To what extent does one tolerate divisive rhetoric and dissension within the ranks?

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:42:23 -0500

I have already asked my NCOs to discuss the ramifications of divisive rhetoric and criticism of our incoming CiC. However, some Soldiers feel the need to rebel. When do comments become grounds for separation?

Response by SGT Damaso V Santana made Nov 26 at 2016 2:44 PM

SGT Damaso V Santana — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:44:40 -0500

They have been able to infiltrate Academia, from elementary all the way to Universities, what have they accomplished in our Armed forces?
We know about the purges, what about the force itself?

Response by SSG Jeremy Sharp made Nov 26 at 2016 2:51 PM

SSG Jeremy Sharp — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:51:32 -0500

When it begins to erode unit cohesiveness and have detrimental effect on mission readiness. If they rebel against orders of those above them in the chain of command, then refer for NJP or process chapter separation as appropriate.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2016 3:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 15:05:18 -0500

There should be no change in how these things are handled. If it was unacceptable under Obama it's unacceptable under Trump. If it would have been acceptable under Obama, it should be acceptable under Trump.

If you believe that excessive criticism or disrespect against one is better or worse than excessive criticism against or disrespect against the other, then you are the problem.

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 26 at 2016 4:02 PM

SFC George Smith — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 16:02:09 -0500

What is the Panic over the Trumpster... They should Be better off... and we Pray they will not be Hamstrung like they were under BHO...And they will not be sold out or Left behind as they were in Benghazi
and when all else remind them of UCMJ articles 88 and 92... we were reminded of them during Bill & Hillary Clinton's first ruling Regime...

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2016 5:24 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:24:43 -0500

That is why I don't talk politics on drill weekend.

Response by 1SG Mike Case made Nov 26 at 2016 7:07 PM

1SG Mike Case — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:07:10 -0500

Tell them to keep it to themselves. The workplace is not an internet chat room and they don't get to just say whatever they feel. If they do not like it, then ETS and seek employment elsewhere but the whole "rebel" is a no-go and that is what UCMJ is for.

Response by Col Rebecca Lorraine made Nov 26 at 2016 7:16 PM

Col Rebecca Lorraine — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:16:22 -0500

They don't have a right to a political stance as members of the Armed Forces. They are required to be professional. They are required to follow lawful orders. Period.

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Nov 26 at 2016 7:38 PM

1SG Al Brown — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:38:53 -0500

Well Chief, I'll bet you recognize insubordination when you hear it. Doesn't matter what political party. Stop it there. Step right on that neck with a quickness, and nobody loses their job for running their yap about the latest boss. I never met a CW2 that couldn't part the red sea when pissed. There you go, no fee for that answer.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Nov 26 at 2016 7:58 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:58:56 -0500

The sad fact is, this has risen to the point it is a service wide issue.
The army IG, and the service chiefs need to but some brain power on this and put out guidence. Examples of allowable and not allowable comments, actions and the like as well as setting limits on what actionable events are handled at the unit level and which ones will have UMCJ authority withheld to a more senior commander

Response by SN Greg Wright made Nov 26 at 2016 8:05 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 20:05:41 -0500

Are you talking about your Soldiers, or RP Posters?! *Runs!*

Response by SMSgt Terry Rider made Nov 26 at 2016 10:18 PM

SMSgt Terry Rider — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:18:16 -0500

Talk is one thing, actions are another. Nobody in the Armed Forces has anything to worry about yet. After 8-years of your current CIC and his apoligizing for everything you do & not rendering the proper salute coming off AF #1 and Marine #1; how much worse could it get. Relax, let the Pentagon brass work with him & he'll work with you.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2016 11:32 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 23:32:15 -0500

Chief:
1. I'd check with my legal advisor to get a review before I took any legal action on a "3rd Rail" issue like this.

2. I think most people are right that saying "knock it off" at work is the correct approach (I think the rule about avoiding politics and religion at work is smart); that being said, being "right" and being "legal" aren't always the same (and just because the UCMJ says something doesn't mean you can successfully pursue it).

3. Regardless of what you think you need to do, I reccomend you get a class for your unit focusing on what's appropriate and inappropriate political conversations at work. You don't have to give it, but if you are the commander, I think you should speak at it.

I'm sure for some of your Soldiers, this was their first election to vote in...they haven't worked through it before. For me (at 43), this is the most divisive election I can recall.

