Happy As Kings

Reply to Oath Keepers post

For reasons beyond my knowledge, the comments section at the previous post would not accept this comment from me.  Because of that, it's going here.

1.  I acknowledged my authorship via the links.  In my comments, I spoke in 1^st person singular, and then provided links back to the blog.  If readers had bothered to follow the URLs, both the blog, and my authorship, would have been evident.  (my mother is out of the hospital, but care continues of course; thank you for your consideration)

 

2.  One does not pick and choose within the oath of office and say, “I will follow this part, but not that one.”  The oath requires protection and defence of the Constitution, and obeying the President of the United States and superior officers according to regulations and the UCMJ.  I did not claim that the officer oath included obeying the President, although apparently this is included in the oath National Guard officers take.

 

3.  The flag section of AR 670-1 begins on PDF-page 263/reg. page 240.

28–18. Wear of full-color U.S. flag cloth replica

 

4.  Unauthorized articles are unauthorized whether they are patches manufactured to resemble military patches in “subdued colors,” my co-worker’s red socks, your pink muumuu or an official item the wearer is not entitled to wear.  Intent is irrelevant.  Color is irrelevant.  The item is irrelevant.  Unauthorized is unauthorized.

 

5.  Encouraging soldiers, again, to pick and choose, and select which orders to follow does put unit morale at risk, as well as careers.   Whether the recommendation to pick and choose comes from a Yale graduate or from someone else is immaterial.  SAEDA doesn’t care who recommends the picking and choosing.

AR 381-12 Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the U.S. Army 
3–1. SAEDA incidents
i. Active attempts to encourage military or civilian employees to violate laws, disobey lawful orders or regulations, or disrupt military activities (subversion).
k. Participation by Army personnel in activities advocating or teaching the overthrow of the United States by force or violence or seeking to alter the form of Government by unconstitutional means (sedition).

 

6.  Comments are now moderated because I tired of the back & forth 'tennis game' with no progress.  If readers care to comment further on my opinions on this topic, they may do so at their own blogs.  

Oath Keeper badge on an Army uniform worn in Iraq

I just came across the picture that is said to be of an American soldier wearing an "oath keeper" badge on his uniform in Iraq.  If this picture is real (I've seen references to the uniform and gear looking "too clean" to have been taken in a war zone), it would show a violation of the Army regulation on the wear of the uniform.  All soldiers know that how the uniform is worn is controlled by regulation, and suggesting that active duty soldiers are wearing unauthorized items of such a nature, and approving of it, shows support for defiance of the regulation.

Army Regulation 670–1:  Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia  (337 pages worth of "do this ..., do not do that ...")

1–10. e. (1) The wear of a combination of civilian and military clothing is prohibited, unless prescribed in this regulation or other authorization documents approved by HQDA.

I presume that this would also apply to wearing civilian badges on an Army uniform.

A soldier sporting ultra-nationalistic patches on a uniform may seem "historically romantic" ("the revolutionary war was won by three percent") or "patriotically heartwarming" (Christian Embassy video in Pentagon) to people of similar opinions, but to me it indicates a breakdown of the discipline necessary for the safe conduct of operations in a war zone.  It also indicates to me a desire, on the part of some people sympathetic to the values of "oath keepers," to use the military services for anti-pluralistic propaganda.

Yes, I remember Viet Nam war era photos of soldiers with peace signs on their steel pots, and the Gulf War era photo of the young mother with a button picture of her daughter pinned to her helmet cover.  Inside each soldier is a regular person with a point of view, and those points of view are protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.  But the wearing of spurious insignia indicating allegiance to "oaths" that begin, "We will NOT obey orders to ...," is a purposeful challenge to the military chain of command. 

It also appears that the oath keepers want active duty service members to be oath breakers, in that all service members take an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ..."  If active duty oath keepers have to choose between a domestic enemy and the Constitution, which oath will prevail?

And we do all know that the person who gets in trouble for following this Hollywood moment is the trooper who falls for it, not the organization exercising its first amendment rights, don't we?

