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!
Last edited by 1258dave; 03-01-2009 at 03:30 PM. Reason: accuracy
Sir,Originally Posted by Schmedlap
The interrogator spent 45 minutes of your time asking you about your prior "truthiness" for the purpose of a Probable Lie Comparison, not because he actually believes in the slippery slope. People are expected to be somewhat evasive on these questions. Their physiological respones are then compared to their answers for the relevent questions. At least that is my basic understanding. I apologize for diverting the purpose of this thread.
I think that you could call this inappropriate political conduct. Some people are born stupid, others seem to work very hard at it.
SFC W
Well, much to his relief, I doubt that the President will be issuing any orders to this moron. But, if I were President, then I would have fun with this. I would order the LT to eat 3 meals per day in the KBR dining facility, to make daily trips to the PX, to gain 30 pounds of fat during the deployment, and to watch at least 4 hours of TV per day. Then we'll see how determined the LT is disobey.The lieutenant is currently in the middle of a 15-month tour of duty in Balad, Iraq.
I suspect that this guy has very few friends - in his unit, in the Army as a whole, or even outside of the Army. Too bad Officers don't use the "blanket party" technique to police their own ranks.
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:
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.(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.
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.
Last edited by jmm99; 03-02-2009 at 05:14 AM. Reason: add PS
I originally thought this was one lone jackass make a public fool of himself. I now see that there is a lawyer out there circulating a petition among military members to this effect. Apparently some are signing it. I disagree with Ken and a few others as to how much political opinion a soldier should voice but this is way, way over the line.
SFC W
My goodness, lots of dialog here.
On the one hand:
- war is politics
- we have been complaining about a dearth of grand strategy
- Presidents have a hand in setting that
- people are concerned about being told to watch & discuss a speech which was clearly known in advance that it was going to set some major lines in the sand of grand strategic import?
WTF, over?
On the other hand, certainly there are opportunities to reinforce the system of civilian control of the military, and for individual instructors to fail to live up to controlling their partisanship. But just because something might be done poorly doesn't mean it should be tried to be done well.
I assume CCC is Captain's Career Course or some similar officer / SNCO PME? At ILS (e.g. CGSC) and TLS (e.g. AWC) you'll spend significant portions of the curriculum looking at Strategy & Politics, and our political system. Understanding our political system and being aware of its currents and trends is not just OK, it is essential to officer development. And it is important for a serving officer to be able to walk through that muck field and understand it, without getting covered by or slinging that muck.
Last edited by Ironhorse; 03-02-2009 at 12:26 PM. Reason: typo
They don't? Since when?
Geez this world is going to hell.
I think the discussion about President Obama's citizenship is akin to looking for a non-existant way to unseat a natural born American who was first duly elected to the US Senate and then won a hard fought primary and General Election to become our President.
I voted for McCain, and am a Republican, but when the day comes that we try to ignore the voice of the people we are in deep trouble as a free nation.
A few short facts:
1. Before being elected to any office, then Mr. Obama had a US Passport.
2. To have a US Passport he had to produce either an original or a certified copy of his Birth Certificate.
You or I have to produce the same documentation. No
First Lt, age 40, who the Army institutionally made the mistake of commissioning from status as a civilian contractor to an Army Lieutenant, has any business or right to question anything which the FBI and related federal security agencies have already checked out and validated. That is not the Lieutenant's MOS nor duty or purpose in the Army.
We are today in the midst of a worldwide Depression, not a simple recession. Radical economic and financial actions are in order. President Bush did the correct thing(s) to start to bailout our national economy during the transition before Obama became President.
First Lieutenants broadly speaking had better make friends with and be listening to good, solid NCOs and Petty Officers if they want to be successful in their military careers.
In the case of this First Lieutennat, he has gone way across the line and needs to be restricted to barracks pending court martial. I will leave it to the lawyers on this site to compile the obvious list of UCMJ charges thus far, based on fact not heresay from rumors on this site. That, or the Lieutenant could just resign, if he hasn't already gone illegally too far.
SWJ is to provide information, experience, facts, and ideas to fight small wars, not to digress into such trash as this.
Last edited by George L. Singleton; 03-02-2009 at 01:57 PM.
We were discussing political speech by military members and I found this article about this guy who obviously has violated even the most lenient standards. I don't think anyone was trying to debate the merits of his case.
SFC W
Thanks for your note. I didn't think you were trying to do so, no problem.
Effectively and consistently? Not
since 1949 in my observation.They don't? Since when?
Geez this world is going to hell.
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.
Although important in that context
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
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
I hate to be dense but I am. I don't understand
what any of that means. Sorry.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
Could you clarify that a little, por favor?
So I guess these guys were doing something improper by attending?
Given that the Joint Chiefs of Staff attend all Joint Sessions of Congress in uniform, I have a hard time believing that anything improper took place regarding watching the address on television. 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. It just means keeping your head on a swivel in regards to what's going on amongst the our civilian leadership.
Sorry bout that
In relation to the concerns Schmedlap and others have brought over how wise it is to "study" implications of actions and words of politicians and the somewhat predictable fact that this would inevitably lead to a level of dissatisfaction with our masters.
