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

Plain and simple, PO2, this discussion has nothing to do with who is the CIC, although it has been discussed before of a member of the military wanting to get political. And it ought not be tolerated within the ranks. Who the CIC happens to be is none of our concern. Carrying out the vow one makes when he swears his oath of enlistment is paramount, regardless of who the commander is. And spouting off in the ranks ought to result in UCMJ action....... PERIOD! I'm an old retiree.... I came up before there was an all volunteer service. And back then, service members, particularly in those two branches who got most of their numbers via the draft actually had something to bitch about. I can still remember my drill sgt getting into a trainees face, (yes, they did that then.... no time out cards), and asking this soldier if he was a volunteer, or a draftee. The soldier answered "volunteer". My drill sgt took a step back and then informed him that "He ASKED FOR IT!" Men and women entering the military are here of their own free will. They weren't conscripted. Even so, one obeys the orders of those appointed over them, and if they have a bitch, they can request speaking to someone of a higher rank, (even though I wouldn't advise it), and air their complaints. NOT mouthing off in the formation.

SFC John Cancienne - There is a paradox in our oath that I think fear keeps me from getting a response on. What if our president or other government official becomes a domestic enemy. We had this debate on a number of occasions when Obama was in office. More and more I see this becoming an issue. What if we a President declares martial law and starts rounding up US Citizens into concentration/reeducation camps.

I believe the oath says 'to defend all enemies, foreign and domestic.' I hope we would not have to come to this kind of civil war. However, you raised a very interesting point. Each of us needs to educate ourselves in politics, morality, and social science. Disagreement is inevitable; however, sensible debate can bring more sensible solution. Today politics is more like kindergarten argument.

When it causes a weakness of acting as one unit in commission of any objective it should not be tolerated. It's one thing to have an opinion of your own; it's a whole different ball of was when that opinion weakens actions of members acting as one in a combat situation. It just increases the likelihood of failure and safety of those involved and that should never be tolerated. Forget politics and all that crap; action as one is primary in those situations.

CW2 (Join to see) - why would you assume that I am playing the race card, it sounds like you are misguided. My comment was not directed towards you or any one person actually. I too have seen careers ended over lesser offenses and I would never assume to know who you are and you should never assume that someone is playing the race card. That comment alone made you sound so very ignorant. I have not updated my profile on this site so I can see where you would call me a young sailor. I have not been enlisted as long as you have if that's what you are referring to, but age wise 36 isn't very young in the military. Thank you for your reply and for future reference I wouldn't make such bold assumptions because that is how innocent comments and or discussions turn sour.

SN (Join to see) - That first sentence tipped your hand more than you realize. You don't have to say the words to speak volumes. Context clues are very telling.

CW2 (Join to see) - the 1st sentence tipped my hand because it was offensive, and no matter how you try to frame your comment you were still wrong.

SN (Join to see) - If you say so Sailor