed in that manner. That's what I'd expect in a university, and would be taken aback if a mechanical engineering professor set aside his entire class to discuss Obama's speech. I would, however, expect such a discussion (hopefully unbiased, but I'm also a realist) in a political science class. This seems to fall into that sort of framework. If it was slotted into a current affairs, civics, or civilian-military relations slot, then it's all good and appropriate (IMO). But displacing a targeting class for it, and then handling it in the way it seems to have occurred, does cause me to question at the very least the judgment of the instructors.

Obviously war is an extension of politics, but there is also a proper place and time for classroom discussion of politics and political events. I would expect that higher military education would have such discussions, but I would also expect them to conduct and schedule them properly. IMO this did not happen in this case. It's important that we don't confuse the discussion of a "politicized military" with what appears to be very poor scheduling and choices on the part of an academic unit. Believe it or not, it is possible to separate the two....;)

[Ken White]

It is interesting to me that some people honestly believe that when we became soldiers, we somehow gave up our rights and responsibilities as citizens. The idea that we should become mindless automatons with no opinions because we have chosen to serve our nation is absurd. In fact it is dangerous.No one here has said that or anything approaching it.
There were many officers in the Wehrmacht in the '30s who saw what was coming but did nothing because it was not an officer's place to become involved in politics. While that is an extreme example there have been several officers in our own military who have been taken to task for not resigning when they felt that what they had been ordered to do was detrimental to the Republic.Exactly. No one has suggested that anyone blindly accept things that are wrong. The issue is the APPARENT favoring of one 'side' or the other in the exercise of military duties or instruction, no more. The task of being apolitical does not mean that you have no thoughts or do not take action that you believe is needed, you have a right and an obligation to do that -- it means you take great care to not impose in any way your beliefs or feelings on your subordinates. That you do not have a right to do. Just as you have no right to impose your religious beliefs on your subordinates.
Schmedlap mentioned an officer who referred to himself as a Liberal Democrat and that apparently offended him. My question would be why? Did this officer ever refuse a lawful order? If he did that is another issue. If he did not then what is the problem?The problem is that the Officer's subordinates -- and some most likely heard what he said -- may or may not care what his politics are. On the off chance that even one of those subordinates might care, the Officer has no business saying that. People follow examples and the obligation to set an example as an Army officer (or NCO) includes an obligation to not set an example that establishes a political preference.
Every body has opinions whether they choose to label themselves politically or not.Totally true -- and that's the issue. You have to keep and cherish your opinions and act on them within the bounds permitted but when you put on the green suit you should not wear a label.

Recall also that an SF team is quite a bit different than a larger unit with younger troops...

[Starbuck]

I have no problem with students being told that they need to watch the assignment at night. I remember having homework in my career course, and pretty much any college class. Setting aside one hour of homework is not unreasonable.

I also don't find it unreasonable that our officers watch a presidential address and discuss it in class. In an increasingly globalized world, war and politics are inextricably linked. How can we fight small wars and engage in nation-building if we don't have a full appreciation and understanding of all of the aspects of national power? I personally would have serious reservations of an officer corps that didn't have a thorough understanding of politics, economics, sociology, etc.

[Ken White]

I have to admit, I find this thread to be an interesting window into the psychie of those about me.Very interesting in fact -- for a slew of professionals.
That does not somehow obligate the military professional to impose on him or herself some bizzare apolitical code of ignorance. It means you listen carefully, and you do what he says regardless of how you feel about either your politics or his, because he is your commander, and this is a special relationship you have with the president that civilians don't share.No one has disputed that or evidenced any disagreement in any way. That's not at issue.
I am reminded of the Edmond Burke quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."Nor is that -- no one has suggested anything approaching that.
...And when they believe that what they have been ordered to do is to the detriment of the Republic, and they have made their best case and have been told to execute regardless, the honorable military leader resigns. If he simply disagrees he salutes and executes. The military leader's personal political views mean nothing, the preservation of the Republic and the Constitution everything.Could not agree more. Well said!
It seems there has been a blurring of "political" and "party politics." We are all political and can not escape that fact. We have no business in party politics and should never forget that fact.Totally agree. I think every poster on this thread seems to agree with that
I believe this case fell firmly in the former.I'm not totally sure what you mean by that but when you say it fell in the former if you mean "in party politics" (the "former" you cited?) I don't agree.

What it did do was treat a bunch of CPTs and MAJ like children and several someones ought to be ashamed. I suggest what should have been said in both cited examples is "The President is gong to give a speech tonight that will have broad impact and we'll discuss some of those impacts in the next few days." Or something to that effect. Many better ways that should have been done. Wasn't done that way.

This particular incident is no big thing; much ado about nothing as has been said.

The issue it raises on apolitical Armed Forces is nothing more than the fact that an Officer or an NCO has every right to hold whatever political (or religious, or food or recreational -- any thing not directly job related) views he or she wishes and they have an obligation to stand by their convictions within the parameters allowed -- or, as you say, resign or otherwise depart as honor demands and circumstances permit.

However, while serving, they have no right to impose their views on political (or religious, etc.) preferences, no matter how accidentally, casually, inadvertently, lightly or peripherally on any subordinates whether direct subordinates or other persons of lesser rank who may inadvertently hear the expression of views. A good Officer or NCO will devote a lot of effort to not violating that trust or even giving the appearance of a potential violation of it. Leading by example entails some sacrifices...

[Uboat509]

No one here has said that or anything approaching it.

But some did suggest that soldiers should not even vote. That is a key responsibility of citizenship. I just can't behind the idea of avoiding that responsibility just to live up to some apolitical code.


The problem is that the Officer's subordinates -- and some most likely heard what he said -- may or may not care what his politics are. On the off chance that even one of those subordinates might care, the Officer has no business saying that. People follow examples and the obligation to set an example as an Army officer (or NCO) includes an obligation to not set an example that establishes a political preference.

