Army Officer Denounces Commander-In-Chief's Policy In Scathing Op-Ed

[Crakhobarbie]

This is your interpretation, not how the UCMJ actually operates. Once again, all I am seeing from you is TDS.

And all I'm hearing from you is unbridled bigotry.
Are you sexually attracted to trans women?
Many transphobes are you know.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Respond to what I say, not what you think I said.

Its necessary when you appear to not understand the implications of the things you say.
Not to worry.
I'm here to help you become more aware.
I'm here to help.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Many transphobes are you know.

I see, so attacking others is a common tactic for you as well. Noted.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangmo]

A survey of colonels and Naval captains taking advanced courses at the US Marine Corps War College said they would disobey a legal order under certain circumstances. The senior officers enrolled were from all the services due to the joint service integrated war fighting doctrine of the US armed forces.

The most frequent reasons given to disobey a legal order are:

* "If the officer cannot live with obeying the order, then he must disobey and accept the consequences."

* "When I cannot look at myself in the mirror afterwards."

* "When I deem the order to be immoral."

* "When it is going to lead to mission failure."

* "When it will get someone injured or killed needlessly."

* "When it will cause military or institutional disaster."5


By the writer, Marine Colonel retired A.R. Milburn...

These comments reflect the view that the military professional has moral obligations more fundamental than obedience and loyalty to their leaders, civilian or military. I argue that the military profession is founded on clearly defined moral principles. How a profession views itself does much to shape its identity, and U.S. military officers take pride in belonging to a profession centered on high ethical standards. This belief, inculcated upon entry and constantly reinforced, appears within the profession to be self-evident.

If an officer decides that an order is rendered unconscionable by its probable consequences, it follows that he has a moral obligation to dispute the order and, if unsuccessful, to dissent in a manner that has the best chance of averting those consequences, or his dissent is rendered meaningless. Should dissent be founded on the right action or the right effect' A third of the MCWAR officers surveyed argued that the military professional should focus on the effect desired: mitigation of the immoral order, rather than the conscience- salving but possibly ineffectual act of resignation. By taking an open stand, the military professional displays the courage of his convictions but also implicitly accepts personal consequences, whether he is right or wrong. His stand may be purely symbolic-and have no effect on the decision. Regardless, he has exercised his moral autonomy and taken the consequences.

Breaking Ranks: Dissent and the Military Professional

There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order. In supporting this assertion, I discuss where the tipping point lies between the military officer's customary obligation to...

www.army.mil

Indeed, in the US armed forces officer corps across the services, it is not inconceivable nor is it out of the question to disobey a legal order. The issue is, rather, when do you disobey a legal order, why, how and to what desired purpose -- and to what consequence.

The author is USMC Col. ret. Andrew R. Milburn who spent 31 years as an infantry and special operations officer to include as commander of the Marine Raider Regiment and the Combined Special Operations Task Force, Iraq. Milburn served as Deputy Commander and Operations Officer of CENTCOM Special Operations Command.

 

[Fledermaus]

A survey of colonels and Naval captains taking advanced courses at the US Marine Corps War College said they would disobey a legal order under certain circumstances. The senior officers enrolled were from all the services due to the joint service integrated war fighting doctrine of the US armed forces.

The most frequent reasons given to disobey a legal order are:

* "If the officer cannot live with obeying the order, then he must disobey and accept the consequences."

* "When I cannot look at myself in the mirror afterwards."

* "When I deem the order to be immoral."

* "When it is going to lead to mission failure."

* "When it will get someone injured or killed needlessly."

* "When it will cause military or institutional disaster."5


By the writer, Marine Colonel retired A.R. Milburn...

These comments reflect the view that the military professional has moral obligations more fundamental than obedience and loyalty to their leaders, civilian or military. I argue that the military profession is founded on clearly defined moral principles. How a profession views itself does much to shape its identity, and U.S. military officers take pride in belonging to a profession centered on high ethical standards. This belief, inculcated upon entry and constantly reinforced, appears within the profession to be self-evident.

If an officer decides that an order is rendered unconscionable by its probable consequences, it follows that he has a moral obligation to dispute the order and, if unsuccessful, to dissent in a manner that has the best chance of averting those consequences, or his dissent is rendered meaningless. Should dissent be founded on the right action or the right effect' A third of the MCWAR officers surveyed argued that the military professional should focus on the effect desired: mitigation of the immoral order, rather than the conscience- salving but possibly ineffectual act of resignation. By taking an open stand, the military professional displays the courage of his convictions but also implicitly accepts personal consequences, whether he is right or wrong. His stand may be purely symbolic-and have no effect on the decision. Regardless, he has exercised his moral autonomy and taken the consequences.