I'm an LNO with a sister-service right now, and have avoided some heated conversations in their workplace.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2016 11:21 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:21:47 -0500

I'm old school...even to this day. Young troops know if I give the (your not going to like the outcome) look, it's because at some point they have been trained to respect whether they like it or have been respected themselves. Criticism of a negative nature builds a strong back bone. Troops and civilians alike need to realize names only hurt if you allow yourself to so insecure that it rings true. Much less sticks and stone that can only hurt you if you don't know how to or care to dodge them and fight back. Constructive criticism is the most important. Example: "why are you crying, your better and stronger then this." Everyone needs to know what they're capable of. Being shushed for PC reasons has no place in the military or even life as far as I believe.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2016 11:28 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:28:26 -0500

4 words. Good order and discipline. Once those begin to erode you'll have problems.
The military isn't a chat room, or FB page. If young (actually) all Servicemembers can't, won't, or don't understand that they may want to relook emir career options.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2016 12:03 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Nov 2016 12:03:14 -0500

in the millitary we live by our oath, " to obey the orders of those appointed over us" period whether you like it or not, get out or stay in that's your option, but if you stay in and speak against the cic, then be prepared

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2016 8:35 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Nov 2016 20:35:51 -0500

I too admit to once being young and oh so foolish :)
All it took was my fellow platoon leader looking me in the eye and saying, "you know you could get court martialled for saying that right?" A tad embarrassing but I never made the same mistake again.

To answer your question CW2 Private RallyPoint Member it can become grounds for separation following documented counseling and documented proof of corrective training and documented evidence of failure to comply with corrective actions. Be sure your NCOs are all on the same sheet on this because the JAG defense lawyers are very good.

Failure to comply with orders and regulations can lead to actions such as letter of reprimand to article 15 to court martial (Art 92 [disobeying order or regulation] or Art 117 [provoking speech]).
For officers Article 88 of UCMJ is blatantly clear:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Army FM 27-1 covers soldiers rights to exercise political freedoms and this is a pretty decent article covering partisan and nonpartisan activities by Active-Duty Military
https://www.thebalance.com/military-folks-and-politics-3332818

What Can Military Members Do and Not Do in Politics

I receive a lot of questions about what military members are allowed and not allowed to do when it comes to politics. Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2016 7:14 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 07:14:01 -0500

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member, while I understand the question, I see very little acknowledgement that there is any step between, "asked my NCOs to discuss", and "separation." And while I agree with 1SG Chuck Kindstrand, he also doesn't mention the intermediate steps.

1st step: Informal verbal counselling. Paraphrasing what 1SG Mike Case said, the WORLD may well be an Internet Chatroom, but duty hours in the workplace is not.
2nd step: Written counselling statement. Collect three before the next step.
3rd step: Marked down on NCOER. (It takes three counselling statements to make a negative comment on an NCOER.)
4th step: Company grade Article-15 with reduction in rank, loss of pay, and/or extra duty.
5th step: Battalion grade Article-15.

If at this point, having done the due diligence above, it will be time to consider other options.

We can't really be considered leaders, if we cannot motivate our subordinates to better behavior. But beginning way back in step 1, we have to have a standard on what is insubordination, and what is, "my opinion rubs up against the loudmouth's opinion."

Response by Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns made Nov 29 at 2016 7:57 AM

Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 07:57:53 -0500

For me it has always been about a weekly thing where I would allow the clearing of the air but anytime before or after meant a my wrath. I also implored the 3 strike rule and after strike 3 you literally had to go. This worked for me but each of us needs to determine what will work for us.

Response by SFC David Davenport made Nov 29 at 2016 9:51 AM

SFC David Davenport — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:51:24 -0500

If you let standards slip in one area you are going to see them slip in others. Discipline requires an even hand across the board. People have a right to an opinion but how a Soldier expresses that opinion is covered by military regulations. At the end of the day you may have to make an example of someone.