I disagree. IMHO there is a clear line between stating ones opinion about a given subject (respectfully of course) and proselytizing. Obviously the later is totally inappropriate but I just don't have a problem with the former. I have seen just about every command issue you can imagine but I have never seen this become a problem. Pretending to not have an opinion, or hiding it just strikes me as silly.


Recall also that an SF team is quite a bit different than a larger unit with younger troops...

Granted, but I spent 11 years in the Big Army before going SF. This was just never a problem that I saw.

SFC W

[Entropy]

There have been several comments now which seem to suggest that those of us who find this problematic are somehow advocating that military personnel should ignore politics, remain ignorant of politics or should not have opinions. That is simply not the case at all. There is a difference between what individuals choose to do and what they ordered to do. There is also a difference between what individuals think and how individuals act. No one is suggesting that military personnel should be privately apolitical - indeed that is probably impossible - what we are suggesting is that military personnel and military institutions should remain publicly apolitical and avoid acts which give even the appearance of political bias at all levels. Hence I'm in complete agreement with Ken's last two comments.

Ken's comparison with religion is a good one. There are many people who believe, based on a few public incidents, that the Air Force is filled with and controlled by evangelical crusaders. That's not true, of course, but it shows how easily false perceptions can be formed. In the same way, many on the left of the political spectrum believe the military is practically and arm of the GoP and that military members overwhelming vote Republican. I think, SFC W, that's part of the reason why many officers (and NCOs too) choose not to vote and said so publicly. Gen. Petraeus has continued this tradition, and I think it's something that all GO's should do and most other military members should seriously consider. FWIW, I do vote, though I don't make my vote known to any of my subordinates or superiors.

Suppose the CSA had come down and ordered everyone in the Army to watch the speech and discuss it the next day? Or suppose my squadron commander gave such an order? Whatever the motivation, such orders give the appearance of bias unless additional context is provided. For patmc, no context was provided, and as I said originally, context matters. I think such an order is completely appropriate in an academic setting as part of the curriculum, but this appears to be a blanket order unrelated to curriculum.

[Ken White]

But some did suggest that soldiers should not even vote. That is a key responsibility of citizenship. I just can't behind the idea of avoiding that responsibility just to live up to some apolitical code.True -- and I'm one of them. For the professional, regular Armed Forces, not for the Guard and Reserve. In the US Armed forces, the Oath is to the Constitution. There are no political parties in that document yet we have evolved into a two party State. In such a State it is easy to take sides -- and that's fine. However, the Armed Forces exist to serve the nation defined by that Constitution and thus, in my view should honor their oath and eschew taking sides. A citizen who volunteers to join the regular forces should be willing to give up his right to vote for that period or he need not join. In event of a renewed Draft, the draftee should not lose his right to vote.

Prior to WW II there was no restriction on the regular forces voting; just by tradition, they were rigidly apolitical. There had been a brief flurry over voting in the Civil War but for most of our history, most of the armed forces have been studiously apolitical and did not vote. During WW II, there was a big flap over voting and absentee ballots -- done, some said to insure Roosevelt's reelection -- and that made the professional services after the war more apolitical and anti-vote than ever. Eisenhower changed that in his second term because he and the leadership at the time realized the world had changed.

I have no problem with that change and I voted while I was in uniform -- but no one ever knew who I voted for and which if any party I supported (that was easy, I despise both). That also applies to my civilian employee time after I hung up my tree suit.

I also believe that the Oath to the Constitution outweighs personal political preferences.
I disagree. IMHO there is a clear line between stating ones opinion about a given subject (respectfully of course) and proselytizing. Obviously the later is totally inappropriate but I just don't have a problem with the former. I have seen just about every command issue you can imagine but I have never seen this become a problem. Pretending to not have an opinion, or hiding it just strikes me as silly.We can differ. I think you missed the point, though. It's not an issue of not having an opinion or stating it -- I'd never go for that, opinionated and outspoken as I am. Lord knows I never failed to express my opinion -- it's an issue of what you say and to whom or in front of whom. A good leader can influence juniors in many ways that way not be readily apparent. So can a bad one -- who tends to make people do the opposite of what he suggests, implies or appears to favor. :D
Granted, but I spent 11 years in the Big Army before going SF. This was just never a problem that I saw.Good, glad you didn't. Unfortunately, I have seen problems from both NCOs and Officers who tried to sway absentee ballots (both directions) and do other things. That seeing, incidentally runs from 1949 until my civil service retirement in 1995 and I've heard tales from others after that -- including a 1SG in Iraq who tried very subtly without proselytizing to get my Granddaughter Medic and others politicized last year.

As I said elsewhere, it's not just politics. I've seen relatively innocent statement get repeated, changed in repetition and people accused of things they did not say but seemed to imply. I've also seen a lot of troops get upset -- even though they could not and did not show it at the time -- by things said casually by one NCO or Officer to another NCO or Officer..

My whole point is simply there is an an obligation to try to do stuff right and avoid even casual remarks that can be misinterpreted.

[George L. Singleton]

Some posters here seem to thing that some sort of Orwellian plot is afoot.

Shifting a bit from the topic of Captains and Majors who may have been "ordered" to watch the State of the Nation Address to Congress, I often see TV news interviews of our grassroots troops, men and women, who are asked very political, policy making or questioning of national command structure policies.

I am not happy with some of the answers these troops, all branches of the service, give to these loaded questions, especially when they are interviewed on duty, in uniform.

Off duty, we can expect particuarly National Guard and Reserve troopers to offer their opinions in letters to the editor, call in programs, and such.

What is more serious, in my view, are some members of the US Senate or Congress who violate secrecacy oaths they take to have access to highly classified briefing made to Congress, which even they, as civilians, are not free to disclose and either attack or support publicly. What do you do with a, say, Senator Finestine from Calif, who is sister in law to Hillary Clinton, when she breaks secrecacy laws regarding military ops in and around Pakistan?

