Posted on Nov 1, 2018
Advice For US Troops Sent To The Mexican Border In An Age Of Terrible Leaders
1.77K
32
33
2
2
0
Leadership
Leadership Development
Homeland Security
Government
Donald Trump
Responses: 7
6
6
0
This opinion piece is garbage, plain and simple, in my not so humble opinion. Political correctness be damned.
Before I get started on my commentary of this particular opinion piece can someone explain to me why this individual retired with less than one (1) year time in grade as an O-6? I find it extremely difficult to believe that he retired at that point to pursue a career as a high school/secondary school teacher. And yes I know what AR 600-8-29 states in the accepting promotion paragraph.
Now on to the commentary.
I do not agree with Mr. Yingling’s assessment that we live in an age of ‘terrible leaders’ or ‘morally compromised leadership. The individuals, or should I say “class of people” that Mr. Yingling is referring to are managers (not only in my opinion, but many others too) and not leaders. And then are those individuals or their institution “morally compromised” or are they “morally corrupt?”
Mr. Yingling then goes on to state, “There is no legitimate military purpose for this operation.” That is an interesting statement coming from a well-educated US Army retired officer. I do believe that the referenced operation does fall within the parameters as defined by Section 3062 of Title 10, U.S. Code that the purpose of the Army is: Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States. So my question how is it not for a legitimate military purpose? He does not explain in the rest of the piece how it is not for a legitimate military purpose.
And then the last piece of the executive summary (to me at least) is an unreasonable analysis of the situation, especially considering the stated objectives of a number of these ‘migrants.’ They are in fact trying to flout international law in regards to refugees and asylum seekers. Bottom line – these people voluntarily chose to abandon their place of abode as opposed to being forced from their place of abode; that is the difference between a migrant (immigrant/emigrant) and a refugee with the intent to seek asylum.
And then the advice given for ‘junior leaders,’ is reprehensible.
Item number one (1) makes no sense at all. Item number two (2) is accurate as far as it goes, however what would the unlawful orders be? Which he tries to define further down the list, but fails.
Item number three (3), what is the bait and switch? He does not define what the purposes not authorized by U.S. law is. He does not state how surveillance of civilians (which I interpret as alien civilians) is not authorized in a situation such as this, and how detaining those same individuals is in violation of both U.S. and international law. Nor how this is not a legitimate security concern.
Item number four (4) is ridiculous on the surface with the insinuation that the commanders are going to issue an order (even verbally) such as what he states. Item number five (5) is follow on of number four (4), with stating to document the “commander’s intent.” Which on the surface is good advice, but the application of which appears to be out of line.
Item number six (6) is advice that will put you in a morally hazardous position as a junior officer or as an enlisted individual. It is interesting that he talks about advocating for COIN as being “walking the tightrope,” when it has no bearing on this type of operation, but as an example of him conducting his own CYA operation.
And in item number seven (7) he is correct, but fails to answer what the real untenable choice is if you do everything right and what the actual criminal behavior is. Because his advice both on the surface and below advocates for criminal behavior.
Before I get started on my commentary of this particular opinion piece can someone explain to me why this individual retired with less than one (1) year time in grade as an O-6? I find it extremely difficult to believe that he retired at that point to pursue a career as a high school/secondary school teacher. And yes I know what AR 600-8-29 states in the accepting promotion paragraph.
Now on to the commentary.
I do not agree with Mr. Yingling’s assessment that we live in an age of ‘terrible leaders’ or ‘morally compromised leadership. The individuals, or should I say “class of people” that Mr. Yingling is referring to are managers (not only in my opinion, but many others too) and not leaders. And then are those individuals or their institution “morally compromised” or are they “morally corrupt?”
Mr. Yingling then goes on to state, “There is no legitimate military purpose for this operation.” That is an interesting statement coming from a well-educated US Army retired officer. I do believe that the referenced operation does fall within the parameters as defined by Section 3062 of Title 10, U.S. Code that the purpose of the Army is: Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States. So my question how is it not for a legitimate military purpose? He does not explain in the rest of the piece how it is not for a legitimate military purpose.
And then the last piece of the executive summary (to me at least) is an unreasonable analysis of the situation, especially considering the stated objectives of a number of these ‘migrants.’ They are in fact trying to flout international law in regards to refugees and asylum seekers. Bottom line – these people voluntarily chose to abandon their place of abode as opposed to being forced from their place of abode; that is the difference between a migrant (immigrant/emigrant) and a refugee with the intent to seek asylum.
And then the advice given for ‘junior leaders,’ is reprehensible.
