TRADOC ordered to watch President?
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.
Completely understand where your coming from
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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:
I wonder if anyone in the Armed forces has ever been
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.
Not that my opinion matters....
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...
Acknowledging that I'm a dinosaur
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:
As noted above understand where hes coming from
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
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?
I'm not quite as much of a dinosaur
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.