I just heard this on CNN. A soldier from the 3rd Infantry was televised saying that if Rumsfeld ever came to Iraq the soldier would ask for his resignation. They then showed Gen. Abizaid in a news conference where he reminded soldiers that criticizing the Prez or Secy of Defense is against the miliitary’s professional code. Is this true? Why? Is this a good idea or a bad idea? How long has this been policy?
I am completely ignorant on this.
It’s always been the case.
Criticizing your leaders publicly is considered insubordination and can be penalized. It’s a detriment to order and discipline.
It’s actually a good idea broadly speaking, because the first step in disobedience is the failure to have faith in your leaders, and to manifest that publicly can lead to more disobedience, ie mutiny.
Since the President and ther SecDef are in the chain of command (at the very top), it applies to them as well, not just your immediate supervisors and such.
Thank you Airman Doors. Does this rule apply at all times or only during combat? Also, what if the criticism was more specific in nature? For example, if a soldier believed a specific policy would result in unneccessary deaths does he/she have a legitimate means of voicing this concern without fear of being accused of insubordination?
It’s ALWAYS in effect. Here are the relevant statutes:
Article 88, Contempt Towards Officials
Article 94, Mutiny and Sedition
If that weren’t enough, they can also tag you with Article 92, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation, if they feel like it, since stuff like that is generally counseled before it reaches court-martial status.
There are a lot of things that you give up when you raise your hand and take the oath. Free speech is one of them. Some people push the issue, like me, and those people are stupid, because if they say the wrong thing they can potentially go to jail.
That, of course, is why I’m careful about what I say. Most of the time, anyway.
Oh, and if you have an issue you can take it up with your superiors, but if they tell you to charge up that hill into 2,000 North Koreans with machine guns waiting for you, or fly in an unarmed C-130 over hostile territory (that’s my job) and get shot at, ultimately you have to do it.
shrug That’s what people should really be thinking about when they sign up. I did.
One wonders if anyone will care enough to prosecute, though. When I was in the Navy, I appeared in a major nationwide newspaper criticising some of the leadership at Defense Language Institute. Nothing ever came of it, though I have no doubt the article was seen by some of the people I was complaining about.
UnuMondo
These regulations, by the way, is why civilians must take the lead in making sure that those in uniform are not screwed over by elected officials, bureaucrats and rear-echelon you-know-whats. The people really taking the risks and paying the price for incompetence, negligence, and bad policy of higher-ups are not legally permitted to say anything about it. Thus, the military protects the USA from our enemies, and civilians protect the people in the military from our government.
Given the fact that Chickenhawk Bush has consistently refused to give tax breaks to the very people who are dying in his name in Iraq, they need a lot of protection from the Commander in Chief right now.