Breaking Ranks: Dissent and the Military Professional

There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order. In supporting this assertion, I discuss where the tipping point lies between the military officer's customary obligation to...

www.army.mil

Indeed, in the US armed forces officer corps across the services, it is not inconceivable nor is it out of the question to disobey a legal order. The issue is, rather, when do you disobey a legal order, why, how and to what desired purpose -- and to what consequence, if any.

The author is USMC Col. ret. Andrew R. Milburn who spent 31 years as an infantry and special operations officer to include as commander of the Marine Raider Regiment and the Combined Special Operations Task Force, Iraq. Milburn served as Deputy Commander and Operations Officer of CENTCOM Special Operations Command.

tl;dr

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I see, so attacking others is a common tactic for you as well. Noted.

Have a nice day.

I offer you the truth.
Homophobia and transphobia are negative attitudes that can lead to discrimination against anyone who is, or is perceived as being, LGBTQ. This can be traced back to a poor understanding of the realities connected to the various gender identities and sexual orientations.

We all have a role to play in ensuring that the rights of LGBTQ individuals are recognized, by keeping an open mind about sexual diversity and gender identities.
By your responses, it's obvious you are not doing your part in insuring inclusion for everyone.
This is problematic in our rich, varied society.
Whatever I can do to help you reach a more empathetic and open attitude is why I'm here.
Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Tangmo]

It's like the legend of the 2nd Lieutenant in the Army of Frederick The Great getting cussed out by a Major after an unsuccessful engagement.

"The emperor gave you a commission because he thought you knew when to disobey an order."


There are always those however who don't have this level of intellectual capability or activity. So all they can do is to snipe and snark.

 

[iliveonramen]

And everybody's first duty is combat, everything else is just secondary. The only exceptions being the two groups designated by treaty and law as being non-combatants.

In principle sure, but in reality, there's a lot of jobs that are technical that wouldn't see combat.

We'd probably have a draft to fill the infantry ranks before using radar techs or JAG on the front lines.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

A survey of colonels and Naval captains taking advanced courses at the US Marine Corps War College said they would disobey a legal order under certain circumstances. The senior officers enrolled were from all the services due to the joint service integrated war fighting doctrine of the US armed forces.

The most frequent reasons given to disobey a legal order are:

* "If the officer cannot live with obeying the order, then he must disobey and accept the consequences."

* "When I cannot look at myself in the mirror afterwards."

* "When I deem the order to be immoral."

* "When it is going to lead to mission failure."

* "When it will get someone injured or killed needlessly."

* "When it will cause military or institutional disaster."5


By the writer, Marine Colonel retired A.R. Milburn...

These comments reflect the view that the military professional has moral obligations more fundamental than obedience and loyalty to their leaders, civilian or military. I argue that the military profession is founded on clearly defined moral principles. How a profession views itself does much to shape its identity, and U.S. military officers take pride in belonging to a profession centered on high ethical standards. This belief, inculcated upon entry and constantly reinforced, appears within the profession to be self-evident.

If an officer decides that an order is rendered unconscionable by its probable consequences, it follows that he has a moral obligation to dispute the order and, if unsuccessful, to dissent in a manner that has the best chance of averting those consequences, or his dissent is rendered meaningless. Should dissent be founded on the right action or the right effect' A third of the MCWAR officers surveyed argued that the military professional should focus on the effect desired: mitigation of the immoral order, rather than the conscience- salving but possibly ineffectual act of resignation. By taking an open stand, the military professional displays the courage of his convictions but also implicitly accepts personal consequences, whether he is right or wrong. His stand may be purely symbolic-and have no effect on the decision. Regardless, he has exercised his moral autonomy and taken the consequences.

Breaking Ranks: Dissent and the Military Professional

There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order. In supporting this assertion, I discuss where the tipping point lies between the military officer's customary obligation to...

www.army.mil

Indeed, in the US armed forces officer corps across the services, it is not inconceivable nor is it out of the question to disobey a legal order. The issue is, rather, when do you disobey a legal order, why, how and to what desired purpose -- and to what consequence.

