A military note.

[gridlore]

I'm following a lot of discussion threads about the resignation of General McChrystal. One of the common complaints is that this somehow violates Gen. McChrystal's freedom of speech.

The military operates under a special set of laws called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These laws are just like any regular law, passed by Congress as a package and signed by the President, but apply only to members of the US military and to military installations. The relevant code here is Article 88:

“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.”

There is a separate Article covering enlisted troops.

We live on discipline in the services. We require it. An army depends on mutual lines of respect up and down the chain of command, and that includes the civilian power structure. Especially the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. We are also trained to be polite to officials, no matter what we think about them. That training served me well when Vice-President Bush shook my hand in Hawaii.

That Gen. McChrystal and his immediate staff were so contemptuous over multiple encounters with a reporter shows that McChrystal had fostered a climate of disrespect for the National Command Authority. That is unforgivable.

Comments

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

I've been following this with some interest. Either McChrystal and his staff are a bunch of careless, undisciplined, indiscreet blabbermouths, or this was calculated and deliberate, done in furtherance of somebody's agenda.

Whose and what might that be, I wonder...

[seawasp]

I would note that General McChrystal was born in an era such that his most formative years of political/social perception were in the middle to late 60s. In those who grew up earlier, respect for authority, especially governmental authority/the President was VASTLY stronger, to the point that following such rules would be second nature.

In the later generations, questioning authority became a much stronger value, as did speaking one's mind. I think that at least in part things like this stem from a significant shift in the basic political essence of the country, and the people who make up the military.

[seawasp]

Exactly. You still have freedom of speech -- but you have agreed to specific consequences if you exercise that freedom, predicated on the assumption that there is a very important value to the unified front presented by the military.

There may be times you DO have to exercise that right, just as there are times you may have to choose to disobey direct orders -- if you feel the orders are unjust, or if the President is doing something directly contrary to your understanding of your requirement to defend the USA from all enemies, foreign AND domestic, but in those cases you still accept that you are taking the risk that it will not be viewed that way by anyone else, and you will be court-martialed and subjected to penalties which may be very extreme indeed.

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

This.

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

Ditto. Also, is that icon supposed to be John Stewart in an X-Wing flight suit?

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

No, it's a generic figure representing the members of Red Squadron, sourced from a recruiting poster in X-Wing Alliance. (It, and my lj name, derive from when I was a member and CO of an online fan squadron that played that and the other games in the series.)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

What you said. Plenty of people today seem to think that "free speech" means "I can say anything I want to say no matter what the consequences." Well, freedom of speech includes the responsibility for what one says.

[kengr]

Contrary to popular belief, freedom of speech does not mean that you can't be subject to consequences for what you say. Libel, slander, incitement to riot, etc are all laws that mandate consequences for saying certain things.

Freedom of speech just means that the government can't pass laws or take actions to *prevent* you from speaking your mind. It *can* pass laws mandating penalties for saying things that cause harm.

And as Elizabeth Moon points out here saying the sorts of things he said *does* do harm.

[glinda-w.livejournal.com]

Yes, all that, exactly.

But I hadn't expected this part:

We are also trained to be polite to officials, no matter what we think about them. That training served me well when Vice-President Bush shook my hand in Hawaii.

*kittens coffee all over keyboard and monitor* :)

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

He came to Hawaii for some reason and observed my unit on the Company Live-Fire Assault Range. After our exercise, he shook hands and posed for a few photos. Very nice guy, I just disagreed with just about everything he stood for.

[lizzibabe.livejournal.com]

I entirely agree. it continually frustrates me that over the last decade or so more and more of the country insists on personally and vindictively disrespecting the POTUS. I just don't think there's civility anymore and that saddens me.

[fangedfaerie.livejournal.com]

Several friends and family have very different, and sometimes vehemently opposing, political views compared to my own. But one thing that many of them agree about: even if you can't respect the individual, respect the office.

[jemstone.livejournal.com]

I'm linking this from my own journal, because you said it much better than I could.

I know you won't mind if I do, but I figured I'd say so here, just to cover the base. :)

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

I agree. I've been seeing this as a remarkably consistent response among the professional soldiers I know.