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.
You were answering two, of which I was 2nd, commentators
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.
That's a bad statemnt. Really bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
No one here has said that or anything approaching it.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
We can disagree on all that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uboat509
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
No plot, George. Tempest in teapot and differing views
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.
Chuckling over Air Guard experiences
...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.
I've seen and issued a whole bunch of lawful orders...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
Happens all the time. As an old Armor Colonel once told me "If the execution is fouled up, then the guidance was wrong."
Quote:
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.'
Quote:
...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.
Quote:
...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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
"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.
I don't recall anyone asking why /this/ President
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Should've done some homework first
Quote:
Originally Posted by
patmc
What was so important about this speech, or this President as to warrant that order?
This was the line I was addressing.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Running for Congress while in uniform & at war
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?
Pretty solid evidence that it was the war
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ODB
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
...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.
Quote:
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...;)
There's a difference between Armed Frces that are
Quote:
Originally Posted by
George L. Singleton
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
Quote:
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.