The author is USMC Col. ret. Andrew R. Milburn who spent 31 years as an infantry and special operations officer to include as commander of the Marine Raider Regiment and the Combined Special Operations Task Force, Iraq. Milburn served as Deputy Commander and Operations Officer of CENTCOM Special Operations Command.

Col. Milburn is principled and honorable.

Its unfortunate that there are those in our armed services, and apparently some on this board who are not.

 

[Tangmo]

Col. Milburn is principled and honorable.

Its unfortunate that there are those in our armed services, and apparently some on this board who are not.

Amen.

Col. Milburn is a straight shooter.

And he speaks for the armed services officer corps of professionals who have high standards of ethics and morality. Their fidelity is to the Constitution above all else and others. We'll never hear Col. Milburn ret. say "To be honest' because it is understood and a given he is honest all the time.

 

[Oozlefinch]

In principle sure, but in reality, there's a lot of jobs that are technical that wouldn't see combat.

And what does that matter? I have held those technical jobs myself, and absolutely fail to see what you are even trying to say.

That is why when I was doing IT in a CASH unit, I still carried my firearm with me wherever I went. What, you think the enemy will realize that not only are medical personnel non-combatants but also unarmed that will cause them to not open fire if the chance presented itself?

Real life story time. The father of a guy I went to school with had joined the Air Force at about the time the Korean War broke out. And he was assigned as a cook and landed in Korea just after the breakout of Pusan. And he continued to just work as a cook as they moved from air base to air base up the peninsula. They were at an old Japanese base and getting it back into service, and he was doing his regular duty, getting everything ready for the afternoon meal. Then a Marine went into the tent and told everybody to grab whatever equipment they had and come with him.

Yes, October 1950. Seems the Army unit that had been defending their base had almost been overrun and already retreated, the Marines were the rear guard and snatching up any stragglers they found. Over the course of the battle and retreat he traded in his cook whites for a Marine uniform, and fought with the 1st Marine Division all the way to Hungnam. And while he never attended a single Reunion for his Air Force reunion, but he attended every reunion the 1st Marine Division held until he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

The military is not the kind of organization where they can afford to have people who can not take part in combat. That is why weight and physical fitness are so important. That is why they do not allow amputees to join, or those who are contentious objectors other than in the two areas of service where such individuals are allowed to serve in by international laws and treaties.

Sorry, but anybody that makes a claim like that obviously has little to no idea what the military is really like.

Oh, and if you think what I said about "technical jobs" is a thing of the past and not applicable today, you are wrong. Just look up the 507th Maintenance Company. Now known as Echo Battery, 5-52 ADA. I actually knew survivors of their 2003 battle, my unit was literally next to theirs at Fort Bliss. That was literally a company of truck and generator mechanics that got cut off during a movement to a new position and ambushed. A maintenance company in a PATRIOT Battalion is around 100 people. And in that battle, 9 of them were killed 5 were wounded, and 6 captured as POWs.

Now kindly try to explain again why technical jobs do not need to at least have some training in combat.

 

[iliveonramen]

And what does that matter? I have held those technical jobs myself, and absolutely fail to see what you are even trying to say.

That is why when I was doing IT in a CASH unit, I still carried my firearm with me wherever I went. What, you think the enemy will realize that not only are medical personnel non-combatants but also unarmed that will cause them to not open fire if the chance presented itself?

Real life story time. The father of a guy I went to school with had joined the Air Force at about the time the Korean War broke out. And he was assigned as a cook and landed in Korea just after the breakout of Pusan. And he continued to just work as a cook as they moved from air base to air base up the peninsula. They were at an old Japanese base and getting it back into service, and he was doing his regular duty, getting everything ready for the afternoon meal. Then a Marine went into the tent and told everybody to grab whatever equipment they had and come with him.

Yes, October 1950. Seems the Army unit that had been defending their base had almost been overrun and already retreated, the Marines were the rear guard and snatching up any stragglers they found. Over the course of the battle and retreat he traded in his cook whites for a Marine uniform, and fought with the 1st Marine Division all the way to Hungnam. And while he never attended a single Reunion for his Air Force reunion, but he attended every reunion the 1st Marine Division held until he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

The military is not the kind of organization where they can afford to have people who can not take part in combat. That is why weight and physical fitness are so important. That is why they do not allow amputees to join, or those who are contentious objectors other than in the two areas of service where such individuals are allowed to serve in by international laws and treaties.

Sorry, but anybody that makes a claim like that obviously has little to no idea what the military is really like.

