JOINTS CHIEF OF STAFF Warns Troops About Politics

[smokingloon]

FROM THE CHAIRMAN, JOINTS CHIEF OF STAFF
Warns Troops About Politics

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the nation approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

Admiral Mullen’s essay appears in the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal that is distributed widely among the officer corps.

The essay is the first Admiral Mullen has written for the journal as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and veteran officers said they could not remember when a similar “all-hands” letter had been issued to remind military personnel to remain outside, if not above, contentious political debate.

The essay can be seen as a reflection of the deep concern among senior officers that the military, which is paying the highest price in carrying out national security policy, may be drawn into politicking this year.

The war in Iraq has already exceeded the length of World War II and is the nation’s longest conflict fought with an all-volunteer military since the Revolutionary War.

In particular, members of the Joint Chiefs have expressed worries this election year about the influence of retired officers who advise political campaigns, who have publicly called for a change in policy or who serve as television commentators on the war.

Among the most outspoken were those who joined the so-called generals’ revolt in 2006 demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, as well as former officers who have written books attacking the Bush administration’s planning for and execution of the war in Iraq.

While retired officers have full rights to political activism, their colleagues still in uniform fear its effect on those trying to carry out the mission, especially more junior officers and enlisted personnel. Active-duty military personnel are prohibited from taking part in partisan politics.

“As the nation prepares to elect a new president,” Admiral Mullen wrote, “we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.”

“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

Admiral Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting military personnel around the world. He said their questions included, “What if a Democrat wins?” and, “What will that do to the mission in Iraq?” and, “Do you think it’s better for one party or another to have the White House?”

“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “What I am suggesting — indeed, what the nation expects — is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”

He noted that “part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests.”

[yellowfin]

Hmm...nothing about "Protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic." They've been asleep at the wheel on defense against domestic (translate: elected) enemies of the Constitution for about 80 years.

[Gator Monroe]

80 Years of Dem control of House & Senate and Ruby Ridge,Waco,Elian Gonzales ...

[Ironchef]

Maybe the Joint Chiefs need to stay out of politics and let their volunteer army also be citizens who get to have free speech..oh wait, no civil rights for those in uniform.

[MrTuffPaws]

80 Years of Dem control of House & Senate and Ruby Ridge,Waco,Elian Gonzales ...

80 years of Dem control? You need to go back and read some history. Each of the items that you listed happened under a republican controlled congress if I remember correctly. The US DoJ is part of the executive branch, so it doesn't matter who is in congress.

[MrTuffPaws]

Personally, I think the military should be completely apolitical. Either party can have complete control over them, and they must do as ordered. In other words, they take it from both sides, so best not pick a favorite.

[Gator Monroe]

80 years of Dem control? You need to go back and read some history. Each of the items that you listed happened under a republican controlled congress if I remember correctly. The US DoJ is part of the executive branch, so it doesn't matter who is in congress.

Janet Reno ? (And before 1994 DEMS HAD House & senate for 50+ years)

[FortCourageArmory]

Maybe the Joint Chiefs need to stay out of politics and let their volunteer army also be citizens who get to have free speech..oh wait, no civil rights for those in uniform.
I don't know what to say to this kind of illogic. The military needs to be apolitical....non-political. It can't be perceived to be the sock puppet for any political party. The question is what do you want.....a military that is above petty partisan politics or a bunch of little private armies that are swayed by the politics in vouge at the time?

[yellowfin]

I don't know what to say to this kind of illogic. The military needs to be apolitical....non-political. It can't be perceived to be the sock puppet for any political party. The question is what do you want.....a military that is above petty partisan politics or a bunch of little private armies that are swayed by the politics in vouge at the time?The ATF essentially is, and the Secret Service definitely is. Both are of questionable legitimacy.

[PIRATE14]

They always put stuff like this out....nothing new.....

Doesn't mean you can't choose who you vote for.........

[aklon]

This is probably the long term reaction to a phenomenon first noted last year. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) was doing one of those Congressional "drive-by" investigations in Iraq and noticed a piece of green paper wherever she went so she asked one of the troops what it was and he showed her a list of her quotes and votes concerning the war in Iraq.

It was accurate.

She went nuts.