[Ken White]

over what tea to brew... :wry:

The Guard and reserve correctly have fewer restraints on their political expression. There aren't that many legal or regulatory restraints on such expressions for the active Forces for that matter; the discussion is simply about leadership and values. Opinions differ -- and that ought to be acceptable to all.

Your point on Congress is well taken.

[George L. Singleton]

...I had in Tennessee, my growing up home area.

I was from Nashville, back from 6 years active USAF regular service (a Captain) and joined the Tennessee Air National Guard to complete my 20, which ended up being 31 years.

My second drill...my unit was the newly formed 228th Mobil Comm. Squadron at McGee Tyson Airport, outside Knoxville, Tenneessee...remember I am commuting from my home in Nashville to new drill site in Knoxville...and then and now Tennessee is very, very parochial, East, vs. Middle, vs. West Tennessee is like three different states!

A grizzled old Lt. Colonel (who I believe has since passed away) who was very involved in East Tennessee Democratic partisan politics...at my second drill in Knoxville...tries to shake me down for a sizable donation to his cousins race for Sheriff, on the Democratic ticket, of Knox County.

I, typical hard headed Irishman that I am, answered him, remember, I then held Captain's rank earned on active duty so the Guard has not given me any rank I didn't already earn...replied: "Colonel, first I don't live here locally, I live in Davidson County, Nashville, where our Sheriff is an elected Republican. I myself am a Republican, and have no interest in any Democrat running for sherrif up here in East Tennessee...

The grizzled Air Guard Lt. Colonel pushed harder, didn't stop, so I then added: "Just to respond to you about a local election I will mail in a check for $50 to whoever the Republican nominee for Sheriff is here in Knox County. Good day!" And I walked away.

The Lt. Colonel tried in months to come to scuttle me on my next OER as a new Guard Captain. What he didn't know was that the Chief of Staff of the Tennessee Air Guard then in TN was a lifelong family friend of ours, a grizzled old Major General who was also President then of GENESCO in Nashville (General Shoe Corporation)..got that nasty OER...turned it around and attached the Lt. Colonel's own pending OER to it...sent it back to him...and said I will not sign either one until both have the same high level rating on both OERs!

How do I know this? I still knew the Air Guard Major General socially and he told me about it, and said the OER when resubmitted looked like I could walk on water!!!

Humor has it's place here.

[sandbag]

Say it ain't so! This very well may be the case of an overzealous General Staff officer or just a General Officer who hasn't learned to not vocalize his/her inner monologue.






SPECULATION ALERT: I've been around long enough to see subordinates to GO's take their often off-the-cuff remarks and run with them. A GO throws out an idea to elicit feedback, suggests it might be worth looking into and someone down the line (usually field grades - sorry, but there it is) turns it into a GO-directed order for his/her subordinates. It sounds to me like this might be such a case.

[Cavguy]

I have just learned the idea did originate with the CAC CG. Not sure in what form it was presented or what the task/purpose was originally. I think like George indicated the original intent was misinterpreted/amplified/poorly executed (or all of the above) at some levels.

Kind of like the game where you have to repeat the message around the circle and see what emerges on the far end.

That said, for all the hyperventilating about very little, I agree with Bob's World, Hack, Ski, and others who all pointed out this was a lawful order, and it wasn't a political rally, but an address to both houses of Congress by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, was valid homework, and even if not we've stood in formation listening to all kinds of similar things.

The Republic is still safe.

Niel

[Ken White]

I have just learned the idea did originate with the CAC CG. Not sure in what form it was presented or what the task/purpose was originally. I think like George indicated the original intent was misinterpreted/amplified/poorly executed (or all of the above) at some levels.Happens all the time. As an old Armor Colonel once told me "If the execution is fouled up, then the guidance was wrong."
That said, for all the hyperventilating about very little, I agree with Bob's World, Hack, Ski, and others...Hyperventilating? Seems to me most of that came from those who saw no problem. Most of the rest of us agreed it was not much of a problem, said we wouldn't have done it or done it that way and explained why -- that why was what caused the hyperventilating, generally due to misunderstanding or misinterpreting the 'why.'
...who pointed out this was a lawful order.Possibly arguable but I'm not going to argue that. Let the Lawyers quibble bout that. I will comment that it was IMO, unwise and certainly poorly executed -- just as some of my own lawful orders turned out to be. :(

Just as most everyone's have been, are or will be... :wry:

Generals, in particular should know that their eyebrow raises are often misinterpreted. Your comment on the message around the circle is quite correct and appropriate.
...and it wasn't a political rally, but an address to both houses of Congress by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, was valid homework, and even if not we've stood in formation listening to all kinds of similar things.Not sure anyone disputed most of that. I've certainly stood in many a formation listening to much less material bloviating.

The issue I continue to raise is that people should be careful what they say and they ought to consider how subordinates perceive their word. Little more. We all know that and we all tend to forget it all too easily. That's the only real issue in all this to me, all the rest is amplifying nonentity.
The Republic is still safe.I KNOW no one implied that it was not... :cool:

P.S.

Not just a US thing apparently, this just in from Australia:
"It is absolutely imperative that the public affairs function within Defence, senior people in Defence, need to remain apolitical at all times … they cannot be part of the Government's political message. What we should report are the facts and we should not go any further than that," he said. LINK (http://www.smh.com.au/national/its-war-minister-takes-aim-at-defence-20090227-8k8r.html).

[ODB]

Someone along the way in this thread mentioned nevering having heard of this being done before. Someone was questioning why now, why this President? I thought for a bit, when it hit me. When in the history of this country have we face two wars and a crumbling economy all at the same time? All these factors affect us in the Armed Forces, so to make it a requirement in a school environment to be discussed is the right thing. As far as staying apolitical, one cannot show support while in uniform or state ones affliation to the military. Then one would have to question politians using their son/daughter's service for political gain or any National Guard/Reservists serving in office or campaigning for office while in the Guard/Reserves.

