Kucinich: Generals Who Spoke Publicly on Afghan Strategy Should Lose Jobs

[StarfarerBill]

by Jordan Fabian

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) this week said that U.S. generals who spoke publicly about the nation's Afghan strategy during the president's deliberations should lose their jobs.

"Kucinich, who is known for his anti-war views, told Russia Today in an interview Wednesday that Congress should be making the final decision on whether to go to war, not the president or his generals.

"Some of his generals made remarks publicly, which is really unheard of," he said. "You know, generals are subordinate to the president who is the commander-in-chief. He's the boss. And when generals start trying to suggest publicly what the president should do, they shouldn't be generals anymore."

"Kucinich's comments come weeks after he introduced a resolution in Congress calling for American forces to withdraw from the war-torn country."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/27-4

[virgogal]

1. Freedom of speech,Dennis,freedom of speech.

[spanone]

2. i don't think that applies to soldiers and their commanders in chief

[Renew Deal]

3. Kucinich is an attention seeker

But in this case, they don't have "freedom of speech." Giving away confidential and secret information is not part of their jobs.

[Pavulon]

4. Did someone disclose classified information?

I just heard guys talking shop. Not a great thing but not a criminal act. Disclosing classified info is a crime.

[Renew Deal]

5. Who did you hear talking shop to whom?

Are you a reporter or a general? The "deliberations" are "classified" at worst, and likely "secret." Discussing that is against the law.

[Pavulon]

10. A general commenting on policy options

is poor form. Not a crime. Hey UCMJ is pretty harsh, you waiting for an indictment?

[Renew Deal]

13. It is a crime

but I am not waiting for an indictment.

[FLDCVADem]

16. It is not a crime n/t

[blondeatlast]

19. In a way, it is. It's a violation of US Code and the generals agreed

to follow that code in writing.

[FLDCVADem]

21. They swear to follow the UCMJ

And there is nothing in the UCMJ that says that military officers can't speak publicly about policy.

[Pavulon]

20. "born secret" does not apply here.

these guys talking about large scale policy options in not classified in any way. Not a crime, just not in line with expected conduct.

[FLDCVADem]

22. Not classified

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[ljm2002]

26. The President is their boss...

...and he can fire them if he so chooses. No mention of crime, except by you.

Now should he fire them? I'm not sure. If their speaking out on policy is actually as unprecedented as Kucinich suggests, then I think President Obama should seriously consider it. If not, then he ought to bust their chops in private and possibly give them another chance.

But frankly, it reeks of insubordination. Just like the idiot in Congress who shouted "You lie!", these people are like children pushing the envelop to see how far they can go. President Obama risks becoming weakened if he does not push back hard IMO.

[ljm2002]

25. Pardon me...

...are you saying that holders of public office should keep their opinions to themselves? Or does it only apply to Dennis Kucinich, or just the lefties, or Democrats in general?

(on edit: "holders of public" -> "holders of public office")

[rd_kent]

7. Military people do not have that freedom.

And rightly so.

[madrchsod]

14. this is`t a freedom of speech issue.

[ljm2002]

24. Chain of command, virgogal, chain of command. n/t

[virgogal]

27. : - )

[BlueJac]

6. What has happen to this site?

It's getting spooky around here!

[rd_kent]

8. What do you mean?

[JI7]

9. i can understand , but how about when you have someone like Bush in power

and they are just trying to prevent him from doing something wrong.

[zbdent]

11. wasn't there something about how military personnel

aren't allowed to make political statements whilst in uniform?

Oh, that's right ... that only applies when it's a Republican president, and it's against what he's proposing ...

[FLDCVADem]

17. The generals didn't do anything wrong

They didn't disrespect the President publicly and no rules were broken.

Funny thing is, if the same generals had been pushing for a drawdown publicly, the same people that want them fired now would be calling for their promotion to 5-star status.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Well, Truman did fire MacArthur for shooting his mouth off...

but I'm not sure it's the same thing here- there's discussion and then there's insubordination.

But, ummm... Congress did make the decision to go to war in Afghanistan-- didn't make a declaration of war, but allowed the previous occupant of the White House to act within the War Powers Act. Now that we're there, Congress is largely to keep its nose out of it and let the generals run the war-- that's the way it's always been.

(How's his resolution doing?)

[madrchsod]

15. macarthur stated publicly that we should invade china

truman fired him...

the generals should have been fired by going public. but no president since truman had the balls to fire any general who criticized or publicly suggested policy

[Synicus Maximus]

32. The difference is that in the case of Afghan the generals were

discussing options. MacArthur continued to disagree with Truman after Truman had made a decision as to the conduct of the war and he presented the Chinese with an ultimatum undercutting Truman's cease fire efforts.

[madrchsod]

34. i stand corrected

i still think publicly discussing options during a war is`t correct.

but it`s obama`s decision on the conduct of his generals during a war

[madrchsod]

18. like it or not dennis is correct

[FLDCVADem]

23. No, he's not n/t

[BBG]

28. Yes, he is

but then that means you're not.

Dipstick.

[FLDCVADem]

30. Namecalling is the best you can do?

There is nothing in the UCMJ that prohibits military officers from discussing policy, so long as they are not disrespectful the CINC and so long as they don't disclose classified information.

These generals did neither of these things. Rep. Kucinich may not like what they said, but that doesn't mean they should be fired for saying those things.

And as I said earlier, if the same generals had been publicly calling for a drawdown instead of a surge, they would be heroes to Rep. Kucinich and to many here.

Why the hypocrisy?

[harun]

36. They can't discuss it if Obama ordered them not to.

I think Obama had them discuss it to dampen the impact.

[madrchsod]

33. why is he not correct?

[FLDCVADem]

35. He's not correct in saying that they should be fired

for speaking publicly about policy.

What would be the reason for firing them? Because they opened their mouths in public? That's not prohibited.

[amborin]

29. K&R

[LWolf]

31. k & r for the best Democrat standing, bar none. nt

[Major Hogwash]

37. No shit.

Send them to Fort Freezemuhnutsoff in Germany and get them the hell out of the way in Afghanistan.