Military Officers Chafe for Bigger Role in Policy Decisions

[The Reaper]

Interesting article.

Not sure I agree with the contention that elected civilian officials embody the Constitution and all orders from them are, in fact, Constitutional.

TR

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/04/military-officers-chafe-for-bigger-role-in-policy-decisions/print/

Military Officers Chafe for Bigger Role in Policy Decisions

David Wood

Chief Military Correspondent
POSTED:
10/4/10
The military officer corps is rumbling with dissatisfaction and dissent, and there are suggestions from some that if officers disagree with policy decisions by Congress and the White House, they should vigorously resist.

Officers have a moral responsibility, some argue, to sway a policy debate by going public with their objections or leaking information to the media, and even to sabotage policy decisions by deliberate foot-dragging.

(cont. at link)

[Pete]

"....By law and tradition, military officers are encouraged to debate ideas and offer their opinions before a decision is made, either by a more senior officer or by civilian authorities. But once a decision is taken, everyone in uniform, but especially officers, is bound to "salute and execute,'' even if they have argued against it.

But that notion is under direct challenge......."

I think everybody in the military who has been in any type of leadership position has at one time or another been placed in a situation where you have disagreed with a decision - and voiced your opinion - been overridden by the higher ups - and did it anyway.

But on key policy issues that are mostly political - the generals, if they feel that strongly, should offer their resignation and when doing so state why in public.

Leaking memo's, off the record to the press and not doing the job sound so - so - so political - like a politician.

[longrange1947]

That would smack of "I was only following orders".

An illegal order is an illegal order whether given by a General, a Sgt, or a civilian.

To give top cover with constitutionality is horse s**t.

My 2 cents. :munchin

Edited to add that this statement was on the article and not on Pete's statement.

[rdret1]

It seems the article is trying to cram three different categories into one. An "illegal" order should be ignored with specifically stated reasons and references to the law(s) that prohibit the activity. Who is going to define an "immoral" order? Whose morals are going to be used as the reference? Then, there are the orders which are simply a bad idea. These are the orders that need to be discussed, better ideas presented, and dealt with if no satisfaction is forthcoming. Once the mission begins, the plan can change at the soldier level as long as the mission is accomplished.