Posted on Nov 26, 2016
To what extent does one tolerate divisive rhetoric and dissension within the ranks?
30.8K
358
131
18
18
0
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Respect
Office of the President (POTUS)
Duty
New Soldiers
Leadership Development
Respect Office of the President (POTUS) Duty New Soldiers Leadership Development
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 62
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
I agree. It does not matter if a service member agree with the sitting POTUS, he/she is working under him. However, it is not about giving up certain Constitutional rights. It is more like organizational ethics. Nobody should criticize their boss, manager, organization while still working there. If their boss violates some laws and regulations, they should go to a proper channel to raise the awareness. Publicly criticizing or bashing their boss because they have different opinions is a big NO.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SPC Jill Drushal, RN, MA
PV2 Glen Lewis - The Army Times made a big deal of it when CSM Dailey became Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA). He is the youngest SMA ever and he knows how soldiers use the Internet. With the advances technology has made in the last several decades, he is what the Army needed.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Glen Lewis
When I read my comment it didn't sound exactly like what I wanted to convey. I don't proof very well I'm afraid. I mean this site and the news are about the only ways I have of keeping up with the military issues of today. A good many of them I'm astounded by and not in a good way. It's comforting to know that that internet correspondence is monitored. I worry a good deal that information on troop movements and military operations are leaked in this manner. It seems the media has and reports them before they are ever put into action. I know the Internet is useful in fast communications but worry that it may do more harm than good with the capabilities of hackers among our enemies.
(0)
(0)
SPC Jill Drushal, RN, MA
PV2 Glen Lewis - That was a really BIG deal during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The media reported troop movements in real time, especially news channels like CNN. . . The military's response was to have embedded reporters. Those reporters had a whole lot of restrictions placed on them. They could not release real-time reports on their locations or the movements of the units with whom they were embedded.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Glen Lewis
Thank you for letting me know about that but I still think we might use something like the code talkers in WWII to transmit between the commanders of our military when implementing major strategical operations. I'm not sure that I agree with having the news media there at all until afterward anyway. I just think the Internet is too vulnerable. It doesn't seem to be secure enough for anything else. It's just a concern and I hope one that is just a worry not a reality.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google