Law & Order: Embedded

Having been all but weaned on Perry Mason and every cop show ever since, I watch Law & Order when nothing else is on.  I just wish that the programs were more accurate.  On the subjects I know a little something about, usually homeschooling and the military, the writers always get something wrong.  How many other stupid errors do the writers include on programs whose topics are unfamiliar to me?

In this episode, Embedded (an old one from 2003), a soldier is (falsely) accused of shooting a formerly embedded reporter who (in this episode) gave away a military position on a news report.  In the story, this compromise of information resulted in the deaths of troops on the mission whose position the reporter gave away.  The regular characters on the program act out the pro/con discussion in America about the war in "Eye-rak," and refer to military personnel as "our boys."  The one thing I never heard troops referred to in decades of military affiliation, it's "our boys."

While I was watching the program, I dismissed most of the nit-noy inaccuracies. but I couldn't get past the story line/prosecution hingeing on the soldier, a sergeant E-5, having a "sidearm" while on leave in New York.  (I have to pause here to collect my thoughts because pointing out the absurd takes more neurons than refuting something rooted in logic)  I understand literary license, but literary absurdity is ridiculous.  Soldiers on leave never carry weapons.  In fact, on a military installation (other than in a war zone), the only people I've ever seen carrying weapons were military police or soldiers on guard.  Otherwise, there are no weapons in view.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada. 

• In eighteen years of growing up as an Air Force brat, I never saw my father with a weapon. 
• In twenty-two years of marriage to a soldier, I never saw my husband with a weapon. 
• In the dark ages of women's lib, as a WAC, I never held a weapon.
• I never saw my sailor-brother with a weapon.
• I never saw my WAF sister with a weapon.
• I never saw my career Air Force brother-in-law with a weapon.
• I never saw my soldier-son with a weapon (granted we were on separate continents, but he did come 'home' [overseas] on leave).

The idea of a soldier being on leave with an Army-issued weapon is so far from policy as to render the entire story not only fiction, but ridiculous fiction.  Military personnel are not armed and walking around.  Weapons are stored in the arms room, personnel must have weapons cards to check out the weapons, and the weapons are strictly controlled.

I realize the facts would ruin the story, but if that's the case, then 'don't do it.'  Write a better story.

I know it's a peeve of mine, but this 'image' of military personnel wandering around, armed and ready to shoot, is prejudicial.

Other annoyances in Embedded:

• The actor/soldier who is arrested in the program saluted like a toddler.  If the script is going to call for soldiers saluting, at least the actor could get the action right.  It's not that hard.
• "Ramsteen:"  Ramstein AFB is pronounced ram-stine in English.  In German it is pronounced (roughly) rom-shtine.  If the characters are going to say names, do a little research to find out how the words are pronounced.
• "I carried him over to the medical officer." (testimony while on the witness stand by the aforementioned actor/sergeant E-5 about his comrade's death in Iraq)  The annoyance?  Medics in the field aren't officers.  They'd be enlisted.  I don't know what medics are called now (if the term has changed), but I doubt it's "medical officer."

I understand that Law & Order is fictional entertainment, but at least between the writers, actors, directors and producers, someone could try to get the incidental facts correct. 

By the way, I tried watching Army Wives.  I couldn't do it.  In order to watch that program, my suspension of disbelief would need helium.

Proselytizing from the Pentagon

I picked up this thread at Daryl's.  The I went to look at the Operation Straight Up (OSU) site.

When I was an AF brat kid, and later when I was in the Army, and later still when I was following my soldier-husband all over the world, this overt proselytization within DoD was a no-no.  Yes, there were chaplains. Yes there were chapels. And yes, I frequented them, but the combination of command influence and religion was not tolerated.

At that time in the military, the atmosphere was different that what I saw it turning into when my husband retired from federal service in 1999.  Granted, times change -- my father used to lament the end of the brown-shoe Army -- but the modern American 'Christian soldier' development is potentially dangerous in itself.  Not only is our military at war in a two Muslim nations, one of which is fundamenalistic, so that the idea of a Christian army conjures up thoughts of 'crusades,' but the military hierarchy and discipline within the services is put in jeopardy.

