Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
I see. Telling the truth is a violation of the UCMJ. Right. The casualties we have suffered in Iraq were the direct result and continue to be the direct result of grotesque mismanagement. He is saving the lives of soldiers by speaking out against this disgusting fiasco. I say give him a fucking medal. Instead, your Fearless Leader puts medals on men we now know were incompetent fools who perpertrated this clusterfuck on our troops.
That's a silly argument.
First, I do not think anybody has brought charges against him. Have they? If so, what? If they do and if he is guilty then I hope he is fittingly punushed.
Secondly, what he stated was an opinion, FTL. Sometimes opinions agree with us and sometimes they do not. Sometimes opinions are fact-based and accurate, fact-based and inaccurate, not factual and inaccurate and not factual yet accurate. This is why we generally distinguish between opinions and facts when we seek the truth. Some people are very selective, making sure they only use facts that support their preconceived notions. Often that is done unintentionally. Sometimes it is done with malignant intent.
Third and most importantly, it bothers me that an active duty officer expressed a political opinion in order to influence policy. When we enter the military we lose many of the rights that we have as civilians. Among those that we lose is the freedom to express a political opinion while in uniform. I'm sure your imagination is vivid enough that I don't need to explain why we have that system in this country.
Should this officer be charged under that article of the UCMJ? I don't know. I would prefer that he speak his mind and write his article without identifying himself as an active duty officer. Using his rank and status puts him at odds with the chain of command. That isn't inexcusable. Generals should not have absolute power over anybody. But using his rank and status to publicly criticize his command and the policy they follow is unconscionable for an active duty officer, IMO.
An active duty officer putting himself at odds with the civilian leadership is a terrible precedent. Officers don't set policy, civilians set policy. Do we want to live in a country where colonels publicly argue against civilian orders? Who was elected?
In closing, one of the finest acts in Harry Truman's career was slapping-down one of America's greatest war heroes for exactly that transgression. MacArthur forgot that he worked for the civilians, not vice-versa. This colonel seems to have forgotten his rank and position. I hope his supervisors officially reprimand him at the very least.