The U.S. Military Is Not Ready for a Constitutional Crisis

PO1 Tony Holland The title is not what the article is really about, it's critique of The POTUS. Ok, still something that needs to be discussed. His position that not once in 9 years did he receive training on the Constitution may be correct, with a reclama. Assuming he was a mid grade O3. That education (vice training) is done at JPME II at the JWC as a junior O4 in Norfolk or a resident SSC as an O6. I say education because training is what to think, education is how to think, which really gets after the essence of the going in position of the author. So while he is pondering constitutionality of what's going on, his seniors are actually the ones guarding the gates there.

JPME II issues a pocket sized copy of the constitution as the author suggests. They are expected to carry it. They are also tested on it.

I would further say that his commissioning source failed him. Apparently he never read the Armed Forces Officer originally written by SLA Marshall and updated tens of times. The constitutional responsibility of the Armed Forces Officer is discussed. I had to read this and discuss it in a group setting with a senior field grade that explained and filled in the blanks we couldn't from our lack of experience. Illegal orders are a focus. Ironically My Lai is usually one of the vignettes used to guide that discussion. The role of subordinate leaders to display moral courage and push back.

The author's My Lai examination should have brought him to Nixon's pardon of Calley. It was not done to absolve him, although it did just that, it was to make the thing go away. It was a constant reminder of Vietnam and he was closing that chapter on the eve of his second term. I think President Trump believes this Lorance case was similar in that he believes as Nixon did, that it was a symptom of a larger problem, putting that LT in that position To start with. He also plays to a part of his base that supports Lorance. I don't agree, just narrating the logic. I'm more concerned about the impact to rule of law and future battlefield conduct.

I'm sorry the Navy never covered the Law of Land Warfare with him. All soldiers receive this annually, including the Geneva Conventions we are and are not a part of, conducted by an Operational Law Specialist. It is also part of predeployment preparation and is coupled with ROE for the Theater, as these are all nested and layered. He bemoans this lapse in his preparation.

He hints at it in the article, but at the ILE/Command and Staff level education attended by junior Majors and Lieutenant Commanders and some fast burner Naval Lieutenants and Captains (O3s) you learn about the laws that govern the services like. title 10, title 32, title 14, etc which sets what services do and can not do.

I'd say the people who have it hardest here is not the rank and file officer, it's the SECDEF, Joint Chiefs trying to steer this thing along with service secretaries. They are running interference for those on the line.

Although the author goes on about how Republican administrations have ignored the Constitution, but I believe the ignoring that document and its amendments is on both sides of the coin, e.g., both the Republicans and the Democrats have done it. For example, the Democrats, in their efforts to accomplish draconian gun control, have most certainly infringed on that constitutional right. Both sides of the political spectrum ignore the constitution when its stipulations are inconvenient to their agendas. The courts, too, ignore the original meaning when activist judges legislate from the bench or interpret the Constitution in ways the Founders never dreamed of. I'm not surprised a lot of people know nothing of what the Constitution says or what it means, but now they usually know only what the press (mostly left-wing) and politicians tell them. It isn't taught in the schools anymore - when I was in high school (1960s) we were taught it in civics class. When I swore my military oath, I understood that I was swearing allegiance to the document, not to a government or an official. The Constitution is not perfect (nor is the government it created), but I'd rather be under it than any other in the world. As for the U.S. mililtary, I don't think it, as a whole, is ready for the changes that some of our politicians and intellectuals would like to see enacted and would defend the Constitution as it exists rather then to lose it or see it enforced as others would have it. While there may be those in the military who would obey unconstitutional orders, I like to think that most wouldn't, and that they would act in the cause of constitutional freedom.

It is one thing to complain, and quite another to see a problem on your watch like this Constitutional Post And just wait around for others to hopeful see it when intead you could Start writing letters , asking questions of your State and city officials, or even ask questions about it on your off duty time , to Even those who deal with the constitution daily or ones’ Commanders.You can not wait around for others to do something about your Thoughts here, you got to step up and get it done.