Whoops..... McChrystal recalled to DC

[Bullet]

The discussion of politics has absolutely no place in any official on-duty setting

Agree,1000%. Personally, I find it distasteful because it gives the impression that in your capacity as a military member you espouse a political view or are against another. As has been stated before by others, IMHO a professional officer should always give an "official" impression that he/she is "politically agnostic"; we are proud that never before in this country's history has the military tried to influence politics, and we never will. Too many bad examples in history when that leads to really BAD things.

Besides, it's against UCMJ. And now you young cadets and new parents know WHY it's against UCMJ to even WEAR your uniform at any politically connected function: it gives the public the wrong impression.

and probably also not in any informal setting unless one is perhaps solely with their peers.

Agree with most of this statement as well. There is NOTHING wrong with hanging out with your peers in an informal / social setting shooting the breeze about politics. Heck, it was an art form amongst the folks I spent my career around and who I hang out with today in the Puzzle Palace to play "If I was in charge!", solving the worlds problems one cup of coffee (or beer on Friday afternoon) at a time. Politics came up a LOT in those conversations. You just had to feel your way around the audience, making sure you're not going too far. Just like you would your in daily conversations with your neighbors and friends.

Talking politics amongst peers? Totally acceptable, as long as you aren't doing this in an "official" capacity (such as in front of a Rolling Stone reporter)

Now, talking about politics, unofficially with your bosses and higher ups? News flash, it happens ALL the time, unofficially (and YES, even at the highest of levels! Just happened to me last night with some of the heavy hitters I work with). Again, socially, over that coffee or beer, the boss may want to join in the conversation as he passes by. My take? I never broached the topic of politics with the boss first, just didn't seem "professional" to me. However, during our talks about the job or current events and how they impact the job, and HE/SHE starts "getting on the soapbox"? I'll join in with my opinion, which is almost always brutally honest.

Talking politics socially and unofficially in the military? Well, we're not automatrons, programmed only to unemotionally do our duty. We're also human beings, with feelings and opinions. And NOTHING under UCMJ denies us that right if done in an unofficial capacity, out of the public eye. Doing what McC and his staff did in front of a reporter violated that second part. Ultimately, when talking politics with your fellow military members socially or unofficially at work, just follow the same rules you would when talking to neighbors and strangers. Until you get to know them better, it's probably not wise to bring up VERY STRONG political views. You never know how they'll take it or whom you'll offend.

What was the mantra most of my buds and I had throughout our career? NEVER talk to the media! And we never did, unless directed by the higher ups. Folks in the higher ranks, leading at the Strategic level, don't have that luxury. The public EXPECTS they will provide answers to the media's inquiries.

My roommate from USNA who I have interacted with constantly over the last many years and have sat next to for almost 20 yrs at all football games, traveled to ND with, etc etc. I finally ask him his political views last fall and he seemed surprised that I asked.

Again, all depends on the individuals and what they are comfortable with amongst friends. I've had an opposite experience with my friends I've served with many years, especially during election cycles. Again, the rule of "feeling them out before opening mouth and inserting foot" plays an important role in KEEPING them as friends.

One's official military posture should be totally apolitical.

Again, agree 1,000,000%!

This type of comment, while respectful of the office (LOL), would most likely cause one to receive some serious counselling.

Done in front of "the public", or in uniform? Certainly. Done "unofficially / socially" before feeling the audience out? Probably. Done "with the guys/gals" after the feelers were set out? Well, it depends on the definition of "how well your feelers are working". But if you're part of that "coffee / beer mug" group of folks trying to show how smart you are while loudly solving the world's problems, and EVEN the boss is involved; well, you're on safe ground, pilgrim.

Some Civilian leadership I CAN'T STAND (a certain Speaker of the House comes to mind), and will let my buddies know just EXACTLY how I feel. Again, we're ALL just humans....

Actually, what is appropriate for McChrystal is also what is appropriate for the military in general which is also what is appropriate for candidates which is probably the reason for the original "forum rules", so it is all one in the same.

Again, comes down to what is "official" and what is "done with the "Bro's". I think the best lesson these candidates and young cadets can learn here is to develop that "spidey sense" on feeling out an audience before opening mouth / inserting foot. A very good overall "life lesson" not exclusive to just the military.

As to the forums? Well, IMO, part of learning about life and the military should include politics. It WILL impact, greatly, on what they do and what is expected of them. Get the occasional knuckle-heads on a thread?. Do what you would do in life and your military profession: ignore them at first, counsel them privately second (get the leadership involved as well. In this case, we're talking the mods), then counsel them publicly third, with leadership's involvement again.

Don't allow talk of politics EVER in the military or on these forums, because of the impression it gives and the fact it might offend someone? Well, you better include religion, sex, families, sports, other countries, and a few other "hot" topics on that list as well. The candidates CAN benefit from a forum that exclusively talks about how to get into the Academies or start down that road towards a military career, but they would also be losing out on a LOT of other life lessons that would make them better and more well-rounded officers.