[sb_pete]

80 years of Dem control? You need to go back and read some history. Each of the items that you listed happened under a republican controlled congress if I remember correctly. The US DoJ is part of the executive branch, so it doesn't matter who is in congress.
Janet Reno ? (And before 1994 DEMS HAD House & senate for 50+ years)

Not sure what you're getting at there Gator. I don't really see a debate for me to take one side or the other here but I'll throw some facts out for you guys to interpret as you will:

-Janet Reno was appointed by Bill Clinton as his third choice, the first two having confirmation issues with congress. AG is part of the executive branch

- The US Senate was majority Republican for:
80th Congress (1947-49)
97th, 98th, and 99th (81-87)
and from 1995-2007
the difference was also 2 seats or less from 55-59.

The Cold War era was certainly a period of Democratic party domination of the legislative branch. There's no doubt about it, but the fifty years thing is bandied about far too often and just isn't true.

More worrying to me is the article's repeating of the "lasting longer than WWII " drivel and claim of Iraq being the nation’s longest conflict fought with an all-volunteer military since the Revolutionary War.. It blatantly disregards the US military's other all volunteer military deployments (some of which were significantly longer) like:

-China (starting with the Boxer uprising and involved with troops there from 1900 until after WWII

-Philippine War and following insurgency 1899-1902 and then smoldering on for another decade or so in the South

-Haiti - 1915-1934
-Dominican Republic - 1916-1924
-Nicaragua from 1926-1933

Nevermind the more controversial modern stuff.
Grrr
-Pete

[yellowfin]

^ What compounds the problem is that the R's in office when they were did little to repeal a lot of the junk the donkey party got away with during the Depression all the way through the Cold War. They haven't gathered the will to abolish Social Slavery, income tax withholding (or the income tax itself), baseline budgeting, the department of education, federal election funding, and many other egregious oversteppings of the 9th and 10th Amendment.

[Hoop]

I don't know what to say to this kind of illogic. The military needs to be apolitical....non-political. It can't be perceived to be the sock puppet for any political party. The question is what do you want.....a military that is above petty partisan politics or a bunch of little private armies that are swayed by the politics in vouge at the time?

Exactly. The military should be apolitical. When armies get involved in elections bad things happen.

[Hoop]

They always put stuff like this out....nothing new.....

Doesn't mean you can't choose who you vote for.........

That too.

"Please don't throw rocks at the congressional tour bus when it drives by us at 75mph" kind of thing.

[yellowfin]

Exactly. The military should be apolitical. When armies get involved in elections bad things happen.Unless the people elected rig the system or have things on their agenda which include repression of the people, taking all their money via confiscatory taxes, writing in powers for themselves that they shouldn't have, denying their RKBA, appointing a ruling class with special treatment and power, declaring themselves above the law...

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Exactly. The military should be apolitical. When armies get involved in elections bad things happen.

I agree, the armies should not take a stance, but to say that the individual soldiers are barred from doing so is wrong, one might even say unconstitutional. Before you try for a rebuttal please find the excerpt in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that excludes active military from exercising their first amendment rights?

[FortCourageArmory]

I agree, the armies should not take a stance, but to say that the individual soldiers are barred from doing so is wrong, one might even say unconstitutional. Before you try for a rebuttal please find the excerpt in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that excludes active military from exercising their first amendment rights?
Soldiers have 1st Amendments rights as do all citizens. But the soldier is bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well. What that means is if the soldier's CO tells him/her to shut their mouth, the soldier is legally bound to do just that or face the consequences. Individual soldiers sounding off for one side or the other in uniform or out while still soldiers tend to make civilians think they represent official military position. Then the military is no loger apolitical.

Signing one's name to an enlistment form and raising the hand to take the oath means the citizen voluntarily gives up some of their personal liberties and freedoms for the greater good of military sservice. Remember, it's a voluntary army. No one forces these fine men and women to do this. They do it because they want to do it.

[Piper]

As an organization, the military should remain neutral when it comes to politics. However, as individuals, telling a member of the military that they can't engage in political conversation is absurd. Now, I will grant that pursuing the neutrality position while in uniform would probably be a reasonable "order", but just the same, the majority of military personnel generally vary from centrist to conservative republicans and libertarians. And if they are democrats, they are on the level of the "Reagan" democrat. So, I think that people already know which way the military leans. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that the democrats were so sure, that they tried to prevent ballots of military personnel overseas from being counted when Gore was running for President.

I really don't like people being told that they can't exercise a basic right because of A,B,C or D. We as conservatives keep our mouths shut when we should be shouting down anyone that says or does anything that infringes on freedom. And that includes a soldiers right to the 1st amendment.