Oh, and if you think what I said about "technical jobs" is a thing of the past and not applicable today, you are wrong. Just look up the 507th Maintenance Company. Now known as Echo Battery, 5-52 ADA. I actually knew survivors of their 2003 battle, my unit was literally next to theirs at Fort Bliss. That was literally a company of truck and generator mechanics that got cut off during a movement to a new position and ambushed. A maintenance company in a PATRIOT Battalion is around 100 people. And in that battle, 9 of them were killed 5 were wounded, and 6 captured as POWs.

Now kindly try to explain again why technical jobs do not need to at least have some training in combat.

I know what the military is like, I also served. I'm not belittling non-combat roles. You're the one that's claiming someone shouldn't be able to serve their country. The person I responded to gave a pretty dumb reason they couldn't serve but I humored them by stating there's more than just combat roles in the military.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I said non-combat roles don't have any combat training.

Is it normal or rare that a non-combat MOS has seen combat in the last 40 years?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Is it normal or rare that a non-combat MOS has seen combat in the last 40 years?

I think I mentioned the 507th Maintenance company by name.



Or the large numbers of 88M in the Army killed in the last two decades. I knew a hell of a lot who were in "non-combat" roles who had a CAB.

Any time you see somebody with one of those, it is somebody who was in a non-combat MOS who saw combat. I also knew Marines who were not in a combat MOS, but still had the CAR. But unlike the Army, you would not know it unless they are in their dress uniform.

 

[iliveonramen]

I think I mentioned the 507th Maintenance company by name.



Or the large numbers of 88M in the Army killed in the last two decades. I knew a hell of a lot who were in "non-combat" roles who had a CAB.

Any time you see somebody with one of those, it is somebody who was in a non-combat MOS who saw combat. I also knew Marines who were not in a combat MOS, but still had the CAR. But unlike the Army, you would not know it unless they are in their dress uniform.

This is you

How many lives are you willing to spend because of the degredation of our combat effectiveness just to see women in jobs like Infantry?

You clearly make a distinction in combat vs non-combat roles when it comes to women serving in the infantry or armored or artillery etc.

So I'm confused, so when it comes to women serving in combat roles, it's a no-no, but when it comes to restricting roles...well, everyone can see combat.

There's zero reason a trans man can't perform their duty. If there's some massive hang up over it being trans, there are roles in the military that aren't combat arms that spend more time in rear areas. Someone in the Air Force that serves a non combat role is not very likely to see combat.

You seem to have an axe to grind or some sort of side issue that I'm not really interested in debating, because you're arguing against a position I don't even hold.

 

[braindrain]

It may still work. He is leaving the military anyway.

I am aware of it.



I still say he has the right to speak his mind.

You may think that all you want, it is not going to change the fact that the military doesn’t allow it, and shouldn’t.

But the we both know your thoughts have more to do with the fact that you support his message and not proper behavior for officers in the US Military.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You clearly make a distinction in combat vs non-combat roles when it comes to women serving in the infantry or armored or artillery etc.

And you clearly are twisting what I said. And funny how you could not even bother two actually quote the entire message, just inserted a clip of it without context to the original post.

But here, let me post it again.

How many lives are you willing to spend because of the degredation of our combat effectiveness just to see women in jobs like Infantry?

Now where exactly in that did I ever say armored or artillery? Or say "combat roles" at all? I have made absolutely no secret of the fact that I did serve in a combat arms unit where a Female was my Battalion Commander. And she was one of the finest officers I ever served under. If you are going to quote me, do it properly and do not even attempt to twist my words around. Because you are claiming something I never said. I was talking specifically about roles such as Infantry, and the closely related ones (Special Forces, Force Recon, etc). Not the myriad other "Combat Arms" such as Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, and the like.

And funny how you claim I am arguing a position you do not hold, yet you double down on it yet again. Rather strange, but whatever.

 

[iliveonramen]

And you clearly are twisting what I said. And funny how you could not even bother two actually quote the entire message, just inserted a clip of it without context to the original post.

But here, let me post it again.



Now where exactly in that did I ever say armored or artillery? Or say "combat roles" at all? I have made absolutely no secret of the fact that I did serve in a combat arms unit where a Female was my Battalion Commander. And she was one of the finest officers I ever served under. If you are going to quote me, do it properly and do not even attempt to twist my words around. Because you are claiming something I never said. I was talking specifically about roles such as Infantry, and the closely related ones (Special Forces, Force Recon, etc). Not the myriad other "Combat Arms" such as Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, and the like.

