Posted on 05/25/2008 1:25:21 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting U.S. military personnel around the world, including, "What if a Democrat wins?" and, "What will that do to the mission in Iraq?"
"I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues," Mullen wrote. "What I am suggesting - indeed, what the nation expects - is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room."
He noted that "part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests."
Mullen took his message directly to the U.S. Navy's newest officers on Friday, when he spoke to the Naval Academy's graduating class. Military personnel are obligated to give their unvarnished, even critical, advice to their civilian leaders, he told the class.
"If it's followed, great," Mullen said. "If it's not, we only have two choices: obey the orders we have been given, carrying them out with the professionalism and loyalty they deserve, or vote with our feet."
"That's it," he added. "We don't get to debate those orders after the fact. We don't get to say, 'Well, it's not how I would have done it,' or, 'If they had only listened to me.' Too late at that point - and too cowardly."
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
The Adm is correct.
However, there is nothing to prevent the military sharing their concerns with family and friends who have a constitutional right to free speech.
As I understand it, members of the military can donate to presidential campaigns and citizens can research to who those members are donating money.
Well placed statement.
“What if a Democrat wins?”
Then all the suffering and bloodletting of our heroic military may be for nought. It will also be “lights out” for the US.
I LOVE that T-shirt!!
I am currently reading a book called America’s Last Days, where the best of the best decided that America had strayed too far from our Consitution and Ideals, and they formed the 1776 Command to enact what Jefferson stated so clearly.
I wonder what exactly the military men were saying to the Admiral?
Mullen is missing the target.
It is wrong for a member of the military to openly engage in politic activities or partisanship in the workplace, or in uniform. The person working next to you may disagree, and it hurts morale. No matter what your political beliefs, being identified with them in public can hurt your unit’s performance.
However, the question he’s been asked is not, “Can I get involved in politics?”, but, “What if a Democrat wins?” and, “What will that do to the mission in Iraq?” Being concerned that our politicians will interfere with the mission - as they did in Vietnam and are trying to do so now - is legitimate. Expressing those concerns to the CJCS in a Q&A period is legitimate.
I think he would do better to aim his broadside at those retired folks who speak out and publish letters using their retired rank to try to influence politics. That is wrong, and for some reason it is almost always done by LIBERAL GOs.
He should simply point out to the sailors/soldiers/airmen/marines that their part is to focus on the mission, and let the politics fall where they may. Work on what you CAN affect, not on those you cannot. Stay focused.
That would be a better response than to pen an article that can be distorted by the MSM to sound like you are concerned the military may disobey orders.
I just don’t see McCain making any real difference...he’s a rightwing Democrat.
Now that I'm a civilian again, and out of the age bracket for the unorganized militia.... Cry Havoc! and let slip the dawgs of war!
I always had an opinion. I was just being polite before.
/johnny
Let's see that would include Generals George Washington, General Ike, General Grant, and I'm sure I missed a couple. The only prohibition and rightfully so is on active duty in uniform service members. You can not wear you dress blues to a campaign function.
The retire military from enlisted to Top Generals have every bit as much right as you, me, or the person running to express their political opinions be it approvals and/or dissents. That is what the United States of America is about. To deny this tight to retired service members makes the blood shed for this right for all a farce. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them but I will defend any former service member retired or end of service obligation separated to speak out.
The problem is, with the left as it is now constituted, military people not only have to put aside their political leanings, they have to put aside their patriotism, which kind of negates their whole overarching reason for existence.
If Hillary or Obama takes it too far, a military coup is not outside the realm of possibility.
BS! Aren’t they sworn to protect the country and the Constitution?
Don’t expect the military to stand idly by while traitorous ‘rats lead this country down the path to defeat, annihilation and ruin. It will intervene at some point, flowery rhetoric aside. I can’t think of a single instance in the history of the world where that hasn’t been the case when the chips were down.
That’s why ‘rats must be defeated at the ballot box. None of us would like living under military rule and that would be a very real possibility if the Pentagon had to step into the political arena.
Of course, their very, very highly developed sense of honor might motivate them to turn the reins of power back over to civilians once democrat traitors were purged and our foreign enemies defeated. But that perhaps, is way too much to hope for.
Still, I’d rather live under a military dictatorship than a communist dictatorship any day of the week. So, if it has to be, it has to be. But it’d be a sad day for the whole world.
I used to agree with this, however a non-partisan problem has developed that represents a clear and present threat to the United States.
That danger is congressional ignorance of military affairs.
The Republicans are very under-educated in this respect, and the Democrats are not just dangerously ignorant, but reject education about the military and foreign policy entirely, as well as economics, on philosophical grounds.
This ivory tower viewpoint has already caused one disaster, the withdrawl from Vietnam, seeks another disaster in a withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan, and pursues and promises to render the US defenseless to enemy attack in the future.
For this reason, in defense of its oath, the US military much promulgate candidates for national public office in a secret program.
Importantly, personnel selected for this are ordered to be non-partisan if possible, and to vote the party line with their chosen party in all matters except critical defense policy.
The mission is not to change policy, but to create congressmen and senators who intellectually grasp military affairs and combat operations, and to protect the United States by standing in the way of efforts to eliminate critical defensive systems.
If circumstances permit, two such candidates can run against each other on both tickets in a general election, to further reduce any implication of partisan favoritism, and to let the people decide their representation.
Yes, it still is very important that the military refrain from politics *if at all possible*. But in this case, they can no longer permit blithe ignorance to endanger the security of the United States.
I agree with you. For my twenty years of service I did my duty keeping my mouth shut while watching one stupid politician after another do what he could to destroy everything I believed in. Now that I am retired I will speak my mind on political issues and if no one likes it screw em. I fought for everyone elses right to speak his mind and now I am damn well going to speak mine.
Where WAS this guy all along when the MSM was digging up the fould and feted disgruntled to desparage the mission and the commander-in-chief in pursuit of the Dems objectives?
Give me a break! Does this guy live in a cave? Where has he been since late-2001?
While (OBVIOUSLY) members of the military must follow orders that they are given - this does not mean that they should mindlessly disgard their concerns the horrible damage that Obama or hillary would rend upon the mission or the military of god-fobid either is elected. Their lives, their mission and the future of their country is on the line, and obviously, if the expression of these concerns at this time is a “problem” for Adm-whatshisname, then perhaps the Adm. should be keeping quiet himself about these things.
I find it soooooo amusing that someone like this would come out and tell others to do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do about something as critical as this.
Come on, Adm. - use a little commonsense.
>>>Democrats are not just dangerously ignorant, but reject education about the military and foreign policy entirely, as well as economics, on philosophical grounds.
You have it exactly right.
The Dems are simply NOT QUALIFIED to serve as commanders-in-chief of our military at this time. Its not just a simple difference of opinion, it is a matter of be opposed to the liberty and freedoms upon which this country was founded, and taking every back door opportunity to tear down those freedoms and liberties.
If Dems want a different kind of nation, then they should have the courage to stand up and say clearly “this is what we want” - and then everyone can throw them out.
This is also the Admiral who endorsed THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY. Yes the Admiral it seems is the only one qualified and allowed to speak out on current political matters?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.