Well, this is a chilling display. A couple of Army usetabee’s sit in civilian clothes on the dKos “Military Panel” using their recent military expertise to denounce the role the military is playing in Iraq. Which hey: The man’s got a right to an opinion. After all, he “deployed logistics convoys” during OIF in 2003. And “served with distinction” as a tanker during those pitched land battles in the Kosovo campaign in 2000.
But then a serving sergeant stands up – wearing his uniform – to insist that the Surge is working and ought to be given a chance. And gets mau-mau’d by the former officer wearing civilian clothes for the crime of daring to be political.
Was he being impermissibly political, in uniform? We don’t get to hear, his mike is cut off. But he gets threatened with military justice for daring to speak against Teh Wisdom while wearing his uniform. So I don’t know what he said.
All I know is that I’ve seen all kinds of leaders.
And that man? That “officer” who shouts the sergeant down under color of authority? While wearing civilian clothes?
I’ve never met the guy. But I know him.
I know him well.
–
Update: Better audio courtesy of Jim C.
–
Update 2: You know, in point of fact I find myself a touch conflicted on this. The military’s reputation for be apolitical is more important than transitory coup counting on prickish combat support services ustabees. No matter how deeply they might wade into the political pool themselves. No matter how unseemly their actions. There’s a larger point at stake.
But thinking it through a little more, I have to wonder how a serving soldier or reservist, wearing his uniform and attending a bloggers’ convention makes a political statement for or against one or another party by arguing that the current military strategy is succeeding and that it ought to be supported.
How is that “political?”
When General Petraeus makes his presentation to Congress on Capitol Hill in September, I expect that he will do so in his uniform. I imagine that he will tell a tale of cautious optimism, of mixed success and setback – things are looking up after all.
Could that testimony be any less political than a sergeant attending a blog convention and making a point on open mike? Can you imagine Harry Reid – no matter how apoplectic he might be at receiving such unwelcome news – shouting Petraeus down?
No, like Wesley Clark at the dKos convention, he is too smart a politician to brace up a four-star officer on camera. That will happen later. By the denizens at dKos.
The same people who have made losing the war their country is embarked upon a political position. And then branding as political the thoughts of a combat veteran whose testimony on the facts themselves discomfit their preference for losing the war.
How smart is that?
Lex, Not all of us Arny usetabee’s are like that Jerk on the stage. He came across as one of those types who would drive his organization into the ground just for a positive comment on his evaluation form.
John B.
RLTW
Lex,
Pajamas media has the audio of the question that the SGT. asked. I don’t think he was being political at all. He simply said I’ll give you all the money in my pocket if you can show me that the surge isn’t working and that casualties haven’t gone down. I’m not in the military, and don’t really have an idea of what passes for political speech in regards to that reg., but IMO that “officer” that shouted him down has far more to answer for than the SGT. does.
Jim C
Good thing that guy’s not at sea.
Ship’s laundry service might lose his laundry off the fantail.
Probably even some folks who’d be willing to help him fall up a ladder.
All in the finest traditions of Naval Service of course (cough, cough).
dw
The fantail is open for the dumping of (white) trash. Sponson 11. Starboard side
[...] L. Simon, Kesher Talk, NewsBusters.org, Blogs of War, Ian Schwartz, Don Surber, Riehl World View, Neptunus Lex, democracyarsenal.org. (Via [...]
He’s a sellout, and he’s thrown in with those whose beliefs are the antithesis of the mainstream serving soldier’s. I think he slept through the UCMJ class though. I hope he does bring it to the command’s attention, if anything, the good Sgt’s fellows will respect him for it.
Oh, blackeagle, the classic line is from the Hornblower novel, when Horatio is asked at the Court-Martial, how Captain Sawyer came to fall down the ladder:
“I think he must have overbalanced, Sir.”
“I have to wonder how a serving soldier or reservist, wearing his uniform and attending a bloggers’ convention makes a political statement for or against one or another party by arguing that the current military strategy is succeeding and that it ought to be supported.”
Damned if I didn’t wonder that myself.
What’s probably a tad more disturbing to me is that I get the feeling you and I might be part of a distinct minority – people who noticed that.
And perhaps even more disturbing to me is the “increasing politicization of the military” discussion that will once again rear it’s head in the wake of yet another non-political statement from a military member.
Elsewhere…
“No, like Wesley Clark at the dKos convention, he is too smart a politician to brace up a four-star officer on camera.”
Hmmmm… would you consider wagering a cold one on that?
P.s. In all the time I spent in Judo lessons as a kid, I think I got somebody to overbalance (go with the throw, so to speak) exactly once.
It was marvelous. I just barely remembered to hang on to him to ease the fall.
(Judo is very artificial and unrealistic.)
I’m confused on one point. What has Vote Vets done that is at odds with any law or custom? If someone leaves the service, and decides to go into politics, or assists in a lobbying group-how is that wrong? Seems to me its no more wrong than anything that Vets for Freedom does or for that matter MOAA? I don’t understand where you are going with that-are you saying he does not have a right to particpate in such an organization because of his past service ties?
