Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
Pity we can’t get the rest of the Federal bureaucracy to do likewise.
A good superior asks for and considers the advice of his subordinates. It is unfortunate that many subordinates wish to offer this advice via public speeches and Op-Ed letters. I suspect they do so because they are certain their opinion will not hold sway upon their leaders.
One must then ask, if you’re certain your opinion is not compelling, of what benefit is sharing it with thousands?
– Max
With the election cycle being where it is, and the polls showing what they do vis-a-vis McCain vs. Obama, could this open letter be considered “preparing the battlefield” in light of the strong possibility of November bringing us a President whose policies might differ from what the majority of the military wants? It just seems like it could be advice to keep unhappiness under the radar and not out in the public political arena.
“It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”
I am not sure that is objectively possible, and particularly in the “always” context.
Using reductio ad absurdum, should the military remain neutral if the state, even by popular vote, decides that everyone with hazel eyes is forfeit? And, predicting the “just resign” argument, would not those who choose to stay in and “remain neutral” also be choosing a side, and therefore be partisan? Is not the “I am just following orders” a claim of neutrality? And to preempt the “lawful order” defense, most descents into tyranny are always “lawful”.
Just sayin
He must see trouble on the horizon. I gotta think about this some more…I have never heard a JCS Chairman discuss such an issue. Sorta troubling and refreshing at the same time.
b2
Lots of things in play here, I suspect. There are multiple communication channels out there now, so it’s much more difficult for the corporate military to maintain message control. Winning or losing the war(s) has become a partisan issue rather than a national one. Passions are very high on both sides of the political aisle – one side exultant at finally having untrammeled access to all the levers of political power, and the other reeling and in search of a theory of government.
Apart from being right in its own sake, the chairman I suspect wants to make sure that everyone stays in their lanes, and out of the scrum. There’s no upside for the institution to be aligned with either political party.
Lotta downside though.
However, if one party is focused on loosing the war(s)… how can the military stay out of it?
This message has always been there-but no one ever put it in print before. It was always verbally passed via flag back channels. That is what makes this missive most unusual.
Wonder if this will lead to an anti-bumper sticker patrol for the MAA’s come the fall…………..
Oh, and neither party is focused on losing the war-that’s one of the problems with the rhetoric. We don’t lose either way-we simply decide when we have had enough of a loss leading investment.
Leaving Iraq-or Iraqifying the war is not losing the war. It is acknowledging that our work is done and OUR objectives were met a long time ago. Now its up to the Iraqis to take care of their own country.
Democrats need to fight back and not take this continuing talk that they are somehow not patriotic enough because they do not accept the current convential wisdom vis a vis Iraq.
Hmm…
The basic message is one that has been around for years…about 220 of them.
Ultimately, there are two questions.
First, what is the dividing line between personal off-duty political belief and on-duty obedience to superior authority?
Second, do any of the senior leaders have the guts to put their stars on the table?
The dividing line is the Hatch Act, which is pretty clear about what you can and cannot do.
Obeidience is the only thing that matters-not what you say while you obey.
Lex,
Agree totally with your assessment of why the message now. ADM Mike is intuitively trying with every means of communication available to him to make sure the position of Integrity we currently hold is maintained above all else. Politicians come and politicians go. The Country needs to go on….. for much longer than politicians. And the Institutions serving her are the means of propagating her survival. The US Military first and foremost among them.
Subsunk
yeah well, he can stuff it…
Obama,cutting the military by 25%, just like Clinton did in order to pay for social programs…
That worked out really well. Peace dividend indeed…