[Ken White]

Someone along the way in this thread mentioned nevering having heard of this being done before. Someone was questioning why now, why this President?but I'm the one who asked if anyone had ever heard of something like this before, mostly because I had not and I've been around uniforms all my life.
I thought for a bit, when it hit me. When in the history of this country have we face two wars and a crumbling economy all at the same time?1940-41. Only one war but it was a little bit more of a war and it did cover two major fronts and both oceans; the economy had been in the tank -- not down; in the tank -- for over 10 years. Unemployment nationwide had gone down from over 25% but was still above 10% at the start of that of 1941 (now it's 7.6%).

1961 - no war per se but several major threats; Bay of Pigs, missiles in Cuba, lot of rumbling in Germany, Viet Nam. Economy was down, unemployment was about 7%, fairly similar to now.
All these factors affect us in the Armed Forces, so to make it a requirement in a school environment to be discussed is the right thing.One more time, no one has questioned that aspect so much; it's the way it was done.
As far as staying apolitical, one cannot show support while in uniform or state ones affliation to the military. Then one would have to question politians using their son/daughter's service for political gain or any National Guard/Reservists serving in office or campaigning for office while in the Guard/Reserves.Why?

That doesn't track. Sons and daughters have no bearing whatsoever and the rules for the Guard and Reserve are different as they should be.

[ODB]

What was so important about this speech, or this President as to warrant that order?

This was the line I was addressing.


Ken White: 1940-41. Only one war but it was a little bit more of a war and it did cover two major fronts and both oceans; the economy had been in the tank -- not down; in the tank -- for over 10 years. Unemployment nationwide had gone down from over 25% but was still above 10% at the start of that of 1941 (now it's 7.6%).

1961 - no war per se but several major threats; Bay of Pigs, missiles in Cuba, lot of rumbling in Germany, Viet Nam. Economy was down, unemployment was about 7%, fairly similar to now.

Thought about WWII. I still wonder was it the policies prior to the war or the war that got the economy rolling again or both?

Didn't think about the 60s, didn't know the economy wasn't good then, thought that didn't hit till the 70s. Thank you for the historical perspective.


Ken White: Why?

That doesn't track. Sons and daughters have no bearing whatsoever and the rules for the Guard and Reserve are different as they should be.

IMO it does track when said son/daughter is present in uniform along side the parents. Otherwise makes no difference to me. Understand the nature of the beast anything for an advantage, but would it be used today if there was no war? There being different rules governing the Guard/Reserves is good, but one should not be able to serve or run for office while serving in the Guard/Reserves, kind of a conflict of interest IMO.

[George L. Singleton]

About not running for public office while serving in uniform.

The old norm, using the late US Congressman George Andrews, D, Union Springs, Alabama, as on example:

1. Andrews was Lt. jg Andrews at and when Pearl Harbor hit. He had volunteered for the Navy and as a college graduate and law school graduate the Navy put him through their 90 day commissioning program, thence to ship duty at Pearl.

2. A group of hometown folks, including my late Dad, who grew up with Andrews and was one of his best friends, formed a campaign committee, raised money, and entered Andrews name on the ballot (Alabama back then was a one party, ie, Democratic state).

3. Andrews beat all comers in the primary with over 50% of the vote and the Navy released him from active duty to enter Congress, in about 1944 or so, unsure of date, but during the WW II.

If this was acceptable then, it ought to be acceptable today, but I am unaware of such goings on today?

[Ken White]

Thought about WWII. I still wonder was it the policies prior to the war or the war that got the economy rolling again or both?as most of the pre war policies contributed to lengthening the depression. Those of us alive back then didn't question what made the difference.
Didn't think about the 60s, didn't know the economy wasn't good then, thought that didn't hit till the 70s. Thank you for the historical perspective.This is the fifth recession since the depression. First one after the war was 53-54 -- worse than any of the others so far including this one. Next on after the early 60s was 73-75 -- it was worse than this one so far. 'Nother in 80-2, not as bad as this one. Last one before now, 2001, was the mildest. There have been a few other dips that were technically recessive but those are the big five.

It's also noteworthy that there has been one after every war as the economy readjusts. That's why I'm not losing a whole lot of sleep over this one.
...but would it be used today if there was no war?Probably not, there'd be no advantage. I still can't follow your logic. If the son or daughter is active, they cannot do that in uniform. If they're Guard or Reserve, it's dicey and would depend on circumstance but I cannot see the link of that to the active forces being apolitical.
There being different rules governing the Guard/Reserves is good, but one should not be able to serve or run for office while serving in the Guard/Reserves, kind of a conflict of interest IMO.I don't think religious Clerics should be able to run for office but they do. Lately, I'm considering that Lawyers should not be able (talk about a conflict of interest...).

On the Guard and Reserve, I'm inclined to agree with you but they can, the rationale is that they are citizens first and soldiers second. It used to be that logic was reversed for the active folks. That's no longer true and I have no particular heartburn about that. I don't fully agree but it sure isn't a burning issue with me.

Still, the Guard and Reserve are different, they can run for office and do -- which is why the Guard and Reserve have so much political clout -- confirming your objection as valid...;)

[Ken White]

About not running for public office while serving in uniform.essentially a bunch of civilians in uniform ala WW II and a quote Professional unquote force. Your example was one of many at the end of WW II. That was then, this is now. We have not sent the whole nation to war (whether we should have is not germane, we did not), we have not seen a half million killed, a per capita rate of .00292 -- .3%.
Todays numbers are 1% of the WW II numbers, the per capita rate is .000016. It was a different time. Even your service and mine was in a different era. Remember also that most officers in WW II were, as I'm sure your example was, Reserve officers. Different rules.

