US Troops to face punishment for Criticising Administration

[Stravo]

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Gen.: G.I.s who rip leaders will pay
By HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Thursday, July 17th, 2003

WASHINGTON - The military will punish demoralized soldiers in Iraq who are bluntly venting their frustration to reporters, the Pentagon said yesterday.

"None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense or the President of the United States," said Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command. "We're not free to do that. It's our professional code. Whatever action may be taken, whether it's a verbal reprimand or something more stringent, is up the commanders on the scene."

This week's abrupt cancellation of homecoming plans for the Army's 3rd Infantry Division unleashed a remarkable and widespread flood of fury from troops who are hot, homesick and hunted by guerrillas.

"If Donald Rumsfeld was here, I'd ask him for his resignation," Spec. Clinton Deitz of the 3rd Infantry's 2nd Brigade told ABC News.

"I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list," said a 2nd Brigade sergeant. "The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz."

Many soldiers are openly asking why they are in a country that wants them out. They complain that their commanders have gone home. Frustration with the powers in Washington is a main theme.

"I can guarantee you they've never stood out in a checkpoint in the heat of the day, day after day, full battle rattle, always wondering if today's the day somebody's going to shoot me. Do they even care?" one soldier told a Knight Ridder reporter.

The 2nd Brigade, in the Persian Gulf since September, had been told it would be home by May, then July, then August. When the announcement came that the deployment was being extended until at least September and maybe beyond, "you could hear a pin drop," said Sgt. 1st Class Eric Wright of the 64th Armored Regiment.

The Code of Military Justice bars officers from using "contemptuous words" against civilian or military leaders. Punishment is rarely stringent, said military law expert Eugene Fidell.

"People always grumble in the trenches," he said. "Typically, administrations are extremely well advised not to throw gasoline on the fire by creating martyrs."

The White House took no public offense at the soldiers' gripes. "We know that they are making significant sacrifices," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are going to do everything we can to support them and get them home as soon as we can."

OK, this just pisses me off. I KNOW intellectually that these guys are soldiers and that they need to be disciplined and it is actually illegal for them under the Laws of Military Justice to say bad things about civilian authorities but JESUS.

Bush tells these terrorist fuckers to "Bring it on." from nice coozy Washington. Soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and now as if morale wasn't shitty enough THIS happens. I told my mom this over the phone and she said soemthing that made me stop and think.

"Those boys went in there to get rid of a dictatorship and now Bush is imposing his own dictatorship on them."

Thoughts??

[RogueIce]

OK, this just pisses me off. I KNOW intellectually that these guys are soldiers and that they need to be disciplined and it is actually illegal for them under the Laws of Military Justice to say bad things about civilian authorities but JESUS.

Bush tells these terrorist fuckers to "Bring it on." from nice coozy Washington. Soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and now as if morale wasn't shitty enough THIS happens. I told my mom this over the phone and she said soemthing that made me stop and think.

"Those boys went in there to get rid of a dictatorship and now Bush is imposing his own dictatorship on them."

Thoughts??

*shrug* They're violating the UCMJ. They took an oath when they went in, and they're bound by the rules. If they're gonna break them, then they should expect to be punished for it, regardless of the reason behind it. It's one thing to vent amongst one's buddies, but to say stuff like they want the resignation of SECDEF to reporters?

Tough cookies, but that's the way it is.

[RedImperator]

I'd let them vent all they want. Christ, I know I'd be pissed off if I was stuck in that fucking sandlot until Christ knows when while a bunch of civilian assholes in Washington preened for the voters.

[RogueIce]

"Those boys went in there to get rid of a dictatorship and now Bush is imposing his own dictatorship on them."

Curse the lack of an edit button. Ah well.

The military is a dictatorship for all intents and purposes. Just because they defend a democracry doesn't mean they get to live in one either. Not to say all rights are taken away, but they don't have the same ones as a civilian either (otherwise troops could just refuse to follow orders and get away with it).

[Alyrium Denryle]

I concur with your mother.

[Xenophobe3691]

Wait, don't they volunteer to join the Armed Forces?!?

[jegs2]

OK, this just pisses me off. I KNOW intellectually that these guys are soldiers and that they need to be disciplined and it is actually illegal for them under the Laws of Military Justice to say bad things about civilian authorities but JESUS.