And if having to hear someone's brutally honest opinion about something, even if it might offend someone, is part and parcel of that learning process? Well, like it was said before on this thread; You'll get over it...

Candidates should become well aware now that this is inappropriate behavior and members of the military, active duty, veterans, and retirees alike, should be setting a good example.

Yes, candidates SHOULD learn from McC's example on what is appropriate and what is not. We all should set good examples on how to "officially" act in public settings when wearing a uniform or in the process of doing our duty. Just as they should learn what is "official and unacceptable" vs. "just because we wear a uniform doesn't mean we stop being human."

Consider that lesson "graduate school level"; a very subtle touch is required to learn all the nuances, but required learning none the less.

And since when have veterans and retirees NOT been allowed to publicly and officially state their political beliefs as private citizens? Heck, you better alert the news channel and talking head programs. I see these types of folks on there daily, from all perspectives and sides of the aisle! Now, these folk stating "Well, I'm retired from the XXXX, and the XXXX believes this...!"; they are not only wrong, but they also are setting the poor example...

 

[Christcorp]

Excellent post Bullet. Where the problem is for some people, is that they don't understand that a forum is NOT an official place or position of authority. Especially with the anonymity involved with our military affiliation. Some of us know each other and our backgrounds in "Real Life", but not many. And I've said numerous times on this subject that what McCrystal did was totally 100% inappropriate. But I also mentioned that trying to Not Talk Politics on a forum at all, is not practical. Everything that involves the military is political. From their boss, (Commander in Chief - President), to the congress who approves the laws affecting the military, to the appointed positions such as Secretary of Defense.

The forums are definitely not a place to discuss elections and other direct politically related issues. But there's nothing wrong with mentioning disagreement and discontent over existing policies and decisions. This is NOT an official military setting. And while many of us are associated with the military directly, we are also citizens. And as citizens, it's not only our right, but it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to be involved with the political process and future of our country. The government works FOR the people; Not the other way around. But as a military member, there is a point at which you must put politics aside. And while representing the military, officially, that is that time. And that is where McCrystal was wrong. He let his personal feelings as a citizen of the United States affect his abilities as a military member. And this is a very difficult thing to maintain control over, but the overwhelming percentage of military members can do it. That's what makes us/them unique and special.

Some people think if you're in the military, that you somehow give up your rights as a citizen. Some believe, that we shouldn't even vote; because that in itself would be a conflict. I.e. Obama is our current CIC, and he will be running for re-election in 2012. If I vote against him, that must mean that I don't support him. (See how confusing it can get, and why some believe a military member shouldn't even vote?).

Well, a forum is another "unofficial" place where people can vent dissatisfaction and discontent. And actually, it's a great place for military members and cadets to discuss policies, laws, and regulations that affect the military. This doesn't mean talking direct campaign politics, but whether we mention the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies, or decisions to advance certain military operations, or any other military topic (Which this forum is loaded with), it's impossible to discuss such a thing without bringing up those who make those rules, laws, and policies. As a military member, you are also a citizen. You have a RESPONSIBILITY to hold your elected officials accountable and make them do the will of the people. The will of the people isn't: "We elected so and so, whatever they choose to do we by proxy automatically support". The elected officials represent all the people. And when the congress votes on laws, it should be based on what's best for the entire country, and represents the will of the people. Same with the presidency. Our responsibility as citizens isn't just to vote, and then give those elected officials free reign until next election. Our responsibility includes holding those elected officials accountable throughout their time in office.

And as military members, we must ensure that we can turn this part of our lives on and off. The overwhelming percent can. This is something many civilians can't comprehend. I've seen many military members resign their commission or not re-enlist because they couldn't keep the 2 parts of their lives separate. This is just one area where the military definitely isn't for everyone. Just like being willing to defend the 1st amendment of the constitution to allow freedom of speech. Even though that freedom allows the person next to you to call you a baby-killer. Fighting and willing to die for a right is meaningless, if we don't respect another person's right to exercise that right. Even if we totally disagree with what they represent while exercising that right. Again, this is where McCrystal crossed the line.

Growing up, there were many times I thought my father was wrong. There were times as a kid, where I thought my parents sucked. "All kids have thought this of their parents at one time or another. It's natural". And yet, I maintained the respect for my father/mother that even if I thought they were wrong, I still did as they said, as I was told. I did this out of respect. We do this in the military too. It is natural for young airmen to go back to the dorm, and among their peers, talk about how their supervisor or one of their officers is an idiot and doesn't know anything. This also happens with the young lieutenant with his/her peers who thinks their commander doesn't know what they are doing. This is part of the growing process. You hear other people's perspectives, about their bosses, their opinions, etc... You then form new perspectives. This happens continually. This is natural. But in all of this, when the uniform is on, agree or not, we obey the orders given by those appointed over us. Again, this is where McCrystal messed up. He didn't keep his unofficial life and his official life separate. And the higher the rank you have, the more official time you have, and LESS unofficial time you have.

