Several weeks ago a four star general in the US Army was fired for continuing to have an affair after he’d been ordered by his commanders to stop. (link) The general was legally separated from his wife at the time, the affair was with a consensual adult, the woman was not a soldier and did not work for the government. As far as is currently known, there is no allegation that he passed on military secrets to her or anything like that.
What do you think of this? I’ve talked with friends and relatives in the military, who think it’s perfectly justified: it’s not, they say, that he was having an affair, but that he broke a direct order. Personally, I think the whole thing is outrageous – commanders should not have that degree of power over their soldier’s personal lives, so the order should not legally have been given in the first place. In spite of that, since it was given, it’s still ridiculous, because in no way does the punishment fit the crime. Beyond all that, considering the difficulties in recruiting and retaining soldiers, is this really the time to be firing soldiers for such minor indiscretions?? (Minor, at least, as relates to his career – I’m not saying it’s morally justifiable to have affairs…though for Chrissakes, the guy was separated at the time…)
What do you think? I know this topic is a bit old, and sorry if it’s been discussed before; I’m new here and can’t find the search function, so if it has been discussed, if someone can point me to the appropriate thread, I’d appreciate it.
Congress has proscribed adultery as a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is an incredibly broad definition: any sexual relationship in which either party is married that can be construed as being prejudicial to good order and discipline to the military, which is also a very broad test.
It seems to me that anyone in the military for any appreciatable amount of time is expected to know this. A four star general has no excuse. He’s in a position of tremendous authority, and his example is crucial to those below him to follow the UCMJ as it is written, not as it should be.
Now, I think it’s a bad law, and ought to be updated. If he were in the private sector, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with what he did. But changing the law is something that Congress must do. It’s not for military officers to decide which lawful orders and laws that they may obey and which they are able to disregard.
It was a stupid order based on a stupid law, but that’s besides the point. He was ordered to stop the affair. He ignored the order. He’s out on his ass. We don’t want generals to start deciding on their own which laws they have to follow and which ones they ignore. If this guy can’t handle that, he’s got no place in uniform.
I’m not disputing that his commanders were acting within their legal right when they fired him. I’m disputing that that law should be on the books in the first place, and that the way they enforced the law seemed all out of proportion to the seriousness of the infraction. Not everyone who breaks the UCMJ is automatically fired. They could have done their duty to uphold the law as written by giving him a lesser punishment. And in the meantime, Congress could (and I think should) change the law.
I recognize that the military works differently than the civilian world, and that certain aspects of your private life are forfeited when you sign up. But I cannot understand how the military can have this degree of power over a soldier’s personal life. The only way I can see it making a difference is if the affair happened between soldiers of government employees, which, as mentioned before, was not the case here. Also, I can understand “leaning” on someone to clean up their private affairs if it is clearly having an effect on their work or the work of their subordinates. (That can make sense in the civilian world as well.) But having the legal right to fire someone for something as personal as this?? No way.
And he wasn’t. He was shitcanned when he continued to defy orders. What message do you send when you have a General staff officer in blatant, continuing violation of the UCMJ. I sort of think that enforcing discipline is something the military needs more, not less of these days, and that starts at the top.
I guess some perspective is required with these things. As a soldier, you may find yourself in a situation where a guy tells you in no uncertain terms to pick up a BFG (big effing gun), go get as close as you can to some other guy you’ve never met, and shoot him to death.
If you happen to work at the Quick E Mart or wherever, this is not something your boss has any business telling you to do, and even if he did, you damn well better not do what he says. So obviously, the military does and should have a different set of rules than most organizations that everyone should abide by if they are going to be soldiers.
However, I’m sure a lot of those rules would be none the worse for amendment as times change. I happen to think this rule has outlived its usefulness, if it ever was useful, but it was the General’s duty none the less to behave as he was ordered to behave, or resign. You gain certain privileges as a soldier, but you give up certain freedoms as well, and that’s all made very clear to you when you sign on. If it wasn’t clear to you, that’s nobody’s fault but your own.
“Separated” is not Divorced or annulled. For an officer at O-10, with over 25 years of service, the third most senior Army O-10, this was a no brainer.