Response by Claudio Alpaca made Nov 29 at 2016 9:59 AM

Claudio Alpaca — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:59:03 -0500

have different thougths or point of wiew is our patrimony but we may not have dissension by the lines and principes we follow and trust. We may, and that is usefull, have different manner to come to the same result, we may have different opinion but only on the measure that constitute our equality and patrimony. Also be a little rebel may be usefull if such our indipendence is put a service of corp and used for potentite our activity, for enrich our professionalism. Differently it may constitute an impairment of our force and our mission, may be a weakness on our activity. We my say we all are a little rebel and may discuss, but ever following the interest of the corp we are part, the valors we trust, ever acting for the common well and for enrich and growth on our life, improving our ability

Response by CPO David Sharp made Nov 29 at 2016 10:10 AM

CPO David Sharp — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:10:16 -0500

You're damn right. Look into the UCMJ. I served under Presidents Bill Clinton when Monica Lewinski stuff was around and we were told it is Court Martial Offense to joke about the issue. I enjoyed my Military time under Pres. George W. Bush and tolerated my time under Pres. Obama. They are the Commander In Chief, like it or not, as Military personnel you respect the position and Military bearing. ALL orders are to be respected, obeyed and your personal opinion on remains personal. Mutiny is real and I don't care about your views.

Response by PO3 John Priest made Nov 29 at 2016 10:10 AM

PO3 John Priest — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:10:28 -0500

In terms of what I've read, I think there should be a reminder that their behavior could be construed as a violation of the UCMJ. I'd give 1 verbal warning, 1 written warning, and then bring them up to the CO for Non-judicial Punishment. I believe Articles 88,89,91, 92 and 117 could be broken depending on who and where said.

There should be very little lolerance for divisive rhetoric and/or dissention (unless an unlawful order is given) in the troops. Unless it's war or budget time, most of the time what the POTUS does has no effect on day to day operations.

Response by LTC Mark Beattie made Nov 29 at 2016 10:11 AM

LTC Mark Beattie — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:11:37 -0500

Considering "divisive" is defined as disagreement or hostility between people; and the definition of dissension is disagreement leading to a quarrel or discord, neither should be tolerated, unless order within the ranks is not important. However, to be an effective fighting unit or an effective organization of any sort, divisive behavior and dissension must be minimized or better yet eliminated.

Response by MSgt Jim Bain made Nov 29 at 2016 10:44 AM

MSgt Jim Bain — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:44:55 -0500

It is the responsibility of your NCOs to square these people away! If other units witness this kind of behavior in the ranks toward a new CIC, it could spread, so the answer to the question is...nip it in the bud. There are no Liberals, or conservatives in the military, only men, and women sworn to defend there country, and if they don't like the way things turned out, they can vote again in another 4 years, ....course the one's that complain the most probably never voted anyway.

Response by SPC Jill Drushal, RN, MA made Nov 29 at 2016 10:48 AM

SPC Jill Drushal, RN, MA — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:48:08 -0500

By enlisting or accepting a commission in the US Armed Forces, all servicemembers surrender a portion of their individual rights for the greater good, especially their First Amendment rights. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, servicemembers are not entitled to voice their opinions or to act upon them while representing the US, either in or out of uniform. This includes anything done in either the physical or virtual world. If a negative statement on social media can be attributed to a servicemember, it is just as punishable as if the individual had said it in person. SMA Daniel Dailey routinely monitors social media sites to ensure that soldiers are respecting the boundaries of their contracts.

Response by SGT James Colwell made Nov 29 at 2016 11:32 AM

SGT James Colwell — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:32:20 -0500

Divisive rhetoric and dissension within the ranks is contrary to unit cohesion and military order and discipline and therefore should not be tolerated to ANY extent.

Response by CH (COL) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2016 11:38 AM

CH (COL) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:38:48 -0500

They do not become grounds for separation. They become grounds for prosecution. I'd say that they get to that point about 10 minutes after you hear them.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2016 11:50 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:50:15 -0500

I keep reminding my subordinates to focus on the missions and work problems, not personal issues or beliefs. If they make jokes or divisive comments at work, I would tell them to zip their mouths right away.

Response by MSG Doug Makinen made Nov 29 at 2016 12:12 PM

MSG Doug Makinen — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:12:02 -0500

The military is not a social media platform. Throughout our country's history there have been elections every four years. Not everyone gets what they want 100% of the time. There is so much information available at the touch of a button these days, people receive information from many sources, some valid and many invalid. Wherever you get your information is irrelevant however keep your personal thoughts personal. The military is similar to many other employers where communicating your feelings in an unprofessional manner is not tolerated. We are talking about politics here, everyone has a differing opinion on hundreds of subjects. All politicians make promises, say things that offend a portion of society, and make decisions that some feel are incorrect. Keep in mind that our country is the greatest on earth because of our democracy....Respect It!