Bush tells these terrorist fuckers to "Bring it on." from nice coozy Washington. Soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and now as if morale wasn't shitty enough THIS happens. I told my mom this over the phone and she said soemthing that made me stop and think.

"Those boys went in there to get rid of a dictatorship and now Bush is imposing his own dictatorship on them."

Thoughts??

Can definitely see why that would piss you off, but the military is not a democracy -- it is a dictatorship. We follow orders, or we pay the penalty for not following them, and among those orders are that we cannot show disrespect to senior officers. President Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, which places him at the top of the US military chain of command. I can dislike what he does all I want, but I am not free to state my opinion on his decisions, orders and policies to the degree I want. When Bill Clinton was President, there was a great deal of tongue-biting as well, and some got in trouble for speaking their minds. Soldiers are all briefed on what they can and cannot say to reporters. Those briefs are as good as orders, and they break them at their peril...

[Sea Skimmer]

Wait, don't they volunteer to join the Armed Forces?!?

Yes, they voluntarily are giving up some rights.

[RogueIce]

I concur with your mother.

Well, she's right. The military is a dictatorship. But the thing is...they volunteer to join, and they know the rules. Ergo, they shouldn't be surprised when they get punished for breaking them.

[Stravo]

The paper yesterday reported that when the announcement was made that they would be staying in indefinately in Baghdad after being told that they would leave in September, entire groups were put on suicide watch.

Even with my natural skepticism of what the media reports regarding military matters - I suspect that there are some SERIOUS morale issues over there.

[jegs2]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the set of laws that governs uniformed members of all US military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard). Here is a link to the UCMJ.

[Perinquus]

I think it was well put by John Paul Jones, one of the fathers of the U.S. Navy (and this can apply to all the armed services):

The Navy is essentially and necessarily aristocratic. True as may be the political principles for which we now contend, they can never be perfectly applied or even admitted onboard ship, out of port or off soundings. This may seem a hardship, but it is nevertheless the simplest of truths. Whilst the ships sent forth by Congress may and must fight for the principles of human rights and republican freedom, the ships themselves must be ruled and commanded at sea under a system of absolute despotism.

The rules are different for military personnel. When you put on that uniform, you voluntarily place yourself under certain severe restrictions on your freedoms and your conduct. That's just the way it is - the way it has to be. Anyone who cannot live with that should think three times before they swear that oath.

[Xenophobe3691]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the set of laws that governs uniformed members of all US military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard). Here is a link to the UCMJ.

Thank You

[kojikun]

Its like any job really. i think the REAL question should be, is this a good rule to have in the UCMJ or not? I say no, because criticism among the troops is a good way to know whether the troops are going to continue being willing or not, or to what degree, or whether theyd now hesitate because their being there is useless, etc etc etc.

[Stravo]

I think it was well put by John Paul Jones, one of the fathers of the U.S. Navy (and this can apply to all the armed services):

The Navy is essentially and necessarily aristocratic. True as may be the political principles for which we now contend, they can never be perfectly applied or even admitted onboard ship, out of port or off soundings. This may seem a hardship, but it is nevertheless the simplest of truths. Whilst the ships sent forth by Congress may and must fight for the principles of human rights and republican freedom, the ships themselves must be ruled and commanded at sea under a system of absolute despotism.

The rules are different for military personnel. When you put on that uniform, you voluntarily place yourself under certain severe restrictions on your freedoms and your conduct. That's just the way it is - the way it has to be. Anyone who cannot live with that should think three times before they swear that oath.

I know, I agree and understand why it has to be that way, but I am very concerned about the morale problem over there. This could reach Vietnam levels with fraggings and the like. Its one thing to ask these fine young men and women to go fight a war, quiet another to ask them to walk through the streets of Baghdad and take a bullet from a sniper pr have a car bomb go off as they stand to buy a soda.

That's not war, its not what they were trained for and they have been in country for quite a long time, what puzzles me is why are they not relieved?