And funny how you claim I am arguing a position you do not hold, yet you double down on it yet again. Rather strange, but whatever.

You've argued against the claim that non-combat roles aren't trained in combat. Something I never said.

You've against against the claim that non-combat roles never see combat. Something I never said.

You've spent multiple posts arguing against those things. In fact, the entirety of your posts are spent arguing against those two things I never claimed.

I made a distinction between combat and non-combat arms, in fact, you've made that same distinction.

 

[Tangmo]

Steven Katz was an active-duty Army officer with multiple combat tours to Iraq. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army War College and as a civilian employee at the Department of Defense, he was an adviser to SecDef Lloyd Austin in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Katz did a project entitled:

What Do Future U.S. Generals Think About Dissent, Disobedience, and Resignation?

Survey research suggests respect for civilian-control appears to be the exception, not the norm, among a significant portion of the senior military officers who participated.

www.justsecurity.org

​

Katz conducted an anonymous survey of 221 senior officers from three of the five U.S. war colleges to determine their likely responses to morally objectionable orders. The surveyed officers were all of the rank of lieutenant colonel / colonel (and equivalent Navy ranks) with approximately 20 years of service.

As Katz put it, "A large majority of these senior officers do not believe civilians have an authoritative “right to be wrong,” in decisions on war and peace. Just over 87 percent of the respondents believe that under certain circumstances, and using their best professional judgment, strategic military officers can disobey a lawful but immoral or unwise civilian-directed order yet still be loyal to a higher, societal good. And just over one-third of the officers believe they have a compelling moral obligation to disobey and publicly resign in these situations. These officers also generally judge their impact on civil-military relations as a secondary concern to the efficacy of their act of dissent or disobedience. Roughly 60 percent of officers agreed that changing the policy-maker’s decision is of primary importance to the potential negative effects to civil-military relations.

My research demonstrates that there are numerous ways—below the threshold of disobedience—through which officers consider that they would oppose lawful but immoral civilian decisions. We should anticipate that many of these future generals are comfortable questioning authority, will more assertively respond to morally objectionable civilian orders, particularly those perceived to violate professional military standards and propriety."


Indeed, we saw in Trump 1.0 a reversal of the civil-military historical relationship that the Potus/C'nC has a right to be wrong. Under this iron principle, the Joint Chiefs could argue against something strenuously and persisitently. But the top generals and admirals always had their "salute moment" by which they ceased arguing and accepted the decision and the order of the C'nC.

That's gone now. Under Trumph then and now, the military started picking and choosing its suddenly half hearted "salute moment" when it does occur with Trumph. And at times the military did not salute Trumph at all. For instance, both the then SecDef Esper the West Point grad and Gen. Milley refused Trumph ordering them to have the DC National Guard shoot peaceful and unarmed demonstrators in Lafayette Square. The exasperated and blood thirsty Generalissimo then pleaded, "Can't you just shoot them in the legs or something."

Indeed and with Trump and Hegseth, the C'nC and the SecDef no longer have the right to be wrong. Because with Trump who's wrong all the time, when you're wrong, you are wrong. Hegseth The Horrible is no different either.

 

[Tangmo]

The survey by the Iraq War veteran of several tours Stephen Katz in scrolling above was of Lt.Colonel and Colonel officers and the equivalent Navy ranks of Commander and Captain, meaning those senior officers most on track for star ranks -- generals and admirals aka Flag Officers. Katz' survey did senior officers at each major service War College, namely the Army, Navy, Air Force, so it was inclusive and comprehensive in this category of career officer.

The senior officers on track for stars responded to questions about orders by the civilian command authority that are legal but immoral or unethical or just flat wrong. This kind of order is long known by the US military as the order that is "lawful but awful," and that the military chiefs saluted anyway and carried out, if slowly.

Now however the vast majority of senior officers across the services surveyed said the civilian commander in chief no longer has the right to be wrong. This is a radical reversal of the long standing "Iron Law" that the C'nC always has the right to be wrong. It reverses the historical norm that civilian command over the armed forces is absolute. It's Trump himself who has generated this radical change across the armed forces senior ranks and most senior ranks.

These senior officers said the C'nC no longer has the right to be wrong. So not only does Trumph have no support for domestic abuse of the armed forces among the present generation of generals and admirals, Trump also has no sympathy or support with the next generation of up and coming generals and admirals -- those who presently command regiments and battalions, Naval task forces to include aircraft carriers; and Air Force fighter groups.