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Nov 29 at 2016 12:37 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:37:12 -0500

All soldiers of any rank are entitled to their personal opinion in their private conversations. In uniform, on duty, a soldier does NOT have the right to express disrespect, spoken or written, for the Commander in Chief, i.e., the President. The UCMJ trumps some of the rights of free speech that civilians take for granted. when you take the oath and put on the uniform, you voluntarily give up some of the freedoms other citizens enjoy. And that is necessary for good order and discipline. We must disobey an unlawful order. But we do not get to choose how we refer to the President, and we cannot express disrespect or contempt for the man or the office.

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made Nov 29 at 2016 2:01 PM

Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:01:05 -0500

When haven't we had "bitching and moaning" in the ranks. The issue is what do they do. Also, there is a big difference between time, place and actions. If you have an ass in the ranks who can't do their job - then it matters. Troops (regardless of service) did a lot of "talking" during Vietnam. I definitely had my opinions with people I could trust. I asked my dad later about WWII and he said the same. However, there is a big differenced between voicing something and doing something as well as being annoying to others in the process. If I could trust the people over me and under me to do their job, that's what mattered regardless of the assignment, location, or risk.

Also, having served under several CICs and SODs, 1) We never knew who would be good, bad, mediocre. I respected some and showed the obligatory respect to others. Like others, I did my job as if it mattered to those over and under me, to other military members who may be impacted, and to the people of the US. -- some of whom were definitely anti-military. 2) It didn't matter. In fact, like may others at that time, I couldn't even vote.

Now retired from the military, I do voice my opinion about those in office because I still care about those who are presently serving in the military and for vets who are not getting the benefits and medical treatment promised. For those serving our country, many retirees continue to be your voice. God Bless you for serving today.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2016 2:14 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:14:36 -0500

My "shoot from the hip" response is... While I think discussion of leaders, policies, and topics can be good, I've noticed that some opinions are more respected and held in majority than others. Once it starts affecting the mood, climate, etc. it becomes a problem. Once the mission becomes affected it would be high time to step in and stamp it out. Good luck, Chief.

Response by Sgt John Koliha made Nov 29 at 2016 2:46 PM

Sgt John Koliha — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:46:03 -0500

Your question answers itself. "Divisive" rhetoric cannot and should not be tolerated. Ever! Obviously because it being "divisive", it has a negative effect upon unit discipline, mission, and cohesiveness. Grounds for separation? Second time, no later.

Response by LTC Patrick Turner made Nov 29 at 2016 4:18 PM

LTC Patrick Turner — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:18:33 -0500

The template for this is that we are now just finishing up the Obama Administration. We ALL know that a certain percentage of us were not keen on that without belaborment. Public declarations of disrespect ("divisive rhetoric and criticism") should be greeted with counseling statements, both verbal and written as you progress. What makes one Soldier happy makes another Marine pissed off so you play it down the middle and do not accept disprespect, as defined above. Approaching th NCOs was very appropriate, assuming you have quality NCOs "who get it". As in life, the rebels may well have to pay a certain price but hopefully, your personal leadership and their supervisors will carry the day.

Response by CWO2 Richard Rose made Nov 29 at 2016 5:38 PM

CWO2 Richard Rose — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:38:21 -0500

My policy was, politics and religion were subjects off-limits in the work center. I did make sure that all could get absentee ballots. I respected everyone's right to attend religious services when possible and defended it when necessary.

We had a saying back in my day, "A happy sailor is a bitching sailor, and boys, we're having a ball."

Response by LCpl Sam Southard made Nov 29 at 2016 10:46 PM

LCpl Sam Southard — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:46:11 -0500

The ucmj defines an offense as being an infraction against good order and military discipline not against peace and tranquility like civilian laws. So if it infringes on order and discipline,bye bye

Response by SSG Vincent Wilson made Nov 29 at 2016 11:26 PM

SSG Vincent Wilson — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:26:15 -0500

2 things come to mind.
1) Ask them "Were you drafted or did you volunteer?" That should start a thought process leading them back to being a professional.
2) Repeat something I said often "We protect freedom son, we don't practice it"

Response by PO1 James White made Nov 30 at 2016 1:12 AM

PO1 James White — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 01:12:04 -0500

I served under Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II. There was always discussion, but Leadership should at every level provide guidance to those serving about the proper way to express political speech. The blanket policy that I experienced was "not at work, not at military functions and never in uniform" should politics be discussed. If you have an issue with the COMINCH, keep it to yourself and let your voice be heard when you vote.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2016 3:43 AM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:43:54 -0500

If they were not grounds for separation over the last 8 years, they should not be grounds for separation now. People are upset as they should be, however in keeping with the UCMJ once elected enlisted should not speak down on the CIC. If the disrespect didn't bother you before don't get bothered now.

