Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[marct]

Hi Sam,

I was always taught that the power went this way...

people --> Constitution --> civilian leadership --> military/bureaucracy etc..

I've seen the same thing. Still, there is a difference between "power" and "legitimacy" in the sense of the legitimate social use of power. From my reading of it, your constitution legitimizes popular power and constrains its social forms and some of the procedures of its application. For example, you do not directly elect your President and it is quite possible that the one elected under the constitutional strictures actually loses the popular vote.

Some people try and say that the Constitution is the law of the land (restricts people and gives power to the government), but it is actually about restricting the rights of government and empowering people instead of government. Specifically the 9th amendment, and 10th amendment limit government power to only those given in the Constitution and put "The People" as the top dog.

Maybe - there have always been limits on the franchise which restricts who "The People" actually are. Also, I would argue,that you fought a civil war over this issue, and "The People" lost when the federal government was empowered to supersede individual states rights. I think that the tensions go back right to the founding of your country.

Of course we could also say that the Officers oath has a direct violation of the Posse Commitatus act in it "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic".

That's always been an interesting loophole to my mind, since it never really defines what "defend" means; is it political defense? Military defense? Media releases? Then again, the oaths go back before the posse commitatus act.

Marc

[wm]

The tension between states' rights and Federal power predates the Constitution. In fact, I seem to remember that The Federalist Papers were written to try to justify a Federal government at the expense of states' rights. Initially the US was run under the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.

I am no Constitutional law expert. But when it comes down to it, I always look at the Preamble as the source of understanding what the document is all about.
(We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.)
It is rather like a combination of the mission and the statement of the commander's intent in an Op Order. All of the rest of the Constitution's articles and amendments equate to the remainder of the execution paragraph, paragraphs 4 and 5 and and the various annexes and appendices. BTW, I think the Declaration of Independance serves as the situation (Paragraph 1 of the OpOrd). We might also choose to view the amendments to the Constitution as fragos after the intial order was issued.

In closing, I'd just like to say that the real issue, as far as I am concerned, has nothing to do with all this legalese. Instead, we need to consider what is the morally right thing to do. I applaud LTC Yingling for having the moral courage to publish his thoughts.

[Steve Blair]

In closing, I'd just like to say that the real issue, as far as I am concerned, has nothing to do with all this legalese. Instead, we need to consider what is the morally right thing to do. I applaud LTC Yingling for having the moral courage to publish his thoughts.

I agree 100%. Now if we could only get MAJ Vandergriff to comment on his ideas for changing the personnel system...

As I've said before, it's also good to see AFJ going back to its roots and running articles like LTC Yingling's. Good discussion in print is always helpful, and if nothing else can stimulate others to think and hopefully write.

[VinceC]

The Insurrection Acts date to the Civil War. Even with Posse Comitatus, the President has always had authority to use federal forces to uphold U.S. law if civilian law-enforcement officials are unable or unwilling to uphold the law. Under the Insurrection Acts, the President must issue a "cease and desist" order, usually via presidential proclamation, then may deploy federal troops if that order is not followed. In practice, this is how Eisenhower deployed elements of U.S. Army airborne forces to force the desegregation of schools in the late 1950s. It is not complicated and does not require a general declaration of martial law.

[Uboat509]

Call me cynical if you like but I don't think that increased congressional oversite is the answer to ANY problem. Every issue is viewed though a number of partisan filiters and the decisions are made based on what is best for the party rather than what is best for the country. How many sh*t sandwiches has the military had to swallow because they were made in a powerful congressman's district? I am all for the civilian leadership of the military in so far as they tell us which wars to fight. But I have a problem with someone who has little or no practical military experience and a partisan agenda telling us how to fight those wars or who is best suited to lead us when we do.

SFC W

[Old Eagle]

I'm with Uboat on this one. I thoroughly enjoyed Paul's article. I think that it will spark healthy debate, as it has here. I disagree, however, with the prescription of more congressional interferrence in DoD. Already, the workload of congressionally mandated reports, many that nobody reads, is abusive. I was in the bureaucratic process that forwarded promotion lists to congress for advice and consent in the days after Tailhook. Their intrusive micrimanaging of the promotion process served no one well, and trashed the careers of several great officers. Some oversight.

[NDD]

Well, at the risk of over-stating the obvious, the problem is a 900-pound guerrilla (get it? ) and the Colonel has addressed but part of it. He stayed in his lane and didn't go off on a tangent.

Sir,
Being an old SF soldier, I loved the article. I disagree about your proposed solutions, but can't offer anything better without hurting myself thinking.

As has been said, I salute your for your integrity. Would there were 1,000 such. In each division.

Sorry I've been gone so long, anybody miss me?

[Tacitus]

I am all for the civilian leadership of the military in so far as they tell us which wars to fight. But I have a problem with someone who has little or no practical military experience and a partisan agenda telling us how to fight those wars or who is best suited to lead us when we do. SFC W

This sounds alot like the sort of thing that Union General George McClellan vented at President Abraham Lincoln. Who is this pipsqueak civilian Lincoln telling me how to run a war? He didn't like Lincoln telling him "how to fight the war", namely to get moving.

It turned out that Lincoln had a better understanding of what it would take to win the war than alot of the generals. He just had to keep firing them until he found some who could get it done (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc.) The inital crop just wasn't cutting it.

I just always bristle a little bit when I hear this "leave the war to us, the professionals" line. That is not a proven strategy for success, any more than completely disregarding the advice of the generals. Wisdom and good judgment are not predestined by God almighty to automatically reside in a man wearing some stars, or a man sitting behind a desk in the oval office.

[Uboat509]

I just always bristle a little bit when I hear this "leave the war to us, the professionals" line. That is not a proven strategy for success, any more than completely disregarding the advice of the generals. Wisdom and good judgment are not predestined by God almighty to automatically reside in a man wearing some stars, or a man sitting behind a desk in the oval office.

The battlefield is no place for partisan agendas. I have a HUGE problem with interference by politicians, most of whom have no practical military experience. Wisdom and good judgment are not predestined by God almighty to automatically reside in a man who has the initials MD after his name but that is still who I am going to see when I am sick. A doctor can most certainly be wrong but he is still more likely to be right than someone who has little or no medical training. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because the political leadership refused to admit that the strategy we were using was not working, and quashed any military member who said otherwise. There are few absolutes in life, a politician can be military genius and a general can be a political hack but that is probably not where you want to put your money.

SFC W