Colonel Myers had it right and got fired for it

[Army82_90]

Colonel Susannah Meyers, commander of the U.S. Space Force base at Pituffik, Greenland, was recently relieved of duty after sending an email to her personnel emphasizing that the base remains apolitical and mission-focused. Her message came in response to high-level political comments made during a visit — remarks she diplomatically distanced the unit from to preserve trust with international partners. Her intent was clear: to maintain the integrity of the force and reinforce the longstanding tradition that the military does not engage in politics.

Her removal is deeply troubling. Colonel Meyers acted with professionalism, steadiness, and clarity — all the qualities we expect in a senior officer. To punish her for reinforcing the apolitical foundation of our armed forces sets a dangerous precedent. If thoughtful, measured leadership is grounds for dismissal, we’re in serious trouble. Her firing sends the wrong message to the ranks: that integrity is expendable when it becomes inconvenient.

 

[jl123]

She got it absolutely wrong by publicly undermining the chain of command.

A military leader's responsibility is to support the legal orders and plans of the chain of command whether or not they agree with those plans. To do otherwise is to violate the oath of office taken upon commissioning.

Publicly undermining U.S. policy is insubordinate and way above her pay grade. Her firing is justified and she is fortunate that she is not facing harsher consequences.

 

[GWU PNS (emeritus)]

Even in retirement, I tend to give a wide berth for any politico-military topics. That tendency grew from decades of various political statements from both parties which can be difficult to fully explain to the people under my command. One thing that irritates me with stories such as these is that the "main stream" media will all refer back to one data point......in this case, a "military,com" story which claims to have a certain email. In the digital age, it seems reckless to me that the email isn't simply displayed in its entirety for people to make their own judgments. The closest I could find was a Newsweek digital article referencing the military.com story which referenced the email.

According to the Newsweek piece....the Colonel is alleged to have written.....
""I do not presume to understand current politics, but what I do know is the concerns of the U.S. administration discussed by Vice President Vance on Friday are not reflective of Pituffik Space Base,"

For any aspiring officers or event current officers on active duty, my strongest advice would be to avoid any references to "the US administration" and certainly not a specific high ranking government official. Officers have absolutely no place in opining on administration views, let alone making a statement that administration views do not reflect the views of your base or your command.

If there were local officials in Greenland with concerns, it is much easier to say that your focus is on the specific mission of the space base, and that you defer to the political leaders to explain the current US position. Or you can ask for talking points from the US embassy.

And as if anyone needed yet another lesson in digital protocol, emails last forever.

 

[Army82_90]

She got it absolutely wrong by publicly undermining the chain of command.

A military leader's responsibility is to support the legal orders and plans of the chain of command whether or not they agree with those plans. To do otherwise is to violate the oath of office taken upon commissioning.

Publicly undermining U.S. policy is insubordinate and way above her pay grade. Her firing is justified and she is fortunate that she is not facing harsher consequences.

Ah yes, the classic "we’ll just buy the island" playbook — because history has shown us time and again how well it goes when powerful nations decide they’re entitled to other people’s land. I suppose next we’ll be dusting off the old maps from the late 1930s and pointing to Poland, saying, “Look, they weren’t managing themselves very well either.” Hitler used similar logic when he marched into Sudetenland — you know, for the good of the people, of course.

Or maybe we can take a page from Russia’s current strategy manual in Ukraine: claim a region is mismanaged or culturally connected, show up uninvited, and declare it yours. That’s not leadership, it’s opportunism with a side of imperial delusion. The idea that we can just swoop into Greenland and take over because someone doesn’t like how Denmark runs its affairs isn’t bold — it’s reckless and ignorant. It undermines the very international norms we claim to uphold, and it puts our allies — and our service members — in a deeply compromised position.

 

[ShockedNAwed]

Honest question for the group: at what point are you justified in breaking with the chain of command?

Because… I love America and thought I was fully committed to the idea that my kids now belong to their chain of command.