Now as for a Soldier showing up in uniform to a Dkos convention-I’m not sure that violates any prohbition per se, but it also seems to me to be the equivalent of John McClain wearing a certain billboard in Harlem during Die Hard III. You can do it-but it will be painful.
Petraeus will be un uniform because he will be a Militart offical testifying before Congress-something that happens all the time. Not sure I understand the relationship between that and this.
Hey! What I wrote is less silly than what Skippy wrote! And yet funnier!
I was not trying to be funny…….
There’s nothing at all wrong with him joining Vote for Vets, Skip. Didn’t mean to imply that there was, he’s perfectly within his rights. It just seemed a little strange to me that he would use his service as a platform for political action and then seek to muffle someone else using his service for apolitical speech.
What do you think of Mr. Solz’s actions? Do you not recognize the type? Bullies were relatively rare in our line of service, but they were not entirely absent.
Petraeus will be speaking on behalf of the Army in front of politicians, so it isn’t a direct parallel at all. But imagine if he did so and then implied that it appeared to be the policy of the Democratic party leadership (rather than certain politicians in whichever party) to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
There would rightly be a firestorm. And yet, would there not also be more than just a grain of truth in that?
And then there’s this
Hypocritical?
What do I think of Mr Stolz’s actions? That there was probably a better way to handle the situation, e.g. as they say in politics don’t let the questioner define the question. It would have been easier and less controversial to let the sergeant read his statement, let a panel member answer, then direct the conversation along to something else.
As for Stolz’s picture on the web site? Well, I would submit that many folks “trade on the name as it were.” Lindsay Graham did the same thing in his re-election campaign and he is a reserve lawyer. So have a lot of other politicians.
But let me ask you this, if the roles were reversed and say it was CPAC, or whatever the Conservative equivelant of Dkos is- and a sergeant appeared in uniform to read a statement saying the surge sucked. That guy would have been crucified. He would have been lucky to get out the building alive and the ensuing BLOGSWARM would have made the whole TNR thing look tame. I can think of a few conservative ex military bloggers who would have sounded just like Stolz. ( Not here thank God).
The bigger issue for me, is that even if it is technically correct, wearing the uniform in either location is probably not smart. There is a reason people don’t wear uniforms at Tailhook and it would seem to me that idea would make sense at a blogfest of either poltical persuasion. The sergeant was not tasked to speak for the Army-he was speaking for himself.
Then again, this is all new ground and you might just see the services come out and say that next year. ” Go if you want, but please leave the uniform at home unless it is cleared with PAO”.
However that assumes the powers that be actually try to worry about something other than what time Soldiers and Sailors come back from liberty and how much ETOH is in their blood stream………
Well, maybe it’s a matter of where you sit influencing what you see, but I don’t share your pessimism in the reverse case. And is it not instructive that we cannot easily define a conservative dKos analogue? Who would it be, Hugh Hewit? NRO?
Considering the language in typical use over at dKos, would it not be something a little more incendiary? Like Misha’s place? And can you even imagine the Republican presidential nominees trooping by to pay obeisance to conservative “net roots,” even if such a thing existed? And that such an organization would claim to be the center?
Anyway, I was at the MilBlog convention last spring, most of the attendees were fairly conservative – more so than I – and a lot of them were next best thing to incensed at the “mainstream media.” Noah Schactman from Defense Tech was there and freely admitted to being all of those things that some conservatives grumble about in news reporters – a member of the Ivy-educated, cloistered coastal elite – and that when it came to his reporting, it didn’t matter.
Some folks were clearly disbelieving and there were some pointed questions. But he was on the panel itself, and no one tried to shout him down or threaten him about speaking.
People wear flight suits at Tailhook by the way, and I’m pretty sure that the flag panel dresses in whites post ‘91, as much as a reminder about standards and authority, etc. I do agree with you that we are in a gray area, the sergeant, you, me. Regardless of our personal convictions, we need to be the armed forces of all the people, not just the ones who think like us.
Which is why I think the sergeant was on solid ground talking about his understanding of the facts.
Actually, if it weren’t for all the controversy about dKos I would never have even know there was a convention going on.
The panels I went to at Tailhook had the presenters in Golf shirts-as was the panel I sat on at a Tailhook long, long, ago. I have not been to Tailhook in years and I won’t make this one either.
Frequent lurker, first post (but I had to with this one)
Solz is a hyprocrite of the highest order. You can see it frothing from his mouth as he “corrects” the sergeant. And then to see his web page? Gimme a break.
No wonder he is out of the service…that leadership thing must have been a real challenge for him. If this is the product that the left is going to use for their cause…I think we’re all going to be just fine.
the “increasing politicization of the military” discussion that will once again rear it’s head
But isn’t this exactly what they have been demanding all these years with the “Chickenhawk” argument? Isn’t it???
The elephant in the living room is that the military in general, and the army and Marines specifically are organizations whose members are overwhelmingly politically conservative. Restrictions against political speech and action are the only things that keep this inconvenient truth under the rug. We know the Murthas, Clarks, and Stoltzs because they’re whores who place their personal advancement above any adherence to anything beyond themselves.