Having said that, recall the Navy let John Kerry (a Reserve officer) leave early to run for office during Viet Nam and that the Army has released people to join sports teams in this war. Further realize that a number of folks who have gotten out of the services in the last few years have run for office waving their military credentials
If this was acceptable then, it ought to be acceptable today, but I am unaware of such goings on today?They're out there Google should find some for you. They're almost all Guard or Reserve officers except Joe Sestak.

[George L. Singleton]

Thanks for your observations, which were correct in the main.

George Andrews was at Pearl Harbor in 1943, as a Navy Lt. j.g. He served in the Navy from January 1943 to his election to the Congress in early 1944. He was sworn in as a Congressman in March, 1944. Andrews did not run for nor campaign for Congress. As I posted earlier, he was "run" by an at home committee who put his name on the ballot, paid the qualifying fee, etc.


ANDREWS, George William
(1906—1971)

ANDREWS, George William, (husband of Elizabeth Bullock Andrews), a Representative from Alabama; born in Clayton, Barbour County, Ala., December 12, 1906... was graduated from the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa in 1928; was admitted to the bar in 1928... during the Second World War served as a lieutenant (jg.) in the United States Naval Reserve from January 1943 until his election to Congress, at which time he was serving at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-eighth Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Henry B. Steagall...

The above info and more on the late Congressman George Andrews is found on the Internet at:

http://www.infoplease.com/biography/us/congress/andrews-george-william.html

[ODB]

DOD Directive 1344.10


This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments (including the Coast Guard at all times, including when it is a Service in the Department of Homeland Security by agreement with that Department), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”). Paragraph 4.3. applies to members of the National Guard, even when in a non-Federal status. Other provisions apply to members of the National Guard while on active duty, which, for purposes of this Directive only, also includes full-time National Guard duty.

DOD Directive 1344.10 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf)

[Ken White]

Most are more aware of the dictates of AR 600-20.

The DoD directive says nothing about this incident unless you want to count this:
"4.1.5. Activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this Directive. Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided."The issue then becomes whether anything that was done can 'reasonably be viewed as contrary...' Thus it becomes an opinion matter. I'd say it does not violate the intent of the Directive.

Which doesn't change the fact that it wasn't done well or there wouldn't be 52 comments on this thread.

What are we arguing about, anyway??? :confused:

[Ken White]

Thanks for your observations, which were correct in the main.correct in the main, George. In the case of that particular comment; it's not in the main -- they were all correct. ;)

[ODB]

We're arguing? Just found it and thought it helped the Do's and Dont's. Yes, like most things there is always the up to subjectation statements. Kinda like my favorite "prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces". By who's standard?:D To many I violate this daily......

[Ken White]

Of course, I am retired and we do NOT want to talk about some years ago... ;)

I've always contended that if you could follow either the Chief of Staff of the Army, TJAG or the Provost Marshal General around for 24 hours and keep careful notes, you could put any of them in jail. Everybody goofs occasionally. When I was in the Marine corps, I had that down to a science, in the Army it was just a frequent occurrence... :o

I'm gonna put the coffee on for the AM and hang it up -- take care...

[George L. Singleton]

correct in the main, George. In the case of that particular comment; it's not in the main -- they were all correct. ;)


Ken, you don't think your use of the term "all" might be a glittering generality?

Tea on now for me. We are expecting a major snow storm here by tomorrow, an unusual event for this far south, so have to join the madding crowd at the local grocery to stock up.

[Ken White]

your 'main' and my 'all' were both superfluous and designed to unneccessarily annoy.

I rarely lead with snark or derisory language in an effort to be a polite southern Gentleman but will almost invariably reply to it even if it is possibly inadvertent -- penalty of being about 90% Scotch Irish.

Plus us over 75 types get curmudgeonly for no apparent reason... :D

[George L. Singleton]

Extraordinary.

[Schmedlap]

Further realize that a number of folks who have gotten out of the services in the last few years have run for office waving their military credentials

Some of them don't even wait until they get out of the service. Some of them don't even wait until they return from deployment. Some don't even wait until they've deployed before they kick off their campaign. See an earlier thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6165).


Schmedlap mentioned an officer who referred to himself as a Liberal Democrat and that apparently offended him. My question would be why?

It wasn't offense. It was concern about simple rules, like keeping one's mouth shut about personal political views, and a general concern about the health of the profession. There is a slippery slope.

A couple of years ago I took a polygraph interview for a criminal investigation. Prior to the polygraphed questions, the interviewer spent about 45 minutes asking me about my values, where I got them, and whether I had stolen anything ranging from a pack of gum to "someone's trust" to something of large monetary value. I didn't have all day, so I asked him why he was wasting time asking me whether I'd ever stolen a pack of gum when I was 5 (full disclosure: no). He explained that an individual doesn't just live 30 years of relative purity and then wake up one morning and decide, "I'm going to rob a bank!" There is a slippery slope that he descends down - he steals a pack of gum, then a CD, then a pair of sneakers, then a laptop, then a dirt bike, then a car, and so on. He doesn't start out robbing banks. I think there is a similar good reason for zealously guarding the a-politicization of the military.

The S-2 in my unit did not imperil the war effort by disclosing that he was a liberal Democrat. But he did express, in no uncertain terms, that he is not apolitical. Enter the slippery slope: political allegiances divulged, political discourse ensues, political discourse while in uniform starts to become commonplace, Soldiers start to feel less restraint in voicing their political views while in uniform, the public starts seeing more Soldiers airing their political views, Soldiers become a ready source of fodder to be used against the CinC or his challenger or likewise in other campaigns. Even worse, some start seeing the military as a springboard to political office, rather than as a tenure of service to the nation. Hopefully this doesn't sound too far fetched. It has already happened.

Admiral Mullen's guidance (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5469) was that "Keeping our politics private is a good first step." Or, as another SWC contributor paraphrased the Admiral's comments on personal views about politics...

Signal flags from the Admiral read Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.