But truthfully, I’ve been losing sleep over the possibility that my kids might be ordered to open fire on friends in Canada, Mexico or Greenland. The current administration seems to giddily embrace expansionism ideals while claiming to want peace.

Starting to wonder if military life is for us. But also wondering why half of America is so happy to look past common sense and cheer on the idea of adding Canada as a 51st state? Or the idea that we need to control an independent country for its mineral rights?

 

[A1Janitor]

Or maybe we can take a page from Russia’s current strategy manual in Ukraine: claim a region is mismanaged or culturally connected, show up uninvited, and declare it yours. That’s not leadership, it’s opportunism with a side of imperial delusion.

I think you only have half the story.

 

[justme]

Ah yes, the classic "we’ll just buy the island" playbook — because history has shown us time and again how well it goes when powerful nations decide they’re entitled to other people’s land. I suppose next we’ll be dusting off the old maps from the late 1930s and pointing to Poland, saying, “Look, they weren’t managing themselves very well either.” Hitler used similar logic when he marched into Sudetenland — you know, for the good of the people, of course.

Or maybe we can take a page from Russia’s current strategy manual in Ukraine: claim a region is mismanaged or culturally connected, show up uninvited, and declare it yours. That’s not leadership, it’s opportunism with a side of imperial delusion. The idea that we can just swoop into Greenland and take over because someone doesn’t like how Denmark runs its affairs isn’t bold — it’s reckless and ignorant. It undermines the very international norms we claim to uphold, and it puts our allies — and our service members — in a deeply compromised position.

Sorry, you lost me here. I could see your argument that all she did was dictate the base stay apolitical. But, it seems your argument now is that it was right because you agree with anyone fighting the admin's stance. That stance should not have anything to do with whether her action was correct and/or fireable.
Without reading the specific words of the email and/or whether it was public response, etc. I couldnt begin to answer whether she should or shouldnt have been relieved.

 

[RetiredVeteran]

Even in retirement, I tend to give a wide berth for any politico-military topics. That tendency grew from decades of various political statements from both parties which can be difficult to fully explain to the people under my command. One thing that irritates me with stories such as these is that the "main stream" media will all refer back to one data point......in this case, a "military,com" story which claims to have a certain email. In the digital age, it seems reckless to me that the email isn't simply displayed in its entirety for people to make their own judgments. The closest I could find was a Newsweek digital article referencing the military.com story which referenced the email.

According to the Newsweek piece....the Colonel is alleged to have written.....
""I do not presume to understand current politics, but what I do know is the concerns of the U.S. administration discussed by Vice President Vance on Friday are not reflective of Pituffik Space Base,"

For any aspiring officers or event current officers on active duty, my strongest advice would be to avoid any references to "the US administration" and certainly not a specific high ranking government official. Officers have absolutely no place in opining on administration views, let alone making a statement that administration views do not reflect the views of your base or your command.

If there were local officials in Greenland with concerns, it is much easier to say that your focus is on the specific mission of the space base, and that you defer to the political leaders to explain the current US position. Or you can ask for talking points from the US embassy.

And as if anyone needed yet another lesson in digital protocol, emails last forever.

I really appreciate your perspective—especially the emphasis on staying apolitical in official communications. I’ve been on this forum for a few months now, and I’ll admit, I’ve been shocked at how often posts asking for guidance or insight quickly turn into platforms for political commentary—sometimes pretty aggressive ones—from a lot of parents and, even more concerning, from former active/reserve/guard/retired officers and from both ends of the political spectrum.

One thing I keep thinking about is what kind of impression that leaves on young people who come here looking for honest advice. If they see posts from former officers pushing political views instead of offering mentorship, it can be confusing at best—and completely discouraging at worst. These forums should be a place where they can focus on learning about service, leadership, and how to navigate the process—not get caught in the crossfire of political opinions.