So this is the difference between McCrystal and the rest of the military members. There is absolutely nothing wrong with military members talking politics, procedures, rules, policies, disagreement, discontent, etc... It's part of the nature of being a human and an American Citizen. Our citizens, which include the military, are not robots. There may be some members who are not capable of keeping their many aspects of their lives separate, so they will stick with just one: (The on-duty mentality 24/7: We have all met this person before). But for the average military member, there is nothing wrong with discussing the many various opinions and viewpoints of our leadership. It is our duty as citizens to know more about our elected officials. Do you realize how many military members have never read the constitution or the declaration of independence? Anyway, McCrystal's problem wasn't what he believed or even said. It's just that he couldn't keep his military and citizen parts of his life separated. He was wrong. He deserved to be disciplined.

 

[Suzie]

Actually, what is appropriate for McChrystal is also what is appropriate for the military in general which is also what is appropriate for candidates which is probably the reason for the original "forum rules", so it is all one in the same. Candidates should become well aware now that this is inappropriate behavior and members of the military, active duty, veterans, and retirees alike, should be setting a good example.

It's all about learning and a good discussion, questioning the issue does help understanding of the issue..... for everyone including candidates. Yes...some people are very passionate about thier views/comments (comment: Obama sucks) so what!! the discussion was not just about Obama....people were reading it for the discussion on McChrystal (did you see how many times viewed in such a short time!)..... and yes we get it about the forum rules is was said a bunch of times.... it completely shut down the discussion that was started

and just an FYI.....when my Dad who was Marine in WWII would go to his Marine reunions or meet the guys for breakfast that is what they talked about.....current issues and of course remembering the old days!

 

[fly boy]

This is the ACADEMY/MILITARY NEWS board, not OFF-TOPIC.
Attention to detail, grasshopper. I may be dating myself with that last reference.

My bad, mistake, whatever. Still, I don't see how it violates the rules. What's the second paragraph supposed to mean?

 

[Christcorp]

Don't worry about it Flyboy. Some people get so wrapped up in the "Letter of the Law" that they forget about the "Spirit of the Law". There's a difference in discussing politics and discussing events and situations that are politically generated or motivated. If any form of politics was forbidden, we wouldn't be able to discuss the majority of current events. And contrary to what some people may have us believe; politics, policies, regulations, disagreeing, etc... is discussed all the time in the military. But the majority of us know that there is a time to every purpose under heaven. And this is where General McCrystal messed up. He forgot, and he allowed his personal beliefs to be displayed as his official beliefs. And the reason this is dangerous, is because most civilians can't comprehend that just because we may not agree, doesn't mean we're going to start some military coup. Our military oath and obligation does come first. But, because many civilians can't comprehend this, we have to be extremely careful what we say outside of "Our World". Especially around reporters who many times have no respect for the truth at all. Many simply want to have that next big story and fame.

 

[Mongo]

I am going to stick with my original assessment. Politics for an ACTIVE DUTY officer should be a very private affair. Probably as a midshipman, definitely as an Ensign, I was told that there were three things that officers are never to discuss; religion, politics, and women (in today's Navy, substitute 'the opposite sex'). Granted, the Navy is more conservative and tradition bound tha n the AF but not a bad policy. Had AFA cadets been instilled in this idea, there probably would not have been the recent instances of religious intolerance.

Bullet, I ask you: As a squdron CO, at an all-officers occasion, is it permissable to discuss your political views? I say no. Senior officers become role models, individuals to be emulated. What signal would you be sending to the nice very impressionable young 2nd Lt who sees you a a god who can do no wrong? In my opinion, a bad precedence. So much so, that in the Navy talking politics at a social function is kinda like passing gas at a mixed event, people kinda fade into the woodwork.

Is "The president totally SUCKS" and similiar remarks an appropriate comment on these forums? I don't think so. UCMJ, Article 88, states:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

What many people don't realize is that retired personnel are subject to UCMJ. Are the contempt police going to be hiding behind the curtains at everyone's 4th of July parties? Of course not. However, officers, both active duty and reitired, should be able to police themselves. This is a forum for future officers. An example should be set. Rather than attempt to argue whether "SUCKS" is contemptous, a retired officer should be above reproach.

 

[bruno]

ok folks- I'm the umpire and I guess I need to spell out what is permissable.

a. "The President sucks" is totally unprofessional, and had I been paying attention to this thread at the time would have deleted it when it was posted as it has no place in this forum. If you can't articulate disagreement with policies in a more thoughtful fashion than that - don't post the thought.

b. It's a fairy tale to imply that Officers have no interest in politics and no right to discuss them in a personal capacity. Didn't happen in 1969 and doesn't happen today. How, when and where they discuss them is critical. What you discuss and how you discuss things with your peers in off duty settings is one thing- how and what you discuss with your subordinates is different. There is no hard and fast rule on this, nor is there a hard and fast rule for this forum- other than respect.

c. Thread is closed. Too bad, because a professional discussion on what the limits and responsibilitites associated with an officers rights of personal expression would seem to add a lot of value to this forum. If someone wants to open a thread exploring just that-go ahead. If you can't do so without making it a rant on the performance or lack there of by the current or past administrations then you are probably not suited to participate in that discussion.