4
4
0
In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6I0khEd7s), an Army War College professor and Army Retiree discusses the Army Profession. His discussion is wonderful for gaining a better understanding of how we can call ourselves "Military Professionals" (it is applicable outside the Army, of course), and by what means we can maintain the profession.
I recommend watching the video, but this post is about a specific line in his presentation. He says the Army cannot say "We don't do windows." The metaphor means that the job of the U.S. Army (and the entire DOD by extension) is to do what the People ask of it within the bounds of the law.
In the early years of the GWOT, we had thoughtful discussions (and some not so thoughtful) about what roles the U.S. Military should be fulfilling in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. Why were we doing civil reconstruction; that should have been the State Department's job! We should not be instructing Iraqi and Afghan police forces; warfare is our business, not the police's! Why should we work with local governments; shouldn't that belong to diplomats?
What do you believe should be the bounds of acceptable use of military resources? Even at home, should we have a role in disaster relief (DSCA) or law enforcement (e.g. Little Rock racial integration in schools)? Abroad, should U.S. Military resources be used to stabilize a country, provide humanitarian assistance or relief, enforce or keep the peace? Do we "do windows," whatever those windows happen to be?
I recommend watching the video, but this post is about a specific line in his presentation. He says the Army cannot say "We don't do windows." The metaphor means that the job of the U.S. Army (and the entire DOD by extension) is to do what the People ask of it within the bounds of the law.
In the early years of the GWOT, we had thoughtful discussions (and some not so thoughtful) about what roles the U.S. Military should be fulfilling in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. Why were we doing civil reconstruction; that should have been the State Department's job! We should not be instructing Iraqi and Afghan police forces; warfare is our business, not the police's! Why should we work with local governments; shouldn't that belong to diplomats?
What do you believe should be the bounds of acceptable use of military resources? Even at home, should we have a role in disaster relief (DSCA) or law enforcement (e.g. Little Rock racial integration in schools)? Abroad, should U.S. Military resources be used to stabilize a country, provide humanitarian assistance or relief, enforce or keep the peace? Do we "do windows," whatever those windows happen to be?
Intermediate Level Education (ILE)
Army
Navy
Air Force
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
0
0
0
LTC (Join to see)
All of the above minus law-enforcement duties. Unless of course it's National Guard troops on state orders.
All of the above minus law-enforcement duties. Unless of course it's National Guard troops on state orders.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
We serve the country in any way required. It is not up to us to decide which orders we wish to obey.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Well, that isn't entirely true. Our senior leaders give advice and make recommendations to the President. That is not to say that if POTUS says "Do humanitarian aid" that the Services or DOD can refuse, but they certainly are not barred from dissenting.
In another sense, commissioned officers certainly can decide which orders can be lawfully disobeyed, but there is no need to beat that horse any more.
In another sense, commissioned officers certainly can decide which orders can be lawfully disobeyed, but there is no need to beat that horse any more.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
LTC (Join to see), sir, the ranks of senior leaders purged by this administration for dissent are considerable. And an officer (or enlisted member) that refuses to obey an illegal order has bet all of their chips on that move - they had better be right.
and even then it is touch-and-go. CWO Hugh Thompson was in the right but paid the price anyway.
and even then it is touch-and-go. CWO Hugh Thompson was in the right but paid the price anyway.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
While it would be nice if we could say "We do not do windows" and yes, windows should be a State Dept function, they do not do it, at least at the level that was required in Iraq. The military at the higher levels did not really plan for it, assuming that State would. But when State does not follow through, windows start to get broken, and then things become a DoD responsibility again.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google