[Perinquus]

I know, I agree and understand why it has to be that way, but I am very concerned about the morale problem over there. This could reach Vietnam levels with fraggings and the like. Its one thing to ask these fine young men and women to go fight a war, quiet another to ask them to walk through the streets of Baghdad and take a bullet from a sniper pr have a car bomb go off as they stand to buy a soda.

That's not war, its not what they were trained for and they have been in country for quite a long time, what puzzles me is why are they not relieved?

Actually they have trained for it. Not to the same extent that they practice warfighting skills, but they do train for it. I know because I was an infantry squad leader, and I went through the training. The army is faced with a changing mission in the modern world. There will still be conventional warfighting missions, but more and more in the post-Cold War world, the military will be used for "peacekeeping" operations, and it is being trained to handle this sort of mission. Career soldiers are not especially happy with this, but that's life.

[Knife]

Its like any job really. i think the REAL question should be, is this a good rule to have in the UCMJ or not? I say no, because criticism among the troops is a good way to know whether the troops are going to continue being willing or not, or to what degree, or whether theyd now hesitate because their being there is useless, etc etc etc.

Any commander knows the level of moral in his/her unit. And if he doesn't, all he has to do is ask the nearest Private. All units need disipline and keeping you trap shut is a good form of it and is usfull in many a situation. You can not go around subverting the chain of command and POTUS and SECDEF happen to be on top of that chain.

[Knife]

I know, I agree and understand why it has to be that way, but I am very concerned about the morale problem over there. This could reach Vietnam levels with fraggings and the like. Its one thing to ask these fine young men and women to go fight a war, quiet another to ask them to walk through the streets of Baghdad and take a bullet from a sniper pr have a car bomb go off as they stand to buy a soda.

That's not war, its not what they were trained for and they have been in country for quite a long time, what puzzles me is why are they not relieved?

If the commanders would take a harder stance against the populace of Iraq, the boys and girls over there would snap up into shape in no time. I think its the frustration of having to go out in the streets with restrictive ROE's and all the bueracracy that goes behind them while the other side has free fire zones.

[Gil Hamilton]

While I can certainly understand their frustration and sympathize, they still broke the rules they swore to.

[BoredShirtless]

I know, I agree and understand why it has to be that way, but I am very concerned about the morale problem over there. This could reach Vietnam levels with fraggings and the like. Its one thing to ask these fine young men and women to go fight a war, quiet another to ask them to walk through the streets of Baghdad and take a bullet from a sniper pr have a car bomb go off as they stand to buy a soda.

That's not war, its not what they were trained for and they have been in country for quite a long time, what puzzles me is why are they not relieved?

If the commanders would take a harder stance against the populace of Iraq, the boys and girls over there would snap up into shape in no time. I think its the frustration of having to go out in the streets with restrictive ROE's and all the bueracracy that goes behind them while the other side has free fire zones.

In what way are the ROE's restrictive?

[Edi]

In what way are the ROE's restrictive?

They basically can't fire upon hostiles unless fired upon first or unless there is an imminent, clear and present danger to their safety, I would imagine. This automatically gives the initiative to the guerillas, and in effect guarantees that by the time the troops open fire on confirmed hostiles, one or more of them have already died. That sort of thing tends to send morale into freefall.

As for the rules, yes, they are there for a reason. The grunts can and will complain in the trenches and use harsh words, but you don't take it outside and undermine the chain of command.

This isn't to say, of course, that the criticisms aren't warranted, and Bush and Rumsfeld should certainly be concerned about the way the situation is turning out in Iraq. At the current rate it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better, and this was the assessment of a Finnish embassy worker who's lived in Baghdad for the past 50 years, since before Saddam's time. She had little good to say about the way the Americans have handled the occupation and building a civilian administration, and if something significant isn't done soon, the resistance will just grow stronger.

Edi

[Vympel]

[soviet]In order to deal with such treasonous behavior against the motherland, the Pentagon should recruit zampolits for each platoon. That will sort out the wheat from the chaff.[/soviet]

I read this article too- it's actually a combination of some previous articles I read- an Army Sgt (or maybe a Pvt ... anyway) spoke of how the 'bring it on' comment spread among the troops like "wildfire". It wasn't popular at all. Bet Comical Ari wishes he quit a few days earlier after that one.

