The Order to "watch" & Debt Kills
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/FE....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!
A bit more to this story ...
Here's a response from OTB, 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) - suggesting among other things that the 1/LT was not into disobeying orders, but was questioning presidential validity.
PS: see article at military.com
------------------------------
Ran into this recent article at SSI, which deals with the more serious issue of dealing with "bad" NCA (POTUS > SecDef > GEN X) orders at the highest military level:
Quote:
(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.
Didn't find anything on a limited search.
Effectively and consistently? Not
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ironhorse
They don't? Since when? :rolleyes:
Geez this world is going to hell.
since 1949 in my observation.
Although important in that context
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
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:(
I hate to be dense but I am. I don't understand
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
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?
You're sort of missing the point but so have a lot of others
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marauder Doc
...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.
Quote:
... 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.