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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.