TRADOC ordered to watch President?

[Ken White]

I think "the source of the order is less than totally transparent" fact bothered me more than anything...)

[Entropy]

I think "the source of the order is less than totally transparent" fact bothered me more than anything...)

Additionally, what was the educational objective? It doesn't sound like there really was one. The problem as I see it is relevancy. The order appears irrelevant to the course material, hence people are left to speculate as to the order's purpose. Since it was a political speech, it's inevitable that people are going to connect the dots and ask questions about politicization. FWIW, I seriously doubt there was any political motive in the order. I believe it was lawful and everyone had a duty to obey it, but I agree with Ken that it was ill-advised.

SPECULATION ALERT: I've been around long enough to see subordinates to GO's take their often off-the-cuff remarks and run with them. A GO throws out an idea to elicit feedback, suggests it might be worth looking into and someone down the line (usually field grades - sorry, but there it is) turns it into a GO-directed order for his/her subordinates. It sounds to me like this might be such a case.

[Ski]

We were told at CGSC that we had to watch the speech and be prepared to discuss it in class the next day...which we did. There was an e-mail blaster sent out as well.

We were told to analyze the speech to see what ramifications it might have for the military.

I don't see the big deal about it to be frank.

[patmc]

Ski,

Thank you, sir. It was not received on our end in that manner. We were told go home, watch, and discuss. No guidance or emails. Even the instructors were wondering why we were doing it.

Presentation matters.

And George, it may not have happened, but we were told it was. And executed as such.

[Schmedlap]

and dating from a time when regular officers did not vote -- my father cast his first vote ever for Eisenhower in 1956

My vote in 2008 - less than a year after my ETS - was my first vote cast since 1996 (when I was a senior in high school). Unfortunately, I never met another Officer who thought such abstinence from the political process was necessary or even merited a moment of thought. I suppose a few of them are out there - I don't think I'm all that special - but I thought it odd that I never encountered any. I recall my S-2 on my last deployment actually stating, matter-of-factly, "I'm a liberal Democrat." I was the only person in the room who seemed taken back by that. When I pointed out, "no, you're an Army Officer" people looked at me like I was proclaiming that the Earth is flat.

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.

Given the details, I agree. Aside from this being assigned for a targeting class, I'd be curious to know more context. In a course that included instruction regarding use of public affairs personnel and interaction with the media, we watched clips of Bill Clinton. Whether you like his politics or not, the guy was masterful when it came to keeping an interview on message and controlling the direction of the discussion. In that regard, watching him was relevant.

If this targeting class was concerned with parsing President Obama's speech into specific messages addressed to specific target audiences - then maybe I can see a targeting purpose. But, even then, it seems like a poor decision, because it could result in Officers treating the words of their CinC as little more than hollow, empty, disingenuous jibber-jabber.

[Bob's World]

I have to admit, I find this thread to be an interesting window into the psychie of those about me.

The U.S. military is premised in its civilian control, those civilians are all "political" and either elected or appointed to office. The President is your ranking Commander. He wears no uniform and we are better off for that very fact. He is also a politician, and when he speaks, even if to a wholly military audiance it is "political." That does not somehow obligate the military professional to impose on him or herself some bizzare apolitical code of ignorance. It means you listen carefully, and you do what he says regardless of how you feel about either your politics or his, because he is your commander, and this is a special relationship you have with the president that civilians don't share.

War is Politics. So if one disagrees with the politics of the war one is asked to fight they don't participate? That is not an option that we enjoy.

I am reminded of the Edmond Burke quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Perhaps in some ways the military is the ultimate instrument of politics, and military leaders have a duty to advice the civilian leadership to the best of their ability as to the full impact of the the ways and means they have been asked to employ against the ends they have been directed to achieve. And when they believe that what they have been ordered to do is to the detriment of the Republic, and they have made their best case and have been told to execute regardless, the honorable military leader resigns. If he simply disagrees he salutes and executes. The military leader's personal political views mean nothing, the preservation of the Republic and the Constitution everything.

It seems there has been a blurring of "political" and "party politics." We are all political and can not escape that fact. We have no business in party politics and should never forget that fact. I believe this case fell firmly in the former.

[John T. Fishel]

as posted by Ski, makes sense. But, given the existence of this medium, the requirement to watch the Pres give it "live" outside normal duty hours does not. Any officer who knew that the implications of the speech for the military would be discussed the next morning had multiple options as to how to get that information off the net, to include (I bet), watching a recording of the speech on You Tube before coming in to the L & C Center. In any event, reading a transcript was always an option. So, at minimum, telling military students "how to suck eggs" is even more stupid than it always was..

Cheers

JohnT

[Old Eagle]

I agree with John T. I, too, was amazed that the staff at CCC felt it necessary to tell the captains they had to go home.

[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. 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. 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? Every body has opinions whether they choose to label themselves politically or not.

SFC W

[George L. Singleton]

Ski,

Thank you, sir. It was not received on our end in that manner. We were told go home, watch, and discuss. No guidance or emails. Even the instructors were wondering why we were doing it.

Presentation matters.

And George, it may not have happened, but we were told it was. And executed as such.

PATMC:

Thanks for your feedback.

As some on this thread said they then went back to class the next day and did discuss it, I would have to assume the discussion happened but was questioning where is a written General Order to do so?

I as many of you in our years of active even reserve service taught classes on various topics "as required" by my commands, some of which involved cultural and political considerations of other nations where we had or might in future be focused.

We all took an oath when commissioned to follow the orders of those over us. But there are Orders and there are alleged Orders, which is what in fewest possible words I was trying to question. That's all.

I agree that we as individual citizens should be aware of and intersted in the running of our government, but I also agree with some on here who observe our job is not to run the government but to follow Orders.

Freedom of speech is found in our civilian lives but to me, at least, the military has limits, rules and regulations which in effect have to do with doing your job, not debating whether or not you should do your job.

Interested in anyone else's feedback further on this topic. Thanks.

[George L. Singleton]

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.

[Steve Blair]

I still think that if it's going to be an assignment, it should be taped (or a transcript provided) and then scheduled into an appropriate class slot and discussed in that manner. That's what I'd expect in a university, and would be taken aback if a mechanical engineering professor set aside his entire class to discuss Obama's speech. I would, however, expect such a discussion (hopefully unbiased, but I'm also a realist) in a political science class. This seems to fall into that sort of framework. If it was slotted into a current affairs, civics, or civilian-military relations slot, then it's all good and appropriate (IMO). But displacing a targeting class for it, and then handling it in the way it seems to have occurred, does cause me to question at the very least the judgment of the instructors.

Obviously war is an extension of politics, but there is also a proper place and time for classroom discussion of politics and political events. I would expect that higher military education would have such discussions, but I would also expect them to conduct and schedule them properly. IMO this did not happen in this case. It's important that we don't confuse the discussion of a "politicized military" with what appears to be very poor scheduling and choices on the part of an academic unit. Believe it or not, it is possible to separate the two....

[Ken White]

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.

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.

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.

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...

[Starbuck]

I have no problem with students being told that they need to watch the assignment at night. I remember having homework in my career course, and pretty much any college class. Setting aside one hour of homework is not unreasonable.

I also don't find it unreasonable that our officers watch a presidential address and discuss it in class. In an increasingly globalized world, war and politics are inextricably linked. How can we fight small wars and engage in nation-building if we don't have a full appreciation and understanding of all of the aspects of national power? I personally would have serious reservations of an officer corps that didn't have a thorough understanding of politics, economics, sociology, etc.

[Ken White]

I have to admit, I find this thread to be an interesting window into the psychie of those about me.

Very interesting in fact -- for a slew of professionals.

That does not somehow obligate the military professional to impose on him or herself some bizzare apolitical code of ignorance. It means you listen carefully, and you do what he says regardless of how you feel about either your politics or his, because he is your commander, and this is a special relationship you have with the president that civilians don't share.

No one has disputed that or evidenced any disagreement in any way. That's not at issue.

I am reminded of the Edmond Burke quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Nor is that -- no one has suggested anything approaching that.

...And when they believe that what they have been ordered to do is to the detriment of the Republic, and they have made their best case and have been told to execute regardless, the honorable military leader resigns. If he simply disagrees he salutes and executes. The military leader's personal political views mean nothing, the preservation of the Republic and the Constitution everything.

Could not agree more. Well said!

It seems there has been a blurring of "political" and "party politics." We are all political and can not escape that fact. We have no business in party politics and should never forget that fact.

Totally agree. I think every poster on this thread seems to agree with that

I believe this case fell firmly in the former.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by that but when you say it fell in the former if you mean "in party politics" (the "former" you cited?) I don't agree.

What it did do was treat a bunch of CPTs and MAJ like children and several someones ought to be ashamed. I suggest what should have been said in both cited examples is "The President is gong to give a speech tonight that will have broad impact and we'll discuss some of those impacts in the next few days." Or something to that effect. Many better ways that should have been done. Wasn't done that way.

This particular incident is no big thing; much ado about nothing as has been said.

The issue it raises on apolitical Armed Forces is nothing more than the fact that an Officer or an NCO has every right to hold whatever political (or religious, or food or recreational -- any thing not directly job related) views he or she wishes and they have an obligation to stand by their convictions within the parameters allowed -- or, as you say, resign or otherwise depart as honor demands and circumstances permit.

However, while serving, they have no right to impose their views on political (or religious, etc.) preferences, no matter how accidentally, casually, inadvertently, lightly or peripherally on any subordinates whether direct subordinates or other persons of lesser rank who may inadvertently hear the expression of views. A good Officer or NCO will devote a lot of effort to not violating that trust or even giving the appearance of a potential violation of it. Leading by example entails some sacrifices...

[Uboat509]

No one here has said that or anything approaching it.

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.

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.

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.

Recall also that an SF team is quite a bit different than a larger unit with younger troops...

Granted, but I spent 11 years in the Big Army before going SF. This was just never a problem that I saw.

SFC W

[Entropy]

There have been several comments now which seem to suggest that those of us who find this problematic are somehow advocating that military personnel should ignore politics, remain ignorant of politics or should not have opinions. That is simply not the case at all. There is a difference between what individuals choose to do and what they ordered to do. There is also a difference between what individuals think and how individuals act. No one is suggesting that military personnel should be privately apolitical - indeed that is probably impossible - what we are suggesting is that military personnel and military institutions should remain publicly apolitical and avoid acts which give even the appearance of political bias at all levels. Hence I'm in complete agreement with Ken's last two comments.

Ken's comparison with religion is a good one. There are many people who believe, based on a few public incidents, that the Air Force is filled with and controlled by evangelical crusaders. That's not true, of course, but it shows how easily false perceptions can be formed. In the same way, many on the left of the political spectrum believe the military is practically and arm of the GoP and that military members overwhelming vote Republican. I think, SFC W, that's part of the reason why many officers (and NCOs too) choose not to vote and said so publicly. Gen. Petraeus has continued this tradition, and I think it's something that all GO's should do and most other military members should seriously consider. FWIW, I do vote, though I don't make my vote known to any of my subordinates or superiors.

Suppose the CSA had come down and ordered everyone in the Army to watch the speech and discuss it the next day? Or suppose my squadron commander gave such an order? Whatever the motivation, such orders give the appearance of bias unless additional context is provided. For patmc, no context was provided, and as I said originally, context matters. I think such an order is completely appropriate in an academic setting as part of the curriculum, but this appears to be a blanket order unrelated to curriculum.

[Ken White]

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.

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.

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.

[George L. Singleton]

Some posters here seem to thing that some sort of Orwellian plot is afoot.

Shifting a bit from the topic of Captains and Majors who may have been "ordered" to watch the State of the Nation Address to Congress, I often see TV news interviews of our grassroots troops, men and women, who are asked very political, policy making or questioning of national command structure policies.

I am not happy with some of the answers these troops, all branches of the service, give to these loaded questions, especially when they are interviewed on duty, in uniform.

Off duty, we can expect particuarly National Guard and Reserve troopers to offer their opinions in letters to the editor, call in programs, and such.

What is more serious, in my view, are some members of the US Senate or Congress who violate secrecacy oaths they take to have access to highly classified briefing made to Congress, which even they, as civilians, are not free to disclose and either attack or support publicly. What do you do with a, say, Senator Finestine from Calif, who is sister in law to Hillary Clinton, when she breaks secrecacy laws regarding military ops in and around Pakistan?

[Ken White]

over what tea to brew...

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.