An Example Has Been Made: Pour Encourager les Autres

 

The now-fired Secretary of the Navy apparently sought to provide cover to senior NCIS, legal weasels, and an admiral over the SEAL teams, as they sought to slap the Commander in Chief in the face and cover up their own alleged criminal wrongdoing (now subject of another IG investigation). No military officer, of any rank, would tolerate such gross insubordination from a subordinate: “Sir, you didn’t put in a written order, so I didn’t have to do it.” Oh, but it was just a tweet, and we don’t like his tweets, and besides… Nonsense! In the words of Justice Scalia: “pure applesauce!”

The first two-star general for whom I directly worked gave me a great lesson in followership. He called attention to the way a staff training team reacted to him. The staff training team existed to exercise and develop staff in support of their commanders. The moment the commanding general opened his mouth, team members all had their notebooks out, pens poised and proceeded to write down every single word he said.

The general explained that that showed the doctrinally correct view of general officers’ words. All the words were to be treated as important guidance to their staff. The trainers now had the general’s words and were checking everything the staff did to see if it conformed, to see if the general’s staff was operating competently and correctly in support of the general.

In other contexts, the general coached me to read into phases and topics raised or not, to see if higher headquarters were reinforcing existing guidance (repetition) or changing direction or emphasis. I was expected to report back promptly every time he sent me out as his deputy, his empowered representative. I was expected to inform him and the senior staff, already anticipating possible shifts in our planning and operations, so that we would be a leading command rather than being dictated to in very small words and short sentences in large bold print.

Conservatives, even TruCons, used to have a basic notion of the inviolable subordination of our military to civilian authority, in the person of the Commander in Chief, the president of the United States. Military officers, way back at the end of the Cold War, when we were wondering what would become of all that fancy equipment, all those formations, all those senior positions, even wrote to themselves about the dangerous lure of military and civilian faith in the military over all other institutions. I strongly suggest you read the then influential, award-winning 1992 article “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.”*

Never mind that the author, an Air Force officer, naturally made the Army the center of the villainy; the alternate history, the cautionary tale, still bears consideration today. Duke Law School thought it important enough to republish in 2010, the second year of President Obama’s presidency. Then we were treated to January 2017 musings by one of Obama’s defense officials that the senior officers who had risen to the top under Obama would conduct a coup against the brand new president, whose election had shocked the Washington elite.

3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020

BY ROSA BROOKS | JANUARY 30, 2017, 9:26 AM

…The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.

But Trump isn’t subtle or sophisticated: He sets policy through rants and late-night tweets, not through quiet hints to aides and lawyers. He’s thin-skinned, erratic, and unconstrained — and his unexpected, self-indulgent pronouncements are reportedly sending shivers through even his closest aides.

What would top U.S. military leaders do if given an order that struck them as not merely ill-advised, but dangerously unhinged? An order that wasn’t along the lines of “Prepare a plan to invade Iraq if Congress authorizes it based on questionable intelligence,” but “Prepare to invade Mexico tomorrow!” or “Start rounding up Muslim Americans and sending them to Guantánamo!” or “I’m going to teach China a lesson — with nukes!”

It’s impossible to say, of course. The prospect of American military leaders responding to a presidential order with open defiance is frightening — but so, too, is the prospect of military obedience to an insane order. After all, military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president. For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officials might simply tell the president: “No, sir. We’re not doing that,” to thunderous applause from the New York Times editorial board.

We all know perfectly well that “insane” is a standard leftist slur, now embraced by the left’s TruCon lapdogs. We all understand that the whole point was to treat the pesky Electoral College results as illegitimate, to use the full power of the Deep State, including the top state-side military headquarters to incapacitate and remove the Deplorables’ president, treating the man as the symbol of all these weasels hate about us.

Rosa Brooks’ biography is especially relevant and telling now. She wrote those words in January of 2017 to encourage the people left in place in the Pentagon, where she had been the top lawyer for the bureaucrat in charge of policy:

Rosa Brooks is a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, a columnist for Foreign Policy, and a law professor at Georgetown University. She previously worked at the Pentagon as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; in 2011, she was awarded the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service. Brooks has also served as a senior advisor at the US Department of State, a consultant for Human Rights Watch, and a weekly opinion columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

Read the Wikipedia entry for Rosa Brooks, intended to be positive, for the rest of the story, the more extreme activities, and associations. Understand that she is outside but still helping influence the government. Note that Georgetown is renowned for producing federal “civil servants” with career and political ambitions. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, a West Point graduate, infantry officer, and combat veteran who served 10 years on active duty and then completed his military career in National Guard and Reserve service, retiring as a lieutenant colonel, has now fired the first shot back from the top of the Department of Defense, in firing the Secretary of the Navy.