Response by MSG Cordell Jay Johnson made Nov 30 at 2016 6:26 AM

MSG Cordell Jay Johnson — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:26:03 -0500

It is the same stuff we have see. For the last 8 years. Nothing different. So why is it an issue now?

Response by MSG Cordell Jay Johnson made Nov 30 at 2016 6:28 AM

MSG Cordell Jay Johnson — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:28:09 -0500

It is the same stuff we have seen For the last 8 years. Nothing different. So why is it an issue now? we survived all the disrespect and rhetoric for 8 years and we will survive those same feelings toward the incoming CiC.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Nov 30 at 2016 7:05 AM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:05:14 -0500

Well I don't know exactly how to word this but just for starters the military is not a democracy. You do your job with behavior that is acceptable as determined by regulations. Incitement that creates unrest among the other service members should somewhere in those regulations be prohibited. You want to voice opinions, decide your own and others course of action, display anything disrespectful of any serviceman from the POTUS down to a private in boot camp there should be consequences attached to your actions. I'm not talking about a slap on the wrist either. If you continue to show yourself unable to act as part of the team you should be discharged. You're not on your own time from the time you take the oath so face it. Those are pretty much my feelings on people like you describe Colonel. As far as I'm concerned you land on them with both boots.

Response by 1LT Tom Wilson made Nov 30 at 2016 7:15 AM

1LT Tom Wilson — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:15:07 -0500

I've been out of the Army for a long, long time and my views need to be weighed in that context.
I tend to agree with PO2 Anthony Martinez: American soldiers give up a great deal to serve, but griping is a time honored, and healthy, expression of the democratic liberties they otherwise have voluntarily surrendered. Officers, in particular, need to discriminate what is actually sedition (which is the subtext here) and merely the injury to the political sensitivities of the offended officer (NCOs fall into a different category and have their own little ways. In this regards, 1SG Chuck Kindstrand tends to reflect a non-partisan approach to the issue, which Stan McCrystal could have reviewed to his profit).

I went through ROTC from 1965 to 1969 at a university where the top SDS stud was elected Student Body President my senior year, so I am highly attuned, and largely indifferent, to the sort of political discourse that seasons the American conversation. Until recently (WWII or so) military officers ostentatiously didn't vote specifically to avoid any hint of political engagement. My dad voted and I think it is a far healthier tradition. In Vietnam, politics simply didn't come up (although it was a problem in Germany and other places, especially after Tet, when the SDS changed its strategy to encouraging men to be drafted and then take the Resistance into the military community to foment mutiny, some of which occurred in the Navy).

But the thing that worries me is that there is an unhealthy Conservative echo chamber in the Army officer corps which is being amplified by the insular nature of the All Volunteer Military. I don't think Michael Flynn is an aberration by a long shot and before officers start counseling soldiers expressed attitudes they need to examine their own example in this regards. Talking about separation for what probably amounts to nothing more than standard issue bitching and moaning in tune with the zeitgeist is a bit harsh and, if it is warranted, America has a far more serious problem than a passing discontent.

In regards to an officer's relationship with enlisted troops. I recommend reading Bill Mauldin's Up Front, which was more important to me growing up than the Bibles: it's an American military classic. As I say, I have been out of the Army for a long time, but the qualities and virtues of the American citizen soldier are eternal. If you got some rank on your shoulder and stripes down your uniform trousers, it wouldn't hurt to reflect on the view of the world from their perspective.

