Unenforceable Order

There are regulations about military members attending or participating in political rallies, demonstrations, etc. while wearing the uniform. The idea is that the US Military (and its members) should never show a public bias to one political candidate or party. That does not mean you cannot be political while in the military or shouldn’t vote; you just can’t do it while in uniform. One could argue those regulations need to be updated in reference to social media profiles, but that is a discussion for another day.

In general, this wasn’t much of an issue for the longest time. In all my years in uniform, I cannot recall a single servicemember I knew personally that violated this regulation. I know there were guilty folks in other places and other bases because when it happened it was pretty significant news across the military, but those cases were very rare.

There were also some historic customs about discussing politics while on duty. Generally, you didn’t do it, especially as a leader. The intent was to ensure there was loyalty to whoever was the Commander in Chief at the time, but also to not foster an environment where someone felt their political views could be held against them. Did we talk about the impact on defense spending depending on the administration? Yep. Did we fill down time by talking about personal views on the 2nd Amendment, abortion, and religious freedoms? Sure did. Were servicemembers vocal when the Commander in Chief (President Clinton) had an extramarital affair which is against the military justice code and not held accountable for his actions? You bet they were, but that wasn’t about his political party. Did anyone every ask who you voted for? Not to me or around me. Did anyone ever get attacked because of their political leanings? Not in my personal experience.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m saying it didn’t happen around me and it wasn’t widespread across the military in my experience.

We are starting to see evidence of it, though. The Space Force Commander in Greenland was relieved for undermining the Vice President. The garrison Commander at Fort McCoy was suspended for refusing to put pictures of President Trump (and others) on the chain of command board as is customary in EVERY military organization. There was public pushback against COVID vaccinations by servicemembers. There has been blatant support both FOR and AGAINST diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts across the military by uniformed service members. And who can forget Marine Lieutenant Colonel Stu Scheller very publicly demanding accountability for the failed Afghanistan withdrawal? That cost him his career.

These were all publicized as violations of “good order and discipline” and not political moves. In some ways, that is absolutely true. It is difficult to expect obedience and good order and discipline when you don’t abide by it as a leader and set the example yourself. But these were also driven by politics on both sides.

While I support freedom of speech, I also support an apolitical military. Really. I think our military needs to show loyalty to the Republic and to the chain of command, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. They should follow orders that are legal, moral, and ethical in their issuance regardless of personal feelings or political beliefs.

And if a servicemember feels that strongly about something… it is an all-volunteer force, and you can leave. If you are an officer, you can resign. If you are under an enlistment contract, you can wait it out and not reenlist. No one is forcing you to stay.

That being said, Secretary Hegseth is publicly campaigning for a meritocracy in the military. Promotions and assignments will be based solely off performance and not on race, gender, creed, religion, etc. Do well, get rewarded. That’s what he is saying. That’s what he says is best for the military.

Here’s the problem:

The uniformed leadership of the military is inherently political by its OWN PROCESS. What do I mean by that? Every single flag officer (Generals and Admirals) is confirmed by Congress. I’ll just refer to them as GO/FO from here on out. Sometimes that means the GO/FOs are confirmed individually and require testimony in front of committees depending on their rank or job, OR it means their name was on a larger list that has to be approved by Congress.

Make no mistake, this is a political process. There have been individuals that have been approved (or not) by Congress because of their relationships with specific politicians. There have been whole lists of GO/FOs that have been delayed for approval because one member of Congress does not want to approve ONE name on that large list. Senator Tuberville actually held ALL promotions for GO/FOs for months because of a DoD policy related to abortion. Tell me the process ISN’T political.

So, while we have a military that is supposed to be apolitical, our leadership is determined by …. politics. Every single GO/FO in the military has been approved through a political process. The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, every single service chief, every four-star. All of them.

And if you pause for a minute and think about it, the politicization of those leaders begins BEFORE they are GO/FOs because that’s how early the process begins. Of course, these wannabe flag officers aren’t blatantly campaigning for politicians while in uniform and violating regulations, but they ARE certainly forging relationships with politicians that both benefit the servicemember AND the member of Congress well before the day comes when they are nominated for their first star.

In fact, some of the services (cough, cough, Air Force, cough, cough) have figured out the system well enough they push their young officers to spend time in the Pentagon and start breeding their future Generals when they are Majors or even Captains.

I feel like I’ve written about this before, but it seems extremely relevant right now because SECDEF is publicly touting “meritocracy,” while politics actually rules the process.

Secretary Hegseth is actually the best hypocritical example. There is no merit in his ascension to SECDEF. None. His appointment is PURELY and blatantly political. Yet, he stands in front of the entire force and says, “your performance is what matters” and not who you know. Yeah, OK.

But I digress.

Yes, we would all LOVE it if the leadership of our military were ONLY the most qualified, most seasoned, smartest and most physically fit individuals who were also apolitical. Unfortunately, that’s not how the process works. We would LOVE the members of Congress to ONLY approve those types of individuals for GO/FO promotion, so we ONLY have the best leaders in the military. Unfortunately, that’s not how the process works.

You know, there is another edict in the military; never give an order you cannot or will not enforce. We still have those regulations on the books requiring our servicemembers remain apolitical in uniform.

So, here we are, standing at a crossroads of politics, policy, and performance while staring at an Unenforceable Order.