This is pretty easy to abide by. Some people think it's unnecessary - but so what?

[1258dave]

1) My Advanced Operations Warfighting Course Instructor sent my class an email directing us to watch the President's speach.

2) The email chain started with LTG William B. Caldwell IV, then to his XO, then etc etc. (Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell IV is the current Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and oversees the Command and General Staff College and seventeen other schools, centers and training programs.)

3) Given LTG Caldwell's emphasis on IO, and his experience as the spokesman for MNF-I, I think the order "makes sense". I believe that LTG Caldwell was attempting to

a. Have students discuss US policy changes.
b. Discuss the importance of IO/public diplomacy.

4) CAVGUY- the President's speach was not the State of the Union address. It was part of his "IO campaign" to sell his policies/budget.

I am not a huge fan of the order, or the person giving the speach, but I think we have to be informed as citizens charged with the defense of the Republic etc etc etc.

If you want to talk about "policy" and "what happens next" these are worth reading:

Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire
(London, Allen Lane/Penguin Press, 2004; also published in the U.S. as Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire, translated into Dutch, German, Italian and Spanish)

http://www.niallferguson.com/site/FERG/Templates/Home.aspx?pageid=1

I sugest Ferguson's stuff because it is highly accessable, not because I believe it is the final word.

Debt kills Republics and Empires. You can want anything - but if you can not balance your obligations and income you find yourself in a tailspin.

Let's eat some cake.

These are the facts as I know 'em!

[MonteCarlo]

It wasn't offense. It was concern about simple rules, like keeping one's mouth shut about personal political views, and a general concern about the health of the profession. There is a slippery slope.

A couple of years ago I took a polygraph interview for a criminal investigation. Prior to the polygraphed questions, the interviewer spent about 45 minutes asking me about my values, where I got them, and whether I had stolen anything ranging from a pack of gum to "someone's trust" to something of large monetary value. I didn't have all day, so I asked him why he was wasting time asking me whether I'd ever stolen a pack of gum when I was 5 (full disclosure: no). He explained that an individual doesn't just live 30 years of relative purity and then wake up one morning and decide, "I'm going to rob a bank!" There is a slippery slope that he descends down - he steals a pack of gum, then a CD, then a pair of sneakers, then a laptop, then a dirt bike, then a car, and so on. He doesn't start out robbing banks. I think there is a similar good reason for zealously guarding the a-politicization of the military.



Sir,

The interrogator spent 45 minutes of your time asking you about your prior "truthiness" for the purpose of a Probable Lie Comparison, not because he actually believes in the slippery slope. People are expected to be somewhat evasive on these questions. Their physiological respones are then compared to their answers for the relevent questions. At least that is my basic understanding. I apologize for diverting the purpose of this thread.

[Uboat509]

I think that you could call this (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/us_world/US-Soldier-Calls-Obama-an-Impostor.html) inappropriate political conduct. Some people are born stupid, others seem to work very hard at it.

SFC W

[Schmedlap]

The lieutenant is currently in the middle of a 15-month tour of duty in Balad, Iraq.

Well, much to his relief, I doubt that the President will be issuing any orders to this moron. But, if I were President, then I would have fun with this. I would order the LT to eat 3 meals per day in the KBR dining facility, to make daily trips to the PX, to gain 30 pounds of fat during the deployment, and to watch at least 4 hours of TV per day. Then we'll see how determined the LT is disobey.

I suspect that this guy has very few friends - in his unit, in the Army as a whole, or even outside of the Army. Too bad Officers don't use the "blanket party" technique to police their own ranks.

[jmm99]

Here's a response from OTB (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/army_officer_challenges_obamas_eligibility/), which is mainstream on this issue, but brief - the 1/LT may be pictured in the photo caption.

Other than curiousity about a legal point (see below), the "Alan Keyes argument" (he being a major proponent) looked a bit ridiculous to me. Turns out there have been quite a few bytes spilled on this - and some in the military, besides the 1/LT, are getting involved, or thinking about it. Deep coverage at this blog (Natural Born Citizen (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/)) - suggesting among other things that the 1/LT was not into disobeying orders, but was questioning presidential validity.

PS: see article at military.com (http://www.military.com/news/article/February-2009/officer-calls-obama-usurper-imposter-president.html)

------------------------------
Ran into this recent article (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB798.pdf) at SSI, which deals with the more serious issue of dealing with "bad" NCA (POTUS > SecDef > GEN X) orders at the highest military level:


(p.3)
Interestingly, because most officers never come into contact with an appointed civilian superior and instead interact with a military chain of command far removed from the policy debate, the concept of civilian control becomes an abstract academic ideal instead of a practical professional reality.

This led me to my curious legal question: What is the legal sanction if GEN X tells the NCA to go to hell (whether based on the "Alam Keyes argument" or some other "unlawful order" argument). Clearly under the UCMJ if GEN X transmits the order and LTG Y makes his stand.

But, if GEN X makes his stand, is it a UCMJ offense, a Title 18 (Federal Criminal Code) offense, or an offense in another USC Title, under the evolutions and emanations from Goldwater-Nichols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act).

Didn't find anything on a limited search.

[Uboat509]

I originally thought this was one lone jackass make a public fool of himself. I now see that there is a lawyer out there circulating a petition among military members to this effect. Apparently some are signing it. I disagree with Ken and a few others as to how much political opinion a soldier should voice but this is way, way over the line.


SFC W

[Ironhorse]

My goodness, lots of dialog here.

On the one hand:
- war is politics
- we have been complaining about a dearth of grand strategy
- Presidents have a hand in setting that
- people are concerned about being told to watch & discuss a speech which was clearly known in advance that it was going to set some major lines in the sand of grand strategic import?

WTF, over?

On the other hand, certainly there are opportunities to reinforce the system of civilian control of the military, and for individual instructors to fail to live up to controlling their partisanship. But just because something might be done poorly doesn't mean it should be tried to be done well.