Response by SGT Tim Fridley made Nov 30 at 2016 8:49 AM

SGT Tim Fridley — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:49:16 -0500

Should not be tolerated at all. These Soldiers took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. should not matter who the CIC is. That is what needs to be discussed. Anything less reflects bady on the Chain of Command, the Chain of Influence and the United States Military

Response by LCpl Bradley Otto made Nov 30 at 2016 11:22 AM

LCpl Bradley Otto — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:22:16 -0500

I read the majority of comments and I will stand on the fact the Duty means Do as your instructed and your personal Veiw has no place in the work force. You don't agree with something or want to disrespect the CiC. Grab a 50lb ruck sack and meet me at the base of the moutain, we can talk all the way to the top all DAY LONG! Your personal opinion doesn't matter while in uniform.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Nov 30 at 2016 4:24 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:24:27 -0500

Any time that a soldiers continues to create a moral issue that affects the functions of a service that service members needs to be removed, case in point generals get fired.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 1 at 2016 2:01 AM

SPC Byron Skinner — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 02:01:37 -0500

Sp4 Byron Skinner. An old unspoken rule of the barracks was no discussion of Sex, Religion or Politics. It sounds like that rule no longer applies or there are no more barracks. All soldiers feel the need to rebel, often that is the reason they joined up in the first place and 18 19 year olds have to blow out some smoke sometimes to clear out the system. The past election was especially divisive and I'm a few people crossed the line of property. The WO is right with in the ranks this is something an NCO should take care of and it never gets out of the Squad, Platoon or Company. Like any other regulation, this is covered in the UCMJ, a service member that can't follow should be ejected form the service with at best a general discharge. Comments become a problem when they interfere with a service member doing his or her duty or prevents another service members for doing their job by creating a hostile work place.

Response by Jeff Castleberry made Dec 1 at 2016 7:11 PM

Jeff Castleberry — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:11:39 -0500

No right to respond inappropriately to your superior officers. I believe it teaches you humility do which we could all use a taste of, to a point... It should not go over the line, where ever that may be....

Response by PO2 Dale Brown made Dec 3 at 2016 1:18 AM

PO2 Dale Brown — Sat, 03 Dec 2016 01:18:01 -0500

I have read through about 45 posts or so, and I really cant believe how politi al you have all become- no longer an alooft force that obeys orders and kicks ass, but a group of over sensitive political hacks. There has, and always will be, dissent in the ranks- you cant supprese thinking people doing a job. You should all be ashamed of yourselves- your very words betray the spirit of the very thing you have all sworn to protect against all enemies, both forgien and domestic

Response by COL Dave Sims made Dec 15 at 2016 11:53 AM

COL Dave Sims — Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:53:51 -0500

Pretty damn simple actually. You do not tolerate divisive rhetoric and dissension within the ranks..any ranks. Remember when you raised your hand and said ---- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Once you take the oath...there are no "do-overs".

Response by Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns made Dec 22 at 2016 11:40 AM

Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:40:51 -0500

I see no justification for divisive rhetoric and dissension within the ranks but what I do see is the right to have one's own opinion. If you do your job maybe your example will be seen by others to do their's. Comments become grounds for separation when they began to effect the mission or morale of the unit but then that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Response by SFC John Cancienne made Dec 22 at 2016 2:03 PM

SFC John Cancienne — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:03:01 -0500

What is it that isn't taught to soldiers in basic training any more?! It's this simple.... it's tolerated as far as the UCMJ allows! I think this was spoken about before where the CiC is concerned..... He's the commander, regardless of if you voted for him or not. And if rebellion is on their minds, then dammit, separation should be immediate.

Response by PO1 Steve Whitten made Dec 28 at 2016 11:11 AM

PO1 Steve Whitten — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:11:06 -0500

In consideration of the query's wording; the discussion does not apply to time on liberty or leave. When within ranks, "take charge and carry out the plan of the day" applies. Dissention and divisive rhetoric (separate from expected pissing and moaning) become criminal acts. While on leave or liberty, the UCMJ provides fairly broad guidelines for acceptable speech and behavior.

Response by SCPO Frank Carson made Dec 28 at 2016 1:13 PM

SCPO Frank Carson — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:13:59 -0500

Based on the last eight years... never

Response by Capt Kimo Sabe made Jan 10 at 2017 8:55 AM

Capt Kimo Sabe — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:55:56 -0500

Only when it is constructive and combined with positive suggestions. A delicate balance!

Response by SGT Anna Kleinschmidt made Jan 10 at 2017 11:51 AM

SGT Anna Kleinschmidt — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:51:57 -0500

Honestly a majority of the military has shown a great amount of dissonance with President Obama. Here is a quote from Theodore Rosevelt

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.