Item number one (1) makes no sense at all. Item number two (2) is accurate as far as it goes, however what would the unlawful orders be? Which he tries to define further down the list, but fails.
Item number three (3), what is the bait and switch? He does not define what the purposes not authorized by U.S. law is. He does not state how surveillance of civilians (which I interpret as alien civilians) is not authorized in a situation such as this, and how detaining those same individuals is in violation of both U.S. and international law. Nor how this is not a legitimate security concern.
Item number four (4) is ridiculous on the surface with the insinuation that the commanders are going to issue an order (even verbally) such as what he states. Item number five (5) is follow on of number four (4), with stating to document the “commander’s intent.” Which on the surface is good advice, but the application of which appears to be out of line.
Item number six (6) is advice that will put you in a morally hazardous position as a junior officer or as an enlisted individual. It is interesting that he talks about advocating for COIN as being “walking the tightrope,” when it has no bearing on this type of operation, but as an example of him conducting his own CYA operation.
And in item number seven (7) he is correct, but fails to answer what the real untenable choice is if you do everything right and what the actual criminal behavior is. Because his advice both on the surface and below advocates for criminal behavior.
(6)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
An awesome review and you are right you have to be 3 years time in grade to hit your rank unless you hit mandatory retirement like if you was promoted at 59 and hit rank his mandatory retirement and that's possible. Aside from that, I was talking to my cousin who used to be a a diplomat in the Honduran government. I won't say what he did or where he was posted so I can protect his anonymity but here is what he told me last night about this Caravan. It's on WhatsApp so I had to Photoshop it since it wouldn't let me cut and paste
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Mano peluda means in analogy in Spanish of various conspirators and the russos means Russians.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Horribly written and presumptive opinion piece. I have no idea how long Yingling spent in the military but he demonstrates a lack of knowledge in military crisis operations.
1. His characterization of Gen Mattis is all opinionated crap based on his opinion of Trump's decisions. Those same DoD facilities were also used by the Obama Admin for the same thing.
2. He failed to even speculate what unlawful orders he expects our troops going to the border will even receive.
3. DoD support to civil authorities is very much a lawful and historically used capability. This is not the first time we have assisted DHS, nor is it the last, nor is it the only thing going on now. I know for a fact how much effort and resources are applied to ensure that we do not break the law when we do these things.
4. All orders for our military will be spelled out specifically on what they can or cannot do. Again, Yingling is assuming the military is being ordered to do something without any evidence this is the intention or within the current orders.
5. It already will be in writing.
6. I would agree that they should know the press, but for different reasons. Know that the press is looking for the military to screw up so that they can sensationalize this issue even more. But to tell me they are careful to get their facts straight is complete BS. They only need to report part of the truth to get away with pushing the perspective they want the viewers to see.
7. See the above. Yingling is obviously a hack.
1. His characterization of Gen Mattis is all opinionated crap based on his opinion of Trump's decisions. Those same DoD facilities were also used by the Obama Admin for the same thing.
2. He failed to even speculate what unlawful orders he expects our troops going to the border will even receive.
3. DoD support to civil authorities is very much a lawful and historically used capability. This is not the first time we have assisted DHS, nor is it the last, nor is it the only thing going on now. I know for a fact how much effort and resources are applied to ensure that we do not break the law when we do these things.
4. All orders for our military will be spelled out specifically on what they can or cannot do. Again, Yingling is assuming the military is being ordered to do something without any evidence this is the intention or within the current orders.
5. It already will be in writing.
6. I would agree that they should know the press, but for different reasons. Know that the press is looking for the military to screw up so that they can sensationalize this issue even more. But to tell me they are careful to get their facts straight is complete BS. They only need to report part of the truth to get away with pushing the perspective they want the viewers to see.
7. See the above. Yingling is obviously a hack.
(4)
(0)
Brad Powers
I am grateful for the U.S
Military and would like to say thank you men and women for being there in times such as these.
I know there is a lot of innocent people but it seems to me they even put up to this and I think there's more to the picture than meets the eye. Also I would like to say I think the American civilians should be down there in large numbers right now to show them in a civil way how much our country means to us. For all i know this is a decoy and something Could Happen somewhere else.
Military and would like to say thank you men and women for being there in times such as these.