They are the ones who make the important decisions which determine our nations direction at any given point. As such what they say, about what, and how carry great implications for exactly how we do our job.
The reality is as you and others have pointed out the fact that there is so much distance between where the Gen pop is and the military and in turn how thats not necessarily a bad thing. I might suggest that soldiers studying and becoming more in tune with the extent of that seperation wil
1- Perhaps lead them to become somewhat dismayed by what they percieve as a lack of recognition for what they do and why.
2- Help remind or (relearn) them why thats ok
* That we do what we do because we choose to not because we have to. And the actual goal is that of allowing others to be able to live without having to worry about what we do.
So the fact that the nation is not at war "with" us is OK in some ways because it means their still able to choose what they will to be concerned about or what they want to be a part of. Part of the reason they hold the military in such regard is because thats what it provides them.
To tie this back into the study discussion. It is guaranteed that regardless which political party is in charge at any given point, there will be those who fail to consider the long term implications of their words or actions because their more concerned with how their support base percieves them. That is also ok (in the grander scheme) but it does come with costs, quite possibly lives. When your defenders watch it happen and then tend to get frustrated with it it will of course cause some signifigant change in how they interact with those politicians.
The key to why this type of awareness through study is beneficial might be found in its ability to shape future military leaders on how to more effectively interact with those individuals in ways that can actually help at least cut down on the times when local and international politics conflict.
Not sure thats any clearer but I tried
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
You're sort of missing the point but so have a lot of others
so you must be in good company.
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.Thus that comment was as unnecessary and not germane to the issue.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.... It just means keeping your head on a swivel in regards to what's going on amongst the our civilian leadership.
Because ordering them to do that is too easily misinterpreted. Obviously.
Thanks...
I don't think he, I or anyone else has said that such study is not a good idea; the issues, I thought, were whether and more importantly how that could or should be be encouraged; that and the ever popular 'apolitical' military argument.My observation over many years has been that the majority of people in uniform of all ranks are continually, constantly and always dissatisfied with their civilian masters -- but that such dissatisfaction does not preclude them from doing their job nor does it pose the slightest danger to the nation. I'll also note that the degree of dissatisfaction is directly attributable to the political / ideological affinity or lack thereof between the individual service member and the government of the day -- even if they're attuned, there will still be some dissatisfaction. In particular, see Congress, US.and the somewhat predictable fact that this would inevitably lead to a level of dissatisfaction with our masters.Well, yes. I don't see that as a problem. There are now and always have been -- probably always will be -- a few malcontents who can't accept or intensely dislike that but the majority in my view have been and are cool with it....I might suggest that soldiers studying and becoming more in tune with the extent of that seperation wil
1- Perhaps lead them to become somewhat dismayed by what they percieve as a lack of recognition for what they do and why.
2- Help remind or (relearn
* That we do what we do because we choose to not because we have to. And the actual goal is that of allowing others to be able to live without having to worry about what we do.Possible I suppose but in my observation over time it's made little difference. The problem is not the military folks -- the guys at JCS level are quite politically attuned, they have to be -- the problem you cite is the Political class and their egos and that has been true and has not changed in my lifetime. They are in charge and they are prone to reject advice, no matter how good, they don't want to hear. See Viet Nam, support of and Iraq, Invasion of......When your defenders watch it happen and then tend to get frustrated with it it will of course cause some signifigant change in how they interact with those politicians.
ADDED: { I should mention Eisenhower as an exception. For Viet Nam, early on, John Foster Dulles SecState wanted to send troops and about half the advisers agreed. Bradley, the CJCS was ambivalent on the issue -- enough so that Eisenhower asked the CofStaff Army, Ridgeway, what he thought -- Ridgeway was adamant that no troops be sent and Eisnhower so ruled. That proves that even the senior military folks can be divided and/or give bad advice and that some politicians do listen. Occasionally. }Again, I don't think anyone questions that potential. The problems I have seen in that are fall far more on the civilian than the military side. Again, egos.The key to why this type of awareness through study is beneficial might be found in its ability to shape future military leaders on how to more effectively interact with those individuals in ways that can actually help at least cut down on the times when local and international politics conflict.It helped; thank you...Not sure thats any clearer but I tried
Last edited by Ken White; 03-03-2009 at 12:41 AM. Reason: Addendum
Not Targeting
I said this in an earlier post, but again, the targeting class just happened to be the block we were in. All students, regardless of the subjects, were told to watch. Those in doctrine watched it. Those in the SCIF watched it. The morning discussion was used to discuss the speech, rather than the night's reading assignment from the FM's.
I too would be wary of discussing the acting POTUS with a targeting or IO angle, at least in a military classroom. We received no guidance other than go watch, so we only had our personal mindsets for a frame of reference. The discussion the next day tended to focus more on wondering why we had to watch it, rather than discussing policy. When policy did come up, it resorted to usual political sides, with little contribution to the class. We talked about the expected troop drawdown in Iraq, but the increase in A-stan. Those of us potentially heading to MiTTs (or BTTs to be accurate) wondered what happens when "Trainer Violence" takes place after the end of combat ops.
"What do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?"
- Harry Callahan, The Enforcer.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks