The issue discussed at the link you posted brings up two huge problems with some JAGs. First is the tendency to play it safe and become "Dr. No." Saying no to the question presented by a soldier or commander is the easy thing to do. In my opinion, it shows an attorney that is doing only half his job. Which brings me to the second problem: the failure of alot of JAGs to "know their client." By learning a little about what your the operators do in whatever branch of the service the JAG is in, he can develop a better understanding of the mission. This helps the JAG "get to yes." When someone presents a legal issue to a JAG (e.g. can I do X?), they don't just want to hear NO. They want you to tell then how they can do whatever it is they want to do. If the JAG understands the mission and a little about what its like to perform that mission, he can help the soldier/commender get where they want to go (e.g. you can't do it that way, but this way will get you there).

Too many JAGs learn the law and forget to learn about the job their clients perform (we need more checking out sites like this). No one wants to break the law in performing their job, but they want to get that job done. JAGs should be facilitators rather than road blocks. Having too many JAGs act as road blocks leads to conclusions such as yours that JAGs run legal interference. I wish I could refute that argument, but I cannot. Those of us that understand that JAGs should be mission facilitators have a responsibility to pass this on to other JAGs.

I have always thought that taking a JAG and giving him a career-broadening assignment in some other operations-type career field would be extremely beneficial. I would think that a 12 to 18 month assignment somewhere between the 4 and 6 year mark would do it. The logistics of doing this might be a dealbreaker, but doing it would surely allow JAGs to gain an understanding of their clients and address the issues I've discussed above. Plus, it would be fun to get my boots muddy again (OOH RAH).