I’ve tried to stay out of that fray and focus on providing clear, helpful information for those genuinely seeking advice, and especially prospective. At the end of the day, it is my hope this forum would be about mentorship and support only, not politicizing military service. There’s real value in maintaining that professional, apolitical posture—and I’m glad to see it reflected in your comment.

 

[A1Janitor]

Honest question for the group: at what point are you justified in breaking with the chain of command?

When you are prepared to leave the military on their terms.

 

[pa-outdoorsman]

Honest question for the group: at what point are you justified in breaking with the chain of command?

Because… I love America and thought I was fully committed to the idea that my kids now belong to their chain of command.

But truthfully, I’ve been losing sleep over the possibility that my kids might be ordered to open fire on friends in Canada, Mexico or Greenland. The current administration seems to giddily embrace expansionism ideals while claiming to want peace.

Starting to wonder if military life is for us. But also wondering why half of America is so happy to look past common sense and cheer on the idea of adding Canada as a 51st state? Or the idea that we need to control an independent country for its mineral rights?

Because most of us see it for what it is. Trump is trolling Canada and Greenland/Denmark. I think it's more than fair to say it's not very "Presidential." And I certainly see why it would drive people crazy, especially those who aren't big fans to begin with.

Then again, if you honestly believe anyone would be ordered to fire a single bullet at Canada or Greenland, well, I think that's just crazy. But who knows? Maybe I'm the crazy one.

Regardless, it's all well and good to express our political views on an anonymous chat board, but I would suspect that if you choose to go there as part of your official officer duties, that's on you to live with the consequences. Seems like the protocol is pretty clear. Just stay out of it, officially, regardless of which side of the aisle you happen to be on. There was a different administration a couple months ago, and there will be a different administration in a few years. I don't claim to know when one is "justified" in "breaking the chain of command," but I suspect that line has to lie somewhere far beyond "I really disagree with the administration's policy and hate its rhetoric." If they ever did tell you to point that gun at Quebec and pull the trigger perhaps...

 

[ShockedNAwed]

Because most of us see it for what it is. Trump is trolling Canada and Greenland/Denmark. I think it's more than fair to say it's not very "Presidential." And I certainly see why it would drive people crazy, especially those who aren't big fans to begin with.

Then again, if you honestly believe anyone would be ordered to fire a single bullet at Canada or Greenland, well, I think that's just crazy. But who knows? Maybe I'm the crazy one.

Regardless, it's all well and good to express our political views on an anonymous chat board, but I would suspect that if you choose to go there as part of your official officer duties, that's on you to live with the consequences. Seems like the protocol is pretty clear. Just stay out of it, officially, regardless of which side of the aisle you happen to be on. There was a different administration a couple months ago, and there will be a different administration in a few years. I don't claim to know when one is "justified" in "breaking the chain of command," but I suspect that line has to lie somewhere far beyond "I really disagree with the administration's policy and hate its rhetoric." If they ever did tell you to point that gun at Quebec and pull the trigger perhaps...

Thanks for this. I hope I’m worried about nothing. I do have a lot of friends in Canada and they are worried so it’s a downward spiral.

And as a parent whose kids are in the thick of it, I wish he would be more presidential. The choice to be in the military was stressful enough with a boring president.

 

[ARMARINE03]

I really appreciate your perspective—especially the emphasis on staying apolitical in official communications. I’ve been on this forum for a few months now, and I’ll admit, I’ve been shocked at how often posts asking for guidance or insight quickly turn into platforms for political commentary—sometimes pretty aggressive ones—from a lot of parents and, even more concerning, from former active/reserve/guard/retired officers and from both ends of the political spectrum.

One thing I keep thinking about is what kind of impression that leaves on young people who come here looking for honest advice. If they see posts from former officers pushing political views instead of offering mentorship, it can be confusing at best—and completely discouraging at worst. These forums should be a place where they can focus on learning about service, leadership, and how to navigate the process—not get caught in the crossfire of political opinions.