[Perinquus]

This isn't to say, of course, that the criticisms aren't warranted, and Bush and Rumsfeld should certainly be concerned about the way the situation is turning out in Iraq. At the current rate it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better, and this was the assessment of a Finnish embassy worker who's lived in Baghdad for the past 50 years, since before Saddam's time. She had little good to say about the way the Americans have handled the occupation and building a civilian administration, and if something significant isn't done soon, the resistance will just grow stronger.

Edi

That's one perspective. Here's another:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... ts/774.htm

Some alient points from the article:

Yet another fact is that all 67 of Iraq's cities and 85 percent of the smaller towns now have fully functioning municipalities. Several ministries, including that of health and education, have also managed to get parts of their operations going again. The petroleum industry, too, is being revived with plans to produce up to 2.8 million barrels of crude oil a day before the year is out.

To be sure, life in Iraq today is no bed of roses. But don't forget that this is an immediate post-war situation. There is no famine - in fact, the bazaars are more replenished with food than ever since the late 1970s - while food prices, having jumped in the first weeks after liberation, are now lower than they were in the last years of Saddam's rule.

MOST hospitals are functioning again with essential medical supplies trickling in for the first time since 1999. Also, some 85 percent of primary and secondary schools and all but two of the nation's universities have reopened with a full turnout of pupils and teachers.

The difference is that there no longer are any mukahebrat (secret police) agents roaming the campuses and sitting at the back of classrooms to make sure lecturers and students do not discuss forbidden topics. Nor are the students required to start every day with a solemn oath of allegiance to the dictator.

There has been no mass exodus anywhere in Iraq. On the contrary, many Iraqis, driven out of their homes by Saddam, are returning to their towns and villages.

-------------------------------------------

FOR the first time in almost 50 years there are also no political prisoners, no executions, no torture and no limit on freedom of expression. Iraq today is the only Muslim country where all shades of opinion - from the extremist Islamists of the Hezbollah to Stalinists, and passing by liberals, socialists, Arab nationalists and moderate Islamists - have full freedom to compete in an open market of ideas. Better still, all are now represented in the newly created Governing Assembly (Majlis al-Hukum). Iraq is also the only Muslim country where more than 100 newspapers and weeklies, representing all shades of opinion, appear without a police permit and are subjected to no censorship.

-------------------------------------------

THERE are two Iraqs today: One as portrayed by those in America and Europe who wish to use it as a means of damaging Bush and Blair, and the other as it really exists, home to 24 million people with many hopes and aspirations and, naturally, some anxiety about the future.

"After we have aired our grievances we remember the essential point: Saddam is gone," says Mohsen Saleh, a geologist in Baghdad. "A man who is cured of cancer does not complain about a common cold."

There are certainly some serious problems to be overcome in Iraq, and I hope the U.S. and U.K forces don't botch the job. But I am skeptical of the "sky is falling" reports of doom and gloom we have been getting in the media.

[Sea Skimmer]

[quote="Vympel"][soviet]In order to deal with such treasonous behavior against the motherland, the Pentagon should recruit zampolits for each platoon. That will sort out the wheat from the chaff.[/soviet]


Fool, with current technology and Americans resources the Soviets would install a brainwave scanner in every helmet to monitor for dissident. A small shaped charge could be remotely employed to neutralize counter revolutionary thought centers.

And they'd just love Land warrior, so easy to tell who dares retreat...

[Edi]

There are certainly some serious problems to be overcome in Iraq, and I hope the U.S. and U.K forces don't botch the job. But I am skeptical of the "sky is falling" reports of doom and gloom we have been getting in the media.

I don't know how it is outside Baghdad, but in a TV interview in the evening news yesterday, the lady said that in Baghdad there is more fear, more looting and more crime than there was before, more rapes and murders, and that people are being fed up with the occupation because there is no safety. Prewar number of cops was around 40,000, now it's just a fraction of that and those are unarmed while weapons are very plentiful in civilian hands (as they always have been). This makes it something of a joke, and no surprise people are fed up. The population of Baghdad is around 5 million, so it's a significant chunk of the population, over 20%. Everything is not doom and gloom, but quite a bit is seriously more fucked up than it should be because the Bush Administration went in without adequate planning for post-war operations and rebuilding.

Edi