The UCMJ is much tighter than civilian law: the standards are higher, especially for senior officers. The fact of the matter is that he disobeyed a direct order, a legal direct order.
There are plenty of O-9 candidates ready to take his place. What we’re short of are people in the grades of E-1 through E-7, and O-1 through O-5 to get shot up, blown to bits and the like. If anything, we’re short on company and field grade officiers, as well as mid- to senior grade NCOs to provide field expertise and training.
One less useless, hoo-haw 4-star seat warmer? Who can’t keep his genitals in check long enough to finalize a divorce? Who can’t be bothered to follow an order that he likely gave to others during his career? Who likely presided over career-ending courts martial and hearings over similar violations of professional and orderly conduct?
I’m not so sure that the military law and the order are all that stupit. What the General did probably comes under the general heading of actions prejudicial to good order and discipline. A mature individual really ought to be able to exercise enough restraint to just wait until completely free of a marriage, especially after receiving a direct order to do so.
In that he broke the law, yes, he undermined law and order. But did the act itself, if it were legal, undermine law and order? Especially if he kept his private affairs to himself? My old boss was sleeping with someone she wasn’t married to (I don’t know what his marital status was) and it never once made me question her authority – didn’t even really occur to me. Yes, the military is different. But are soldiers so sensitive and easily shocked that the idea that one of their commanders being separated from his wife but dating another woman is enough to case anarchy?
Whether or not the law is right or not, the former general swore an oath to abide by it. He didn’t. However, I can’t see this type of news report doing a lot of good for recruitment efforts.
Wasn’t there some stink not too long ago about corporations setting policies not only about inter-office dating, but out-of-office as well? Making sure that their employees dated only “acceptable” types (generally profession and income related standards)?
My google fu isn’t strong toady, so I can’t find anything on it (out-of-office dating), but, IIRC, there were some lawsuits over terminations due to these policies.
So it may not be entirely “just a military thing.” Or my memory’s whack.
Militarily, the regulation is still valid, as not all Separations and Divorce proceedings are as amicable or mutual as Gen. Byrnes’ appears to be (judging from the article), and a military unit doesn’t need a screaming, enraged spouse showing up and causing problems over an affair one is having while undergoing Separation/Divorce proceedings (I saw it happen in my unit at Ft. Hood, and the NCO in question was booted toot-sweet after admitting that he had started seeing someone after getting a Separation from his wife prior to Divorce proceedings).
After thinking about it, and reading ExTank’s post, I’m reconsidering my initial statement. Perhaps it’s better to say that it’s stupid that this rule is needed in the first place.
I’m not an expert of military politics, but I can’t imagine this happened after just *one *warning to a 4 star General. I can only think that there had blatant “in your face” public defiance by him of the “cease and desist” order for this to happen. If that’s the case he’s too stupid to be a general.
Greek prime minister papandreou 69yrs old leaves his wife for a 34 year old and the greeks dont bat an eyelid, clinton smokes a cigar with monica and the mob wants to lynch him…
Your point is an excellent one, and as some of us have said, this is probably a rule that needs to be retired.
But paramount to military discipline must be the ability to abide by the rules that come with the job, and those who sign on need to be prepared to deal with that. A general who isn’t is a major problem.
Former serviceman checking in. I suspect the reason for the no adultary rule stems from the nature of most military bases. Outside of the Penatagon, most bases tend to be pretty insular, they’re practically self contained communties with places to shop, eat* and entertainment such as movie theaters and clubs. Some towns near bases can be outright hostile to service members. For that reason and the fact that it’s encouraged, many of the employees on these bases are likewise dependents (wives, kids, husbands) of the servicemen/women. Keeping that in mind, a service member having an affair is more likely than not for it to be with someone encounted on the base. I suspect writing a rule that says “no affairs” is better than trying to write a convoluted law that encompasses any of the potential situtations likely to arise.
[sub]*As a graduate from Basic Training, I was shocked to discover there was an actual Burger King on post at Ft. Jackson.[/sub]
In doing some net reading about this and how the military usually handles this stuff I really believe his firing had little to do with his affair, and everything to do with someone higher up who already had the long knives out for him, and this was a handy opportunity, however, we’ll probably never know who or why, only that he pissed someone off way up the food chain and there was no one willing to go to bat for him