I am retired and free to have any opinion that I want. The man has not earned any kind of respect as far as I see. I still am insulted over everything he said about McCain and forward. When he starts acting like an adult I may come around, but right now I just don't see anyone that is worthy of my respect

Response by SFC John Cancienne made Jan 12 at 2017 2:03 PM

SFC John Cancienne — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:03:23 -0500

This pretty much says it all: [I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.] Anything less is failure to obey orders at the least, and insubordination at the worst. You may have your preference as to who you would like to see elected into office, but once it's a done deal, your duty is clear. Failure to perform your duties as a member of the US Armed Forces are well defined in the UCMJ. Remind your people their job is to protect their country, and everyone in it; not just a select few. Back when I first came in, (1970), this would NEVER have been an issue, and quite honestly, can't wrap my head around why it's an issue now. Of course, back then, your Drill Instructor could get nose to nose with you, and yell his head off, or make you do push ups, or low crawls without worrying about the trainee holding up a damn "time out" card so that the DS couldn't whip him into shape. It was understood that the military wasn't a day care, or summer camp, and you had better man up, or you would be sent home during the initial training period. And then, the new recruit was told that any opinions he might have about anything didn't make one damn bit of difference any longer. I can't remember the number of times when I was told while I was still a junior enlisted man "YOU AREN"T PAID TO THINK, YOU'RE PAID TO DO AS YOU'RE TOLD AND FOLLOW ORDERS!" I can't for the life of me understand why this it is so different in today's military.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Jan 20 at 2017 11:45 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:45:41 -0500

Sp4 Byron Skinner. Political discussions along with talk of a sexual nature don't belong between NCO's and troops nor officers or any subordinates. Between individuals, none of my business nor any body-else's. The use of profanity especial a four letter adjective for about 1503 has been a part of military jargon since for ever. I guess if you were trying to blow it off just call Military Jargon. Today the military you got a new commander and chief, the job title is in the Constitution but other then that nothing more is said so I guess president Trump is pretty free to do as he like until impeachment is called. The president by title and position deserves the respect of every man and woman in uniform, no exceptions. Can't hack that, there's the door. LBJ was the Commander and Chief when I was in. Talk about disrespect now!

Response by A1C Tom Rowe made Jan 24 at 2017 7:51 AM

A1C Tom Rowe — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:51:21 -0500

In my opinion, discussion and disagreement is one thing Rebellion is enitirely another. Rebellion cannot be tolerated at all.

Response by PFC Aaron Cox made Feb 14 at 2017 5:28 PM

PFC Aaron Cox — Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:28:08 -0500

Usually, when they try to act on it. However, there have been cases even speaking against the cic would result in separation from the military. Actual rebelling can be considered insurrection, mutiny, disobeying a direct order etc. However the reason of their actions and idea should be considered. If it is just another bunch of liberals talking bs remind them of the a fore mention and its results. You might also remind them of what Hillary did to the Military and US citizens and what her objectives were. She committed actual treason and got away with it. She was wanting to allow Sharia law in the US in direct violation of our constitution and traditions. The list goes on.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 9:33 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:33:12 -0500

As soon as you put on the uniform, you give up certain Constitutional rights. Among these is the right to publicly express your opinion regarding the sitting POTUS. These Soldiers need to get educated before they get themselves in big trouble. 1SG Kinstrand's and COL Lorraine's comments are on point.

Response by PFC Aaron Cox made Mar 9 at 2017 11:55 AM

PFC Aaron Cox — Thu, 09 Mar 2017 11:55:16 -0500

One thing that we should keep in mind is our oath. It is first to the constitution, then the country, then the people of this country....the Commander in chief is not really on the list for a reason other than to follow lawful orders. One question For the previous 8 years that I have asked former and active military is...."What do we as service members do when the Commander and Chief becomes the Enemy???" Most do not think this is even a possibility. They go into shock when you mention other countries or heads spin when you point out scenarios where the Commander in Chief actually is your domestic enemy. Several have refused to even discuss it. In this case we are not only required by oath to speak out we are required to do something....The question is what??? One person told me that there was procedures where by the military could act to remove a sitting president but gave me little or no details. Something to think about. Here's a thought what about a former president that has used up their two terms but tries to reinsert themselves into power. While these are nightmare scenarios...they are still possible.