Posted on 09/07/2022 9:54:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In an ominous open letter published on wonky national security site War on the Rocks Tuesday, eight former secretaries of defense and five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned of what they call an "exceptionally challenging civil-military environment" developing in the United States that apparently concerned them enough to publish their thoughts ahead of November's consequential midterm elections. Never mind, apparently, that the signatories were at the helm of the U.S. military for the better part of the last two decades during which that "environment" was degraded.
Citing "extreme strain" to "[m]any of the factors that shape civil-military relations" in "recent years," the letter points to "the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ramping up of great power conflict" while alluding to the fact that last August's withdrawal from Afghanistan — and fresh chaos in Iraq — mean that "the U.S. military must simultaneously come to terms with wars that ended without all the goals satisfactorily accomplished while preparing for more daunting competition with near-peer rivals."
The letter also not-so-subtly refers to "the divisiveness of affective polarization that culminated in the first election in over a century when the peaceful transfer of political power was disrupted and in doubt" as a reason "military professionals confront an extremely adverse environment."
"Looking ahead, all of these factors could well get worse before they get better," the former Pentagon officials warn. "In such an environment, it is helpful to review the core principles and best practices by which civilian and military professionals have conducted healthy American civil-military relations in the past — and can continue to do so, if vigilant and mindful."
What follows are 16 enumerated "best practices" that deal with the chain of command, political pressure, and civilian control of the U.S. military, all signed by former Pentagon brass including Ash Carter, Mark Esper, Bob Gates, Chuck Hagel, Jim Mattis, Leon Panetta, Martin Dempsey, Joseph Dunford, and Peter Pace.
"Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath of fealty to an individual or to an office," the letter explains. "All civilians, whether they swear an oath or not, are likewise obligated to support and defend the Constitution as their highest duty."
Another point discusses the "responsibility of senior military and civilian leaders to ensure that any order they receive from the president is legal" and "to provide the president with their views and advice that includes the implications of an order."
"The military — active-duty, reserve, and National Guard — have carefully delimited roles in law enforcement," another "best practice" explains. "Those roles must be taken only insofar as they are consistent with the Constitution and relevant statutes. The military has an obligation to advise on the wisdom of proposed action and civilians should create the opportunity for such deliberation," the letter explains. "The military is required ultimately to carry out legal directives that result. In most cases, the military should play a supporting rather than a leading role to law enforcement."
The letter also explains that "[t]here are significant limits on the public role of military personnel in partisan politics, as outlined in longstanding Defense Department policy and regulations. Members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views — limits that would be unconstitutional if imposed on other citizens," the letter notes. "Military and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political activity."
Whether the former officials are looking backward at the 2020 election or ahead at the 2024 election, their letter dives into the military's responsibilities during a presidential election year:
During presidential elections, the military has a dual obligation. First, because the Constitution provides for only one commander-in chief at a time, the military must assist the current commander-in-chief in the exercise of his or her constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Second, because the voters (not the military) decide who will be commander-in-chief, they must prepare for whomever the voters pick — whether a reelected incumbent or someone new. This dual obligation reinforces the importance of the principles and best practices described above.
The only thing that's missing from the bulleted manifesto-y letter about the military's "best practices" is an explanation for why it was written. Is it more (very delayed) fallout from January 6? A response to President Joe Biden's use of Marine guards as staging for his angry and divisive speech in Philadelphia in which he declared war on Republicans? A warning of things yet to come?
Speaking with Townhall, Former Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Amber Smith reiterated that "healthy civil-military relations are incredibly important" for the United States. However, as Smith pointed out, "it’s completely hypocritical for these former Defense Secretaries and [Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] to preach about how important civ-mil relations are while setting the stage for using military leaders and officials to undermine the president," she said. "They are getting ready for Trump’s second term."
Is this not sedition by these people?
“Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath of fealty to an individual or to an office,” the letter explains. “All civilians, whether they swear an oath or not, are likewise obligated to support and defend the Constitution as their highest duty.”
—
Sounds like Oath Keepers. And we’ve been told by DOJ/FBI that Oath Keepers are terrorists.
My former esteem for American military brass has been dashed by reality.
“Leon Panetta”
The same Leon Panetta who told anyone who’d listen in 2020 that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian hoax? That Leon Panetta? Yeah, he’s impartial.
Do these clowns not recognize the politicization of the military by Benito Biden?
Can you say SEDITION?
I knew you could.
Can you say ‘COURT MARTIAL’?
I knew you could.....................
what will they try... and how will it be received by the woke military? very interesting.
“all signed by former Pentagon brass including Ash Carter, Mark Esper, Bob Gates, Chuck Hagel, Jim Mattis, Leon Panetta, Martin Dempsey, Joseph Dunford, and Peter Pace.”
Nice place for the next DOJ to start.
i believe he was also telling everyone that the military did not come to the rescue in benghazi
cuz it was too scary
More MUTINY mongering already ?
“Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath of fealty to an individual or to an office...”
Uh huh. But when the President demands the military fortify the capitol to prevent citizens from exercising their rights to petition for redress of grievances, the military complies. So that oath is a lie.
These signatories of the open letter are the same ones that have destroyed our military. All lost endless wars, all woke policies, all spending blunders, all failed global strategy stems from these anti-American pieces of excrement.
3. Under the U.S. Constitution, civilian control of the military is shared across all three branches of government. Ultimately, civilian control is wielded by the will of the American people as expressed through elections.
So the President just as "equal" power compared to Pelosi or Schumer.
Since the ‘90s, it was the politicians rather than the warriors that were promoted in the officer corps.
The article shows what happens when you promote folks who believe that “self above service” is more important than “service above self”
Every time I regret not putting in my 20 or more years, I read articles like this and count my blessings.
Fire them. All of them. Kurt Schlichter had a great article about how President Trump should handle the entire cadre of Flag Officers and one of the steps was to assemble them at the very beginning of his second term, tell them to shut up and listen, and then order them to do what he says. If anyone does not then he fires them and doesn’t even let them resign.
If this is public, and it’s verifiable, those people involved
active duty or not, should be prosecuted.
That should be weeded out by the time Trump takes office
again.
They pulled a coup already. Now they are openly (it seems)
participating in a mutiny of sorts.
That’s not an option folks.
I read it twice and it comes across as much about nothing. The obedience to the CinC always meant 9bedience to lawful orders, ie Constitutional orders. As for the military’s role in law enforcement Posse Comitatus takes care of most of that. Work around like having a USCG party on a Navy frigate to allow for the stopping, searching, and seizing of cartel vessels have been in practice for decades. As for a POTUS going off and ordering an attack on a foreign country or sending the Military to stop the violence in NYC, those would be addressed almost immediately by the 25th amendment. Federal troops were used in the 60s bothto secure rights of Black Americans and to quell riots by the same group. The latter was at the request of state governors, particularly governor of Michigan. Several excesses occurred in the Clinton years, particularly involving the assault on the Branch Davidian compound. My feeling is that the commanders who provided the armored vehicles in that scenario should have refused
Is this like that 50 LIARS letter from ‘intelligence’ officials on how Hunter Biden’s laptop was ‘Russian Disinformation’?
Here’s my suggestion to our ‘defense’ people. Keep YOUR eyes on the real enemies: China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and quip pretending 75 million Americans are wandering around Alabama forest, wearing camo and listening to banjo music.
If that’s your level of intellect it’s no wonder we crashed and burned in Afghanistan - and that no one wants to sign up to ‘defend the country’ if that means killing fellow Americans. Get real. Defense is MORE than protecting people who want to sexually mutilate young people and other perversions.
First result of a Google search.
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.