Politicized Military Would Lose Public Trust, Official Says

American Forces Press Service ^ | John J. Kruzel

[SandRat]

WASHINGTON, April 28, 2008 – If the U.S. military lost its politically neutral footing, the armed forces would surrender the public’s trust, a senior U.S. military officer who explained a new Defense Department directive on troops’ political activity said in an interview.

“If we do appear to be influenced by our own views or our own understanding of how things should be, we’re going to lose the public trust,” Army Col. Shawn Shumake, director of legal policy within the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, told the Pentagon Channel. “We’re going to lose the confidence that’s so important and that the military has maintained for so many years.”

To reinforce the military’s apolitical position, the Defense Department has renewed its emphasis on the rules limiting what troops may or may not do within the political arena, Shumake said.

The new version of a department-issued directive titled “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces” became effective Feb. 19 and replaces the previous version, released in August 2004. It adds two sections that discuss candidacy and campaigning issues pertaining to former military members, retirees and current military reservists running for elected office.

Under certain circumstances, some reserve-component members can run for or hold elective political office, Shumake said in an interview with American Forces Press Service. Yet, there is “a right way and a wrong way to do that,” he stressed, noting the new language describing those issues.

The directive outlines specific rules pertaining to cases of regular, retired and reserve-component servicemembers holding elective or appointed office within the U.S. government, Shumake said, including elected positions with state, territorial, county or municipal governments.

In addition, the revised directive requires military members holding such positions to apply for and secure the approval of their individual service secretaries. Shumake noted that the requirement for service secretarial approval depends on the length of the servicemember’s call or order to active duty.

Active-duty servicemembers are strictly prohibited from campaigning for political office or actively taking part in a political campaign -- even behind the scenes -- and the revised directive specifies what active-duty members may or may not do regarding political activities, he added.

“The reason behind the limitations on political activities is the military has to be seen as exercising unvarnished military judgment,” Shumake told the Pentagon Channel. “We’ve got to make sure that the people understand that the military is not influenced by the events of the day and what could be considered partisan politics.”

Servicemembers with questions about the rules affecting partisan political activities or participation are encouraged to talk to their commanders for guidance.

Related Sites:
Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces
New Directive Contains Political Activity Rules for Servicemembers

[SandRat]

Keep the RELATED SITES links handy to use against any lefties claiming to be military.

[rlmorel]

Thanks, SandRat...

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I have long been concerned about the military being an exclusive domain of Republicans. To a great extent caused by the utter disdain and outright hatred heaped on the military and its personnel by liberal and radical Democrats, it has become a crisis.

Between Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, a point was reached in which the military might have been willing to sabotage itself instead of carrying out some of their more asinine and potentially suicidal missions, had they demanded it. Clinton was at one point advised of perhaps two dozen military installations that he should avoid, as his personal security could not be guaranteed there.

The only realistic remedy to this situation is that numerous military personnel must be directed to, despite their own political sensibility, become Democrats and seek elective office, with the primary intent to make the Democratic party patriotic again.

This should be done as a black operation of the most secret kind. This would not be a Republican effort, and they would have no part or party to it, but an effort by the US military to prevent a major political party from becoming a threat to our national security, more dangerous than many of our external enemies.

Such personnel would be required to vote the Democratic party line except as it related to matters of national security, despite their personal feelings. Their mission would have to be very focused on that one thing. And they would also form a secret caucus, so that their effect could be maximized.

The most difficult aspect of this would be funding and other support provided by the military. This would most likely have to be paid for by the Pentagon, if for no other reason than to keep these officials behaving in a disciplined manner. Monies would have to be laundered to avoid any direct association.

Most of all, security for this assignment would have to be air tight, as other branches of the US intelligence community would not be party to the mission, nor given any reason to suspect Pentagon involvement in US politics.

Once the Democrat party had been adjusted, a continuing program would have to be established to provide replacements for retiring personnel. They would in turn be shepherded through the party ranks to provide the next generation of patriotic Democrat leaders.

As a bonus, any foreign efforts as espionage directed against our civilian leaders would be quickly compromised and used for our advantage.

[SandRat]

While I agree that every Democrat since JFK and I include LBJ in that mix has been terrible, I most strongly disagree with you on the perceived “remedial” action.

All the rules in effect now, from the Hatch Act and through the guidance in the related links MUST BE followed in detail.

Uniformed personnel MUST BE APOLITICAL.

[Solitar]

They would in turn be shepherded through the party ranks to provide the next generation of patriotic Democrat leaders.

Vice Admiral Joe Sestak -- now Democrat Congressman
Maybe he would be a good Vice Presidential choice.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I was a firm believer that the military should be apolitical, however the situation has degenerated to such a degree that as well as being ignorant and incapable of having a foreign policy, Democrats are no longer agreeing to “uphold and defend” either the constitution of the United States, or our nation itself.

The fundamental role of government is to defend the nation from its enemies. But if half of the government not only is unwilling to do this, but supportive of our national enemies, they have lost their legitimacy. Perhaps the defining moment was when they asserted that our ballistic missile defenses against rogue nations was in itself belligerent and must be scrapped.

In reaching this conclusion and voting to suspend our ballistic missile defenses, an act that could cost the lives of millions of our citizens, the Democrat party lost its legitimacy. It is illegitimate to risk the lives of millions on faith in the good will of foreign governments that already slaughter their own people.

What I proposed before is not whimsical. It must be done with absolute tact, and only for this one reason. There is no group among the Democrats willing to support and defend our nation any more. So there is no hope for them to reform from within.

Our military can no longer abide the prospect of being ordered to lay down their arms and surrender to the army of some tyrant, because half of our political leaders no longer think the United States worth defending, and in fact look forward to its downfall.

If they choose to be apolitical in such a situation, then they abandon their posts and throw away their swords.

[SandRat]

Then we must respectfully agree to disagree and leave it at that.