[Piper]

Soldiers have 1st Amendments rights as do all citizens. But the soldier is bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well. What that means is if the soldier's CO tells him/her to shut their mouth, the soldier is legally bound to do just that or face the consequences. Individual soldiers sounding off for one side or the other in uniform or out while still soldiers tend to make civilians think they represent official military position. Then the military is no loger apolitical.

Signing one's name to an enlistment form and raising the hand to take the oath means the citizen voluntarily gives up some of their personal liberties and freedoms for the greater good of military sservice. Remember, it's a voluntary army. No one forces these fine men and women to do this. They do it because they want to do it.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Criminals give up their rights when they commit crimes. People who voluntarily choose to protect and defend our country should not be forced to do the same.

[chris]

as for military votes not being counted by either party is disgusting and immoral as hell that is a right that cannot be taken away by serivng in the military. it ticks me off that the military vote is often not counted as we are the ones with our butts on the line and our vote won't even be counted. now that is disgusting no matter how you look at it.

[Vectrexer]

The Joints Chiefs statement is perfectly understandable and acceptable. In fact any military person can engage in politics if they do so responsibly and sensibly.

The military person cannot make political statement while in uniform. Consider that the company you work for probably would not like your showing up to a political rally in company uniform for an event or cause they did not support.

The military person cannot make political statement on the behalf of service they belong to. Consider that the company you work for (if you do) would not like you making political statements on their behalf either. At least not ones that conflict with their business or stated viewpoints.

The military person cannot be involved in political action or events that may result in possible law or ordinance breaking actions. Being picked up for a day for disturbing the peace would be a problem. A problem because missing out on duty would be an military offence. I bet you own job would have a problem with missing out on work for being jailed as well. The military persion migh have other problems as well if a news agency picked up on the fact the person was in the military and made a stink with the information. Any public stink created would cause the affected service to apply the UCMJ to the individual and prosecute the poor service member further with other actions related to conduct violations.

Fair or not, when the individual joins the military there are some rights given up upon signing the enlistment papers and taking their oath.

Seen in another light, when you join a company you also are giving up ability to fully use some rights in order to be employed and make living. On the flip side, you can always choose to be fired if you ignore your employers' legally applied work policies.

My opinion is the military should not be politically aligned with any particular viewpoint. To do so would invite possible disaster in the form of a extreme military oppression wielded by the party in power. To some extent this happens anyway. However, American by an large can still enjoy a greater amount of freedoms that most every country on the planet. I would like to keep it that way. Even if it means a military member tone down their political involvements during the course of their enlistment or commission.

Stated as a former US Navy enlisted serviceman who didn't always agree with the military, but did my best anyway.

[Nodda Duma]

+1 what Vectrexer said. Civilian employees of DoD fall under the same guidelines. Employees can be as political as they want when they are not at work (there are prohibitions on running for political offices while being federally employed), just do it on their own time and do not push politics at work through official lines of communication (ie no emails claiming presidential nominee XXXX is an idiot). And do not claim a political position on behalf of the DoD or your service branch. Talking to the press is frowned upon unless you're in public affairs and it is your job. Ie "I work for the Navy and I think Presidential nominee XXXX is an idiot" would be a big no-no.

-Jason

[phobos512]

+1 what Vectrexer said. Civilian employees of DoD fall under the same guidelines. Employees can be as political as they want when they are not at work (there are prohibitions on running for political offices while being federally employed), just do it on their own time and do not push politics at work through official lines of communication (ie no emails claiming presidential nominee XXXX is an idiot). And do not claim a political position on behalf of the DoD or your service branch. Talking to the press is frowned upon unless you're in public affairs and it is your job. Ie "I work for the Navy and I think Presidential nominee XXXX is an idiot" would be a big no-no.

-Jason

And in fact there was recently an all-hands at my facility stating the same. And for the last bold above we've been told many a time to never speak to any media organization at any time on behalf of work without prior authorization (ie never under any circumstances do you get to say I'm with the Navy and we think X, political or otherwise, unless they told you that you could).

[BigKevLA]

Unless the people elected rig the system or have things on their agenda which include repression of the people, taking all their money via confiscatory taxes, writing in powers for themselves that they shouldn't have, denying their RKBA, appointing a ruling class with special treatment and power, declaring themselves above the law...

are you talking bout the republician party......................