I know there is a lot of innocent people but it seems to me they even put up to this and I think there's more to the picture than meets the eye. Also I would like to say I think the American civilians should be down there in large numbers right now to show them in a civil way how much our country means to us. For all i know this is a decoy and something Could Happen somewhere else.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
Mr. Sweeney -
OK,, the two facilities are Fort Bliss and Goodfellow AFB. You're incensed because Goodfellow AFB was not used in the past or recent past? Because Fort Bliss was used to the tune of 7,259 aliens between September, 2016-February, 2017; pretty sure that most of that time and the request was during the Obama administration. But let us not stop there and add Lackland Air Force Base, TX, April-June, 2012, 800 aliens; Lackland Air Force Base, TX May-August, 2014, 4,357 aliens; Naval Base Ventura County, CA, May-August, 2014, 1,540 aliens; Fort Sill, OK, May-August, 2014, 1,861 aliens; and Holloman Air Force Base, NM, January-February, 2016, 129 aliens. Wasn't the Obama administration in charge from 20 January 2009 to 20 January 2017?
This one really doesn't warrant a response since both you and Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin are wrong/incorrect. (Take your pick.) (Speculation comment.)
Actually the Colonel (LTC(R)) did make such a comment and allusion to just such a thing. This is what he stated:
"As public and media attention fade, flag officers will pressure mid-level commanders to:
*Use or transfer DoD resources to other agencies for purposes not authorized by U.S. law
*Conduct and support surveillance of civilians not authorized by U.S. law
*Detain people and seize property in violation of both U.S. and international law
*Conceal information for political and public relations purposes unrelated to legitimate security concerns"
Each one of these assertations can be dispelled starting with US Army Field Manual 3-19.15 (nee FM 19-15) Civil Disturbance Operations. Going from there we can also reference (and this is where I plagiarize from Lawrence Kapp and Barbara S. Torreon): "Statutes that authorize the Department of Defense to provide support [to] other federal agencies include:
Section 1535 of Title 31 (the “Economy Act”), which authorizes an agency to place an order with another agency to obtain supplies or services from that agency.
Chapter 15 of Title 10, governing military support for civilian law enforcement agencies, and particularly 10 U.S.C. 272 which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to make DOD equipment and facilities available to federal, state and local law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes.
Additional information on how the Department of Defense implements these authorities is contained in the following publications:
*Department of Defense Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), December 29, 2010, Incorporating Change 2, Effective March 19, 2018.
*Department of Defense Instruction 3025.21, Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, February 27, 2013.
*Joint Publication (JP) 3-28, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, July 31, 2013.
*According to JP 3-28, “DOD provides support to other federal agencies in border security and in the event of a mass migration emergency. Historically, this law enforcement support is in the form of technical assistance, services, and facilities and only on a temporary basis”
Your last two points are actually one and the same and you are acting as if you're a "grammar Nazi." First of all the comment about the orders, etc. as being speculative (based on conjecture rather than knowledge) is a false premise on your part. As to your assertion (and other individuals assertions in this regard) that most if not all of the orders ARE NOT already written, lacks validity. OPLANS, OPORDER outlines, and ROE have been made and also updated over the years before and after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. To support my argument and assertion I will point you to Chapter 3 of FM 3-19.15 (FM 19-15) where the basic Rules of Engagement (ROE) are already laid out.
It also seems that you and others of your ilk want to forget or turn a blind eye toward the lessons learned in 1980 at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.
Mr. Sweeney. is there no end to your willful ignorance and foolishness?
OK,, the two facilities are Fort Bliss and Goodfellow AFB. You're incensed because Goodfellow AFB was not used in the past or recent past? Because Fort Bliss was used to the tune of 7,259 aliens between September, 2016-February, 2017; pretty sure that most of that time and the request was during the Obama administration. But let us not stop there and add Lackland Air Force Base, TX, April-June, 2012, 800 aliens; Lackland Air Force Base, TX May-August, 2014, 4,357 aliens; Naval Base Ventura County, CA, May-August, 2014, 1,540 aliens; Fort Sill, OK, May-August, 2014, 1,861 aliens; and Holloman Air Force Base, NM, January-February, 2016, 129 aliens. Wasn't the Obama administration in charge from 20 January 2009 to 20 January 2017?
This one really doesn't warrant a response since both you and Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin are wrong/incorrect. (Take your pick.) (Speculation comment.)
Actually the Colonel (LTC(R)) did make such a comment and allusion to just such a thing. This is what he stated:
"As public and media attention fade, flag officers will pressure mid-level commanders to:
*Use or transfer DoD resources to other agencies for purposes not authorized by U.S. law
*Conduct and support surveillance of civilians not authorized by U.S. law
*Detain people and seize property in violation of both U.S. and international law
*Conceal information for political and public relations purposes unrelated to legitimate security concerns"
Each one of these assertations can be dispelled starting with US Army Field Manual 3-19.15 (nee FM 19-15) Civil Disturbance Operations. Going from there we can also reference (and this is where I plagiarize from Lawrence Kapp and Barbara S. Torreon): "Statutes that authorize the Department of Defense to provide support [to] other federal agencies include:
Section 1535 of Title 31 (the “Economy Act”), which authorizes an agency to place an order with another agency to obtain supplies or services from that agency.
