Time for a policy change: Troops should be allowed to criticize the pres.

[bluestateguy]

Right now there is a rule that prevents uniformed military personnel from using "abusive" language about the Commander in Chief, or criticizing Administration policy. Soldiers and Marines who have dared to speak out have been disciplined: the National Guardsman who called for Rumsfeld's resignation; the Marine reservist who appeared in Fahrenheit 9/11. This needs to stop. IN order to ensure democratic accountability, these rules need to be changed such that uniformed personnel can be allowed to criticize the President without fear of retribution or discipline. I'm not saying they should be allowed to disobey orders, but the American people need to see and hear that many members of our armed forces do not support this Administration's Iraq policy.

[Kagemusha]

You're mistaken

The policy only applies to officers. NCO's were explicitly excepted, but the current administration has encouraged the military to crack down upon criticism of the President or members of the civilian administration on grounds that this is disobedience, contempt of the chain of command etc. and, moreover, harmful to the war effort. Much disinformation has been spread that this is a crime for NCO's as well as officers, which it is not. However, as second guessing the officers telling them these lies is a crime, silence has prevailed.

This is an issue dating from the first three months of the Iraq invasion and I have not forgotten it...

[One_Life_To_Give]

Undermine all discipline

Allowing subordinates to freely and publicly disrespect their superiors? Sounds like one step short of anarchy for a military unit. The military is not a democracy!

[cynatnite]

1. Military has to be apolitical

It's not about criticizing the president.

The reason why the military must be apolitical is so it won't be used against the government no matter who is running the show.

I prefer an apolitical military.

[havocmom]

2. If Armed Forces Radio can break the rules and broadcast Rush the druggie

The people doing the actual fighting ought to be able to break the rules too.

[cynatnite]

4. You want politics to get on the battlefield

Absolutely unacceptable in my eyes.

[havocmom]

6. Then get Rush off Armed Forces Radio!

Also unacceptable and from what I hear, against the Hatch Act too. All or nothing as far as law enforcement goes. Drug popping Chicken Hawks should not get rights the fighting troops do not have.

My point is: the law is not enforce uniformly and that equals injustice

[cynatnite]

9. I agree about Rush

but to change this one aspect of the military is an invitation to disaster.

I prefer the chickenhawk on armed forces radio than the other.

[havocmom]

3. If Armed Forces Radio can break the rules and broadcast Rush the druggie

The people doing the actual fighting ought to be able to break the rules too.

[Verve]

10. Rush should not be allowed! However, we are talking about soldier's lives

If soldiers, in a time of extreme stress, are rethinking what they are doing there, their lives and others could become in danger. Chaos could break out.

Soldiers need to be doing what they are told. We here need to be doing the thinking and criticizing for them. We need to hold the administration responsible to protect those soldiers that can't and shouldn't be "intellectually" thinking when they are on a dangerous mission.

Democracy in a military is not a good thing. Democracy for the people is.

[fooj]

5. Well, looky here...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and SERVILE, but is morally treasonable to the American Public."- Teddy Roosevelt

peace

[cynatnite]

8. This is NOT about criticizing the president

This is about keeping our military apolitical which is as it should be. It's hurts the military. Once that binding is removed you're asking for the military to take sides in political fights. That's the last place they should be at.

[grumpy old fart]

7. Absolutely disagree on this one. Sorry. While in, Zip it. Once out ,

SCREAM YOUR FUCKIN' LUNGS OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! General Abizd spoke volumes yesterday without specifically contradicting Cheney's outrageous "last throes" comments. The message is getting out, and it's not their job to set policy.

[Verve]

11. Agree! Democracy is for the people, not the military! n/t

[aden_nak]

12. This is a tricky topic.

It is a matter of where the line between Free Speech and military capacity is drawn. On one hand, if soldiers feel that their military leadership is incompetant, they do need some way to address their grievances. On the other hand, breaking military discipline like that can get far more soldiers killed than even the attrocious planning on Bush's part.

Of course, the problem with that system of military discipline is that it was understood that a corrupt general or a poor leader would himself be disciplined for his failures, and that's just not going to happen. Historicly, in situations where the military is the tool of a corrupt leader, and redress cannot be found in the government itself, the army has risen up against the corruption that held sway over it. That's not only highly dangerous, but most likely impossible due to our current level of technology.

So where is the line? Where can it be redrawn?

[cynatnite]

13. It's can't be redrawn

The military works under whoever is in charge. No matter how corrupt those calling the shots are, there is little room for movement on this. The military will follow whoever is in charge.

The only recourse is for the civilian population to get him out lawfully.

[napi21]

14. It may be more prominent now, but it has been an unwritten policy

for quite a while. I remember visiting my son on the naval base on Whidby Island abbout 15+ years ago. He took us for a tour through the main facility there, and on the way down the one set of stairs, there was a picture of every American President, and of course the listing of "Commander In Chief" under each.

My son didn't like Clinton who was Pres at the time, but when I said "Oh, there's Bill Clinton!" he simply responded "yea, well I can't say anything, he's my Commander in Chief!"

My son was an enlisted sailor and not an officer, but all the military has hammered the "don't criticize people in command" unwritten order for a long time. My son is changing, and he really dislikes Shrub. He still won't put him down in so many words, but I comments like, "Oh man, he's responsible for THAT TOO?"

Needless to say, I voice MY opinion to him all the time!

[Verve]

15. I'm glad he's starting to question Shrub. But would you want your son

to openly question the commander in chief when he was deployed in a time of war?

My husband was an officer 10+ years ago. He didn't care much for Clinton but he really cannot stand Shrub! If he was still in the military today, I know morally and ethically he would have a hard time fighting in Iraq. However, for his safety and those he was in charge of, I would want him to keep his mouth shut. Do their job, come home safely and then reflect on the war. Reflecting in combat would be a disaster.