Esper said he had previously advocated for allowing the Navy review to go forward. But when [President] Trump gave him a “verbal instruction” to stop the process, he did so.
Esper did not say explicitly that he disagreed with Trump’s order.
Once Trump gave the order, Esper said he responded, “Roger. I got it.”

He has made clear that further insubordination and coup-like behavior will be punished, will be career-ending. All rational Americans should applaud this action and this message.


Regrettably, and without explanation, the U.S. Army War College has shoved most of the back issues of Parameters down the memory hole. For many years, you could easily access the back issues in PDF format. Now you can only reach back through 2012. These were important articles, documenting what our Army officer corps was thinking at the time. They were all online, all searchable, no new work needed. Gone, apparently.

Published in Military
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 65 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    I never approached this issue with the formal high-mindedness of a commissioned officer.

    An “unlawful order” seems less about the UCMJ and more about the fact that Americans in uniform never stop being Americans and do not check their religious and cultural heritage at the door when inducted. An “unlawful order” is that which I did not agree to do when I put on the uniform and which I deem to be wrong. 

    An old E7 I had assumed to be a moron, once gave a small group of us a truly profound, profanity-laced soliloquy about the nature of American soldiers always ultimately focused on getting the job done in spite of higher-up idiots and doing so in the right way.

    The soldiers who stopped William Calley at gunpoint and those who reported the abuses at Abu Graib (to their utterly useless chain of command) did so without a preliminary reading of regs or standing orders.  The moral sensibilities that really matter are what we bring with us to military service.

    The rules of engagement in Afghanistan invite abuse. I’m sure there have been serious infractions because it’s a war. I am also sure that petty bureaucratic imperatives, prosecutorial abuse and cynical, politically motivated application of rules are also realities because—Washington.

     

    • #61
  2. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Where does “I was just following orders” not being a valid excuse fit into this?

    Unlawful orders. The answer every single E-1, the entry rank, knows before they complete basic entry training.

    Clifford, this does not seem to be a helpful answer.

    I’ve never served in the military, and have very limited knowledge of military law, mostly from some CLE courses about 8-10 years ago, and a law school class over 20 years ago.

    I would expect that military law, like civil and criminal law, is quite complicated. I wouldn’t expect an E-1 to know everything in the UCMJ. I wouldn’t be surprised if the UCMJ is so lengthy and complex that no one knows, or fully understands, everything in it.

    There may be some instances in which an order is obviously unlawful, but my expectation is that in most circumstances, this is not clear at all. This leads to the really difficult question — who decides whether an order is unlawful? Each subordinate, individually?

    To follow up on an example in the OP, what if the President did order an invasion of Mexico tomorrow? Would that be an unlawful order?

    Pretty sure not.

    Depends on whether Congress has declared war on Mexico, doesn’t it?

    I don’t know for sure, but presidents have a history of slinging troops wherever they choose. 

    • #62
  3. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    You, like any lieutenant by the way,

    Oh, it’s on now.  On like Donkey Kong.  Don’t call me sir…I work for a living!

    • #63
  4. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    TBA (View Comment):
    So…if there were a higher proportion of local levies did you have more or fewer security troops killed. And was there a difference in which security troops (foreign or levied) were killed? 

    It is an interesting study. More local troops as a ratio = less troops needed overall. Use the recent fatalities to increase the overall force level.

    Here is the study. As previously noted it is no longer on the Parameters webpage.

    • #64
  5. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Where does “I was just following orders” not being a valid excuse fit into this?

    Unlawful orders. The answer every single E-1, the entry rank, knows before they complete basic entry training.

    Clifford, this does not seem to be a helpful answer.

    I’ve never served in the military, and have very limited knowledge of military law, mostly from some CLE courses about 8-10 years ago, and a law school class over 20 years ago.

    I would expect that military law, like civil and criminal law, is quite complicated. I wouldn’t expect an E-1 to know everything in the UCMJ. I wouldn’t be surprised if the UCMJ is so lengthy and complex that no one knows, or fully understands, everything in it.

    There may be some instances in which an order is obviously unlawful, but my expectation is that in most circumstances, this is not clear at all. This leads to the really difficult question — who decides whether an order is unlawful? Each subordinate, individually?

    To follow up on an example in the OP, what if the President did order an invasion of Mexico tomorrow? Would that be an unlawful order?

    Pretty sure not.

    Depends on whether Congress has declared war on Mexico, doesn’t it?

    No

    • #65
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.