Top-ranking officer warns U.S. military to stay out of politics
The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.
"The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway."
Mullen's essay appears in the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal that is distributed widely among the officer corps.
The statement to the armed forces is the first essay for the journal Mullen has written as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and veteran officers said they could not remember when a similar "all-hands" letter had been issued to remind military personnel to remain outside, if not above, contentious political debate.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/25/america/pent.php
Signal flags from the Admiral read Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.
This isn't supposed to be a political Board. But...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ODB
Sorry but under the belief that when the popular vote elects the POTUS and not the electoral college then it will be worth it. Just my view on it and believe it should be that way.
Most Americans and the Constitution disagree.
Quote:
As far as staying apolitical while serving, why?
Because AR 600-20 pretty much wants you to do that?
Quote:
Are these not the same people who decide how much I get paid? How much money I'll get for training? How well equiped I will be? The list goes on and on, point being I should be able to help decide who these decision makers are. Don't misunderstand my initial statement, I vote in local elections and for Congress members but will never vote for POTUS until the electoral college is dissolved.
You can help decide, you're encouraged to vote -- what you're discouraged from doing is taking public sides while you can be identified as being in the Armed Forces. That is due to the fact that your Oath is to the Constitution and not any one person or party and everyone has a right to expect you to serve faithfully and honorably regardless of who gets elected. It is also to prevent any news media or political activists from getting hold of a serving member and making political fodder out of him or her.
Quote:
Finally if anyone should be heard more than others it is the service members, simply because our lives are influenced more than others based on who holds these offices.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Mine and yours differ significantly on that topic. My life was and is no more influenced by who held or holds what office than any other US citizen and nobody made me stick up my hand and take that oath any one of the seven times I did it...
I know that the Armed Forces are a reflection of the society from which we all came and I know Americans are a contentious lot. Theoretically, though, we're professionals today and a professional military is almost by definition apolitical. There are those who exclude the NCO from the 'professional' categorization. I strongly disagree and I do not believe those who try to do that should get any ammunition to reinforce their view.
Mullen did the right thing -- it's just a shame he had to do it.
Having said all that, obviously you're entitled to your beliefs and I'm in no way saying you're wrong; just that we don't agree on most of that.
Where the hell did this come from???
I'm just wondering why this is an issue, now. I don't see ANY of the candidates saying ANYTHING to differentiate themselves from each other. Other than skin tone or plumbing, they are the same person.
I also am hearing NOTHING from my peers or those I train with that would indicate that this upcoming election will even come anywhere near touching issues that can be remotely considered controversial.
This is much ado about nothing. Past elections have been different, but this one...meh... who really cares?
I'm thinking the top-ranking officer is making a mountain out of a molehill. Good on him, I guess:rolleyes:
I suspect his ideas are colored by what he's hearing
in the DC area; always been a bunch more political jabber there than elsewhere in the services.
Not so. The apolitcal officer in the broad sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Presley Cannady
The apolitical US regular officer is barely as old as the large standing force; is there any particular reason for this cultural shift?
existed in the regular force from the early teens through the 1960-70s. MY father and most of his peers did not register, did not vote and did not discuss politics. He served from the 30s through the 60s; didn't vote until he retired. If you'll check, you'll find that lack of an absentee ballot process in many States was a big issue during the Korean War and both Congress and Truman tried to jawbone the States into fixing that -- with little success. As late as the early years in Viet Nam, absentee ballots were spotty at best and no one in the regular forces was political to speak of.
Were there occasional exceptions and people who didn't play fair? Sure, always are -- but the regular, active duty Armed Forces didn't start registering to vote and making much noise about politics until the 70s. Even then it was relatively muted. As it should be.