I assume CCC is Captain's Career Course or some similar officer / SNCO PME? At ILS (e.g. CGSC) and TLS (e.g. AWC) you'll spend significant portions of the curriculum looking at Strategy & Politics, and our political system. Understanding our political system and being aware of its currents and trends is not just OK, it is essential to officer development. And it is important for a serving officer to be able to walk through that muck field and understand it, without getting covered by or slinging that muck.

[Ironhorse]

I suspect that this guy has very few friends - in his unit, in the Army as a whole, or even outside of the Army. Too bad Officers don't use the "blanket party" technique to police their own ranks.
They don't? Since when? :rolleyes:

Geez this world is going to hell.

[George L. Singleton]

I think the discussion about President Obama's citizenship is akin to looking for a non-existant way to unseat a natural born American who was first duly elected to the US Senate and then won a hard fought primary and General Election to become our President.

I voted for McCain, and am a Republican, but when the day comes that we try to ignore the voice of the people we are in deep trouble as a free nation.

A few short facts:

1. Before being elected to any office, then Mr. Obama had a US Passport.

2. To have a US Passport he had to produce either an original or a certified copy of his Birth Certificate.

You or I have to produce the same documentation. No
First Lt, age 40, who the Army institutionally made the mistake of commissioning from status as a civilian contractor to an Army Lieutenant, has any business or right to question anything which the FBI and related federal security agencies have already checked out and validated. That is not the Lieutenant's MOS nor duty or purpose in the Army.

We are today in the midst of a worldwide Depression, not a simple recession. Radical economic and financial actions are in order. President Bush did the correct thing(s) to start to bailout our national economy during the transition before Obama became President.

First Lieutenants broadly speaking had better make friends with and be listening to good, solid NCOs and Petty Officers if they want to be successful in their military careers.

In the case of this First Lieutennat, he has gone way across the line and needs to be restricted to barracks pending court martial. I will leave it to the lawyers on this site to compile the obvious list of UCMJ charges thus far, based on fact not heresay from rumors on this site. That, or the Lieutenant could just resign, if he hasn't already gone illegally too far.

SWJ is to provide information, experience, facts, and ideas to fight small wars, not to digress into such trash as this.

[Uboat509]

We were discussing political speech by military members and I found this article about this guy who obviously has violated even the most lenient standards. I don't think anyone was trying to debate the merits of his case.

SFC W

[George L. Singleton]

Thanks for your note. I didn't think you were trying to do so, no problem.

[Ken White]

They don't? Since when? :rolleyes:

Geez this world is going to hell.since 1949 in my observation.

[Schmedlap]

I'm snowed in today, so I'll attempt to revive this dead horse. I think this is an important issue.


... certainly there are opportunities to reinforce the system of civilian control of the military, and for individual instructors to fail to live up to controlling their partisanship. But just because something might be done poorly doesn't mean it should be tried to be done well.

As I noted earlier, aside from this being assigned for a targeting class, I'd be curious to know more context - both for why it was assigned and how it was used in the classroom afterward. I do not share the concerns that the chain of command required the students to watch a political speech, so much as I am concerned at the prospect of the current CinC being the subject of study in the classroom. It seems inevitable that this will lead to criticisms of his stances, decisions, approaches (and praise, as well). Perhaps analyzing a political speech of similar purpose from a past President would be better, especially since we have the benefit of hindsight to better understand the decision-making surrounding those speeches.


... Understanding our political system and being aware of its currents and trends is not just OK, it is essential to officer development. And it is important for a serving officer to be able to walk through that muck field and understand it, without getting covered by or slinging that muck.

I'd be curious to hear how the discussion went, to see how well the students avoided getting covered by or slinging it.

[Ron Humphrey]

I'm snowed in today, so I'll attempt to revive this dead horse. I think this is an important issue.



As I noted earlier, aside from this being assigned for a targeting class, I'd be curious to know more context - both for why it was assigned and how it was used in the classroom afterward. I do not share the concerns that the chain of command required the students to watch a political speech, so much as I am concerned at the prospect of the current CinC being the subject of study in the classroom. It seems inevitable that this will lead to criticisms of his stances, decisions, approaches (and praise, as well). Perhaps analyzing a political speech of similar purpose from a past President would be better, especially since we have the benefit of hindsight to better understand the decision-making surrounding those speeches.



I'd be curious to hear how the discussion went, to see how well the students avoided getting covered by or slinging it.

It is possible that such a study of the political animal might also result in a better ability to effectively share with one's leaders when they are making ones ultimate mission(defend and protect) much more difficult on the international stage with speechs directed towards targeted populace but viewed externally in a much different light.

There are unfortunately several prominent examples of this in recent history:(

[Ken White]

It is possible that such a study of the political animal might also result in a better ability to effectively share with one's leaders when they are making ones ultimate mission(defend and protect) much more difficult on the international stage with speechs directed towards targeted populace but viewed externally in a much different light.

There are unfortunately several prominent examples of this in recent history:(what any of that means. Sorry.

Could you clarify that a little, por favor?

[Marauder Doc]

So I guess these guys were doing something improper by attending?

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/336/jointchiefsatobamaaddre.png

Given that the Joint Chiefs of Staff attend all Joint Sessions of Congress in uniform, I have a hard time believing that anything improper took place regarding watching the address on television. It isn't as if watching the address constitutes endorsement, nor will the National Command Authority leap through your television and brainwash you into becoming one of those dirty liberals. It just means keeping your head on a swivel in regards to what's going on amongst the our civilian leadership.

[Ron Humphrey]

what any of that means. Sorry.

Could you clarify that a little, por favor?

In relation to the concerns Schmedlap and others have brought over how wise it is to "study" implications of actions and words of politicians and the somewhat predictable fact that this would inevitably lead to a level of dissatisfaction with our masters.

They are the ones who make the important decisions which determine our nations direction at any given point. As such what they say, about what, and how carry great implications for exactly how we do our job.