Chapter 15 of Title 10, governing military support for civilian law enforcement agencies, and particularly 10 U.S.C. 272 which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to make DOD equipment and facilities available to federal, state and local law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes.
Additional information on how the Department of Defense implements these authorities is contained in the following publications:
*Department of Defense Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), December 29, 2010, Incorporating Change 2, Effective March 19, 2018.
*Department of Defense Instruction 3025.21, Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, February 27, 2013.
*Joint Publication (JP) 3-28, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, July 31, 2013.
*According to JP 3-28, “DOD provides support to other federal agencies in border security and in the event of a mass migration emergency. Historically, this law enforcement support is in the form of technical assistance, services, and facilities and only on a temporary basis”
Your last two points are actually one and the same and you are acting as if you're a "grammar Nazi." First of all the comment about the orders, etc. as being speculative (based on conjecture rather than knowledge) is a false premise on your part. As to your assertion (and other individuals assertions in this regard) that most if not all of the orders ARE NOT already written, lacks validity. OPLANS, OPORDER outlines, and ROE have been made and also updated over the years before and after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. To support my argument and assertion I will point you to Chapter 3 of FM 3-19.15 (FM 19-15) where the basic Rules of Engagement (ROE) are already laid out.
It also seems that you and others of your ilk want to forget or turn a blind eye toward the lessons learned in 1980 at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.
Mr. Sweeney. is there no end to your willful ignorance and foolishness?
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Has Task and Purpose been co-opted? No threat? Just poor, hungry migrants? Are you kidding me?
(4)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SSG Robert Webster There you go assuming you know me and have a right to mock any personal or professional experiences i have. As I've said, I’ve been on the receiving end and did not have the advantage of PPE. And when having PPE designed to handle certain violent scenarios would allow me more options as to how I would handle someone holding or throwing a rock. As far as judging me for not having official riot or civil disturbance but I had the basic ROE, RUF, and EOF training for deployed soldiers so we can handle civilian issues, civilian disturbances, or other unpredictable situations in deployed environments. Cause some of us had to deal with foreign nationals throwing objects at us and never once felt the need to treat those objects (rocks, bottles, cans for example) as a weapon requiring us to return fire. So spare me your false equivalence of what you think I’ve experienced.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SSG Robert Webster You mean have I watched coverage from BBC and Telemundo which I can only watch the video since I don’t know Spanish. Yea I have. Now I’ve answered your question even though this all started with your assertion I can’t interpret the words that come out of Trump’s mouth so I must need analysis from others. Just stop.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
MAJ James Woods - And you are full of yourself, especially with trying to diss my personal and military experience in the matter; which is interesting since you completely dismissed a large chunk of what I stated. And as far as your part about viewing the coverage, apparently I have viewed considerably more which does not require Trumps interpretation since I can interpret it myself or with the assistance of my wife or family, I definitely have an edge on that particular subject area. And you may want to expand your horizons even though you do not know Spanish Telemundo is a part of Comcast/NBCUniversal and is a US network, Univision is its own company but is a US Network also. I concentrate on ones that are not US owned to get better coverage, plus I go outside the boob-tube box and expand to networks such as TVN based in Panama and Teletica in Costa Rica, since that is where I have family. Secondly, not only do I source what is immediately available in the Spanish language market, I also have an advantage of either having family and close friends (Hispanic and American) in Central America. In that area about watching coverage, I suggest that you find a Hispanic friend to faithfully translate for you.
And forget about that shit from Trump, which has nothing to do with understanding what some of the individuals that are in the 'caravan' that were interviewed stated during their interviews. In that regard I would also suggest that you check on the Intelligence Briefing between NORTHCOM and DHS components CBP and USCIS; it might enlighten you. Though considering your statement about Trump, I do not believe that you would agree with their actual assessment just like others with TDS.
And forget about that shit from Trump, which has nothing to do with understanding what some of the individuals that are in the 'caravan' that were interviewed stated during their interviews. In that regard I would also suggest that you check on the Intelligence Briefing between NORTHCOM and DHS components CBP and USCIS; it might enlighten you. Though considering your statement about Trump, I do not believe that you would agree with their actual assessment just like others with TDS.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SSG Robert Webster You are so Trumpian. First you attack my background and experience and now accuse me of being the first one to attack your credibility. Fo me a favor, don’t go away mad...just go away.
(0)
(1)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google