I’ve tried to stay out of that fray and focus on providing clear, helpful information for those genuinely seeking advice, and especially prospective. At the end of the day, it is my hope this forum would be about mentorship and support only, not politicizing military service. There’s real value in maintaining that professional, apolitical posture—and I’m glad to see it reflected in your comment.

Well stated. Keep doing what you're doing, there are a lot of us that appreciate it.

 

[RetiredVeteran]

Honest question for the group: at what point are you justified in breaking with the chain of command?

Because… I love America and thought I was fully committed to the idea that my kids now belong to their chain of command.

But truthfully, I’ve been losing sleep over the possibility that my kids might be ordered to open fire on friends in Canada, Mexico or Greenland. The current administration seems to giddily embrace expansionism ideals while claiming to want peace.

Starting to wonder if military life is for us. But also wondering why half of America is so happy to look past common sense and cheer on the idea of adding Canada as a 51st state? Or the idea that we need to control an independent country for its mineral rights?

That’s a good question, and not always an easy one to answer. The reality is that breaking with the chain of command should only happen in very rare and serious situations and only for the right reasons. We’re all expected to follow lawful orders. But if an order is unlawful -whether it violates the UCMJ, the Constitution, or international law-we’re not just allowed to question it, we have an obligation to. I'm not a JA, but this is backed by doctrine and history.

That said, disagreeing with a leadership decision or disliking a policy isn’t the same as being given an unlawful or unethical order. The military expects obedience and discipline, but also integrity and judgment. Especially for officers, you’re expected to think critically, and to know when something crosses a legal or moral line. If you ever feel something truly isn’t right, there are systems in place—like going through the Inspector General, speaking with a JAG officer, or using your protected right to communicate with Congress. Although I wouldn't recommend starting all the way up, but it is a person's right to do so without any interference. I was formerly an IG Director of Inspections; I can tell you the system works when given a chance. These routes exist so you can raise real concerns while still respecting the structure and professionalism of the service.

We all swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any individual leader or administration. That apolitical foundation is key. So, if it ever comes to a moment where you feel compelled to “break” from the chain, it should only be because not doing so would compromise your duty to that higher principle—not because of politics or personal opinions. It’s a big responsibility, and not a decision to take lightly. But in those rare moments where legality or morality are truly at stake, stepping up is part of what it means to be a professional.

 

[Mallard Duck]

Ha, while a Colonel may be the big bird on the block, they are not privy to other strategic decisions.
She would probably not hesitate to discipline one of her subordinates for circumventing her operational control of her area of responsibility.
She opened her proverbial mouth and inserted her foot, she should have been fired. I am having a hard time understanding just what was going through her mind when she decided to draft the email and then send it out. She obviously thought she was more pertinent to the situation than really was. Remember, this was a Colonel, not someone who at least had an excuse of ignorance. She exhibited POOR decision making ability.

 

[jl123]

Ah yes, the classic "we’ll just buy the island" playbook — because history has shown us time and again how well it goes when powerful nations decide they’re entitled to other people’s land. I suppose next we’ll be dusting off the old maps from the late 1930s and pointing to Poland, saying, “Look, they weren’t managing themselves very well either.” Hitler used similar logic when he marched into Sudetenland — you know, for the good of the people, of course.

Or maybe we can take a page from Russia’s current strategy manual in Ukraine: claim a region is mismanaged or culturally connected, show up uninvited, and declare it yours. That’s not leadership, it’s opportunism with a side of imperial delusion. The idea that we can just swoop into Greenland and take over because someone doesn’t like how Denmark runs its affairs isn’t bold — it’s reckless and ignorant. It undermines the very international norms we claim to uphold, and it puts our allies — and our service members — in a deeply compromised position.