Casca,
The military was by a majority conservative long before the Demcratic and Republican parties got hijacked by their “base”. The restrictions of the Hatch Act have been around for a long time.
The particpation of veterans in the poltical process, I think, is actually a welcome development. Something has to be done to reverse the dearth of military experience that exists in Congress in both parties. I also think its wrong to assume that the miltary is lockstep in its thinking one way or another.
There are more than a couple of whores on the Republican side of the aisle too. The oldest profession is an equal opportunity employer.
DaveG: “But isn?
DaveG: “But isn’t this exactly what they have been demanding all these years with the “Chickenhawk” argument? Isn’t it???
No, “they” haven’t, …exactly.
The pejorative epithet “Chickenhawk” has virtually nothing to do with the military.
It has to do with the individual, his hawkish attitude toward war vis-à-vis his lack of combat experience. Indeed, if draft-dodging former president Clinton were in office today prosecuting the war, he would certainly qualify for the chickenhawk moniker far more than President Bush.
Now I ask you, how would calling former president Clinton a “chickenhawk” ever be construed as “politicizing the military?”
Nevertheless, experience does count. And past personal, wartime experience – especially in a time of war must count for something, no?
I therefore find it odd, and contrary to most of this nation’s past history, that so few in this administration have so little prior military experience, much less actual combat experience. Unfortunately, the wisdom of the most experienced – Colin Powell – was ignored when the Powell Doctrine was dumped in favor of the far less experienced, ‘Bush Doctrine’. How much better would we be had we followed the Powell Doctrine… or listened to the Gen Shenseki’s and many others with prior combat experience?
———————
Political epithets aside, any politicization of the military is indeed cause for concern, if not alarm. It is a cancer that if allowed to grow can – as history has shown – potentially threaten the existence of our young republic.
Now I think everyone here would agree that, although the YearlyKos Convention people describe themselves as part of the “non-partisan grassroots political action community, they are hardly, “non-partisan.” Quite the contrary. They are extremely political!
I also think that when a professional wears a “uniform” – be it the cloth of a clergyman, the stripes of an airline pilot, that of the county sheriff, a mailman or a serviceman – especially outside their normal environment, then they are, intentionally or not, speaking for the entire organization while expressing their personal views. Unless it was involved politically, I know of no organization that would ever encourage, much less even allow this.
Yes, the officer corps of all services is predominantly conservative. Nevertheless the military is, and must remain an apolitical organization. When bullets fly, politics is out the window. Liberals and conservatives fight as one with no distinction. It is when they shed the uniform that they can and many do, speak out. And is it not curious that so many with former combat experience in Iraq run for office on the Democratic ticket rather than the GOP’s?
Powell Doctrine (Sorry for the previous bad link.)
“There are more than a couple of whores on the Republican side of the aisle too. The oldest profession is an equal opportunity employer.”
Skippy, with some it’s an affliction, with others a sacrament.
Well, I just lost my appetite. Jon Carry has an op-ed at opinionjournal.com that Vietnam was worse than what followed.
I think I’ll try to read it later, but the title alone makes me ill.
He’s one who wears his service on his sleeve and cries if anyone asks him a question, no matter how innocuous, about it.
Feh on him.
It is when they shed the uniform that they can and many do, speak out. And is it not curious that so many with former combat experience in Iraq run for office on the Democratic ticket rather than the GOP?
It is when they shed the uniform that they can and many do, speak out. And is it not curious that so many with former combat experience in Iraq run for office on the Democratic ticket rather than the GOP’s?
You lost me here. I am not willing to concede that “so many with former combat experience in Iraq run for office on the Democratic ticket rather than the GOP’s.”
I know of only a few that have served in Iraq and are now politicians. I think your claim is specious.
You guys might find it interesting that on the issue of Jon Stolz-John Cole agrees with Lex!
“By the way, I failed to comment on this yesterday- this moderator should be beaten with a stick. Disgraceful behavior.”-John Cole.
Apocalypse inbound…………
#26 Babs – Unfortunately, “running” for political office and “being elected” to political office are entirely separate realities.
Time constraints, lack of campaign funds and organization, along with contending with well established incumbents naturally winnowed the Democratic, Iraq and Afghanistan veteran candidates substantially. And few garnered anywhere near the national attention like Tammy Duckworth or Paul Hackett.
However, and as I stated, the majority of those war veteran candidates who ran in the last election, ran on the Democratic ticket.
Rather than now researching and listing all the Iraq vets running on the Democratic ticket in the last election, I refer you to this CSM article of last year’s election. They claim 50 did!
Do you know any Iraq/Afganistan vets other than Van Taylor, who ran on the GOP’s ticket? I would be interested to know. 50 to 1 Democratic to Republican vets sounds excessive, even to this ol’ liberal.
“… the majority of those war veteran candidates who ran in the last election, ran on the Democratic ticket.”
Well sure they do; it’s nice being the big fish in the small pond…(-*
[...] party by arguing that the current military strategy is succeeding and that it ought source: All kinds of leadership, Neptunus Lex – The unbearable lightness of Lex. [...]