The reality is as you and others have pointed out the fact that there is so much distance between where the Gen pop is and the military and in turn how thats not necessarily a bad thing. I might suggest that soldiers studying and becoming more in tune with the extent of that seperation wil

1- Perhaps lead them to become somewhat dismayed by what they percieve as a lack of recognition for what they do and why.

2- Help remind or (relearn;)) them why thats ok
* That we do what we do because we choose to not because we have to. And the actual goal is that of allowing others to be able to live without having to worry about what we do.

So the fact that the nation is not at war "with" us is OK in some ways because it means their still able to choose what they will to be concerned about or what they want to be a part of. Part of the reason they hold the military in such regard is because thats what it provides them.

To tie this back into the study discussion. It is guaranteed that regardless which political party is in charge at any given point, there will be those who fail to consider the long term implications of their words or actions because their more concerned with how their support base percieves them. That is also ok (in the grander scheme) but it does come with costs, quite possibly lives. When your defenders watch it happen and then tend to get frustrated with it it will of course cause some signifigant change in how they interact with those politicians.

The key to why this type of awareness through study is beneficial might be found in its ability to shape future military leaders on how to more effectively interact with those individuals in ways that can actually help at least cut down on the times when local and international politics conflict.

Not sure thats any clearer but I tried:wry:

[Ken White]

so you must be in good company. :wry:

No one has really questioned the watching of the speech per se or even the use of such watching in the furtherance of military education.

Many believe an apolitical Armed Force whose sworn duty is uphold and defend the Constitution simply should be careful how it chooses to educate and how such choices are disseminated.

The issue in this thread is how successfully this attempt merged those two concerns.
...It isn't as if watching the address constitutes endorsement, nor will the National Command Authority leap through your television and brainwash you into becoming one of those dirty liberals.Thus that comment was as unnecessary and not germane to the issue.
... It just means keeping your head on a swivel in regards to what's going on amongst the our civilian leadership.Always advisable and I don't think that's really in dispute. What is being disputed is simply how senior leaders -- leaders at ALL levels -- should go about encouraging their subordinate to do that.

Because ordering them to do that is too easily misinterpreted. Obviously.

[Ken White]

In relation to the concerns Schmedlap and others have brought over how wise it is to "study" implications of actions and words of politicians...I don't think he, I or anyone else has said that such study is not a good idea; the issues, I thought, were whether and more importantly how that could or should be be encouraged; that and the ever popular 'apolitical' military argument.
and the somewhat predictable fact that this would inevitably lead to a level of dissatisfaction with our masters.My observation over many years has been that the majority of people in uniform of all ranks are continually, constantly and always dissatisfied with their civilian masters -- but that such dissatisfaction does not preclude them from doing their job nor does it pose the slightest danger to the nation. I'll also note that the degree of dissatisfaction is directly attributable to the political / ideological affinity or lack thereof between the individual service member and the government of the day -- even if they're attuned, there will still be some dissatisfaction. In particular, see Congress, US.
...I might suggest that soldiers studying and becoming more in tune with the extent of that seperation wil

1- Perhaps lead them to become somewhat dismayed by what they percieve as a lack of recognition for what they do and why.

2- Help remind or (relearn;)) them why thats ok
* That we do what we do because we choose to not because we have to. And the actual goal is that of allowing others to be able to live without having to worry about what we do.Well, yes. I don't see that as a problem. There are now and always have been -- probably always will be -- a few malcontents who can't accept or intensely dislike that but the majority in my view have been and are cool with it.
...When your defenders watch it happen and then tend to get frustrated with it it will of course cause some signifigant change in how they interact with those politicians.Possible I suppose but in my observation over time it's made little difference. The problem is not the military folks -- the guys at JCS level are quite politically attuned, they have to be -- the problem you cite is the Political class and their egos and that has been true and has not changed in my lifetime. They are in charge and they are prone to reject advice, no matter how good, they don't want to hear. See Viet Nam, support of and Iraq, Invasion of...

ADDED: { I should mention Eisenhower as an exception. For Viet Nam, early on, John Foster Dulles SecState wanted to send troops and about half the advisers agreed. Bradley, the CJCS was ambivalent on the issue -- enough so that Eisenhower asked the CofStaff Army, Ridgeway, what he thought -- Ridgeway was adamant that no troops be sent and Eisnhower so ruled. That proves that even the senior military folks can be divided and/or give bad advice and that some politicians do listen. Occasionally. }
The key to why this type of awareness through study is beneficial might be found in its ability to shape future military leaders on how to more effectively interact with those individuals in ways that can actually help at least cut down on the times when local and international politics conflict.Again, I don't think anyone questions that potential. The problems I have seen in that are fall far more on the civilian than the military side. Again, egos.
Not sure thats any clearer but I tried:wry:It helped; thank you...

[patmc]

I said this in an earlier post, but again, the targeting class just happened to be the block we were in. All students, regardless of the subjects, were told to watch. Those in doctrine watched it. Those in the SCIF watched it. The morning discussion was used to discuss the speech, rather than the night's reading assignment from the FM's.

I too would be wary of discussing the acting POTUS with a targeting or IO angle, at least in a military classroom. We received no guidance other than go watch, so we only had our personal mindsets for a frame of reference. The discussion the next day tended to focus more on wondering why we had to watch it, rather than discussing policy. When policy did come up, it resorted to usual political sides, with little contribution to the class. We talked about the expected troop drawdown in Iraq, but the increase in A-stan. Those of us potentially heading to MiTTs (or BTTs to be accurate) wondered what happens when "Trainer Violence" takes place after the end of combat ops.



As I noted earlier, aside from this being assigned for a targeting class, I'd be curious to know more context - both for why it was assigned and how it was used in the classroom afterward.

...

I'd be curious to hear how the discussion went, to see how well the students avoided getting covered by or slinging it.