 

[Mallard Duck]

Let's look at what can happen when a subordinate makes decisions they are not qualified to make:

• Battle of Cannae (216 BCE): During the Second Punic War, Roman commanders Varro and Paullus led their forces against Hannibal. Varro, disregarding Paullus's more cautious approach, ordered an aggressive attack. Unaware of Hannibal's strategic encirclement tactics, this decision led to a devastating defeat for Rome, with massive casualties.
• The Battle of Little Bighorn (1876): Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, leading the 7th Cavalry, underestimated the size and strength of the Native American forces. Acting without full knowledge of the broader military strategy, Custer's decision to attack led to his infamous defeat and the loss of his entire detachment.
• The Fall of Constantinople (1453): During the Ottoman siege, a subordinate in the Byzantine defense reportedly left a small gate, the Kerkoporta, unlocked. This oversight allowed Ottoman forces to breach the city's walls, leading to the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire.
• The Charge of the Light Brigade (1854): During the Crimean War, a subordinate misunderstood orders and led a cavalry charge into a heavily fortified artillery position. The lack of clarity in communication and understanding of the larger strategy resulted in heavy losses.
• The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): A Soviet submarine commander, unaware of the broader diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and the USSR, nearly launched a nuclear torpedo when his submarine was targeted by U.S. depth charges. The decision was narrowly averted by another officer, preventing a potential escalation into nuclear war.
• The Battle of Gettysburg (1863): Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart, tasked with providing reconnaissance for General Lee, pursued a more independent course of action, leaving Lee without critical intelligence about Union troop movements. This lack of information contributed to the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.

 

[Mallard Duck]

"Plans are nothing; planning is everything." — Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[kalkan65]

Honest question for the group: at what point are you justified in breaking with the chain of command?

Because… I love America and thought I was fully committed to the idea that my kids now belong to their chain of command.

But truthfully, I’ve been losing sleep over the possibility that my kids might be ordered to open fire on friends in Canada, Mexico or Greenland. The current administration seems to giddily embrace expansionism ideals while claiming to want peace.

Starting to wonder if military life is for us. But also wondering why half of America is so happy to look past common sense and cheer on the idea of adding Canada as a 51st state? Or the idea that we need to control an independent country for its mineral rights?

uh, no one is going to open fire on Canada or Greenland. Cartel members in Mexico isn’t off the table, but please.

 

[Mallard Duck]

Let me give you some things to think about that may or may not strike closer to home.

Social Media Misuse: Many parents set boundaries around social media use, but some children bypass these rules by creating secret accounts or spending excessive time online. This can lead to exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, or even online predators, which parents were trying to protect them from.
Skipping School: Some children skip school without their parents' knowledge, thinking it’s harmless or fun. However, this can lead to academic consequences, disciplinary actions, and missed opportunities for learning and growth.
Experimenting with Substances: Despite parental warnings, some teenagers experiment with alcohol, drugs, or vaping. This can result in health issues, addiction, or legal troubles, which parents were trying to prevent.
Dangerous Challenges: In recent years, viral internet challenges have encouraged risky behavior, such as consuming harmful substances or performing dangerous stunts. Children who participate against their parents' advice often face serious injuries or other consequences.
Unauthorized Driving: Some teenagers take their parents' cars without permission, believing they can handle it. This can lead to accidents, legal issues, or damage to the vehicle, which parents were trying to avoid.
Financial Decisions: In some cases, children use their parents' credit cards or make unauthorized purchases online. This can lead to financial strain or disputes, especially if the parents were unaware of the transactions.

These examples highlight how disobedience, even when driven by curiosity or peer pressure, can lead to outcomes that parents were trying to shield their children from, in a simplistic form, look at it this way. Parents are Commanders in Chief, the kids, hold varying levels of rank below them.
Seems like our little Col chose to sneak out at night and carouse around without her mom and dad knowing and now the rabbit has died.

 

[Ghostjwm]

Well with all the drama about the Air Force Academy not focusing on warfighting is it surprising that a Colonel would feel the need to clarify her superior's comment in an email. Any officer of any service who takes such a blatent action should be prepared to be relieved of command.