Pentagon: Hold On, Christian Soldiers!

In the course of defending himself to the Inspector General's office, one of the generals asserted his belief that the Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity." This seems to support assertions by Weinstein that there is real confusion in high ranks of the military regarding armed service's secular status.

 

Debate Heats Up Over Proselytizing by Military Chaplains

Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, a priest in the Evangelical Episcopal Church, says he was disciplined for some of his shipboard sermons. He has been working with Jones to overturn the interim guidelines. In December, he went on an 18-day hunger strike outside the White House to protest what he said were restrictions on how he could pray and preach.

...

But the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, disagrees.

"When you're hired as a chaplain, when you become an officer in the United States military, as every person in the military does, you give up certain First Amendment rights," Lynn said. "But this is not fundamentally an issue of free speech. This is an idea of how the taxpayers are supporting religion in the military and legitimate restraints on what those chaplains can do."

I agree with in spirit with Reverned Lynn, but even he doesn't quite grasp the gravity of the breach.

Oath for a Naval officer

"I, _______, having being appointed an Ensign/Second Lieutenant in the United States Navy/Marine Corps under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such an appointment and 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Active-duty military chaplains are not "hired." Active-duty military chaplains voluntarily take an oath.   All persons in the military, and in federal service, take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  That oath, combined with the principle of prohibition against unlawful, or undue command influence, means that not even a chaplain is allowed to proselytize the troops.  If the chaplain cannot keep from doing this, then he or she should not enter the military.

(Debate Heats Up Over Proselytizing by Military Chaplains)

Klingenschmitt said the issue is his ability to practice his faith.

"When I evangelize and I invite sailors to come and hear my sermons and they disagree, that's fine," he said. "They are never punished for disagreeing with me.

That the words "sailors" and "punished" are even combined in the same sentence concerning religion shows how far the thinking has gone that chaplains should be allowed to proselytize.  Add that to the statement in the first quotation above by a general that he thought, "Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity," demonstrates a major change from the military's previously neutral religious support and the sanctity of private beliefs.

Now we have "OSU" (clever how that mimics USO) saying it is going to send an "entertainment" tour to Iraq and Afghanistan.  That is a public relations disaster in the making. 

We’ll hold the only religious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq.

Bob Hope must be spinning.  I know I am.

Mom in the paper

This post is a little late because Someone (:::cough:::) didn't get the photos downloaded in a ... timely fashion.  But, here is the front page (!) photo from our local paper.

For Bebe

A classmate from junior high and 9th grade was also a shipmate when we were both infants being toted along to England by our parents.  She found photos of her time in England, and asked if I had any.

Oh, my, yes.

The newspaper clipping of new arrivals 'in country.'

   

Mom watching me in my new pram.

   

Mom taking a photo of me on my first birthday in my kilt.  (I still have the kilt pin, but unfortunately not the kilt)

   

Dad holding me wearing my first pair of glasses, courtesy of the British national health system.

Me and Father Christmas.

   

Me and Mom by Canterbury Cathedral.

   

The sign in the back says a tower, so I'm supposing we were visiting The Tower.

The best photos are on slides, and (alas) I don't yet have a slide scanner.

Send Silly String to Iraq

Live Science:  Soldiers in Iraq Need More Silly String

American troops use the stuff to detect trip wires around bombs, as Marcelle Shriver learned from her son, a soldier in Iraq.

Before entering a building, troops squirt the plastic goo, which can shoot strands about 10 to 12 feet, across the room. If it falls to the ground, no trip wires. If it hangs in the air, they know they have a problem. The wires are otherwise nearly invisible.

Donation information:

Marcelle Shriver is accepting donations of Silly String or other similar products and money to help defray costs. Checks can be made out to Marcelle Shriver and sent to St. Luke's Church, 55 Warwick Rd., Stratford, N.J. 08084.

Don't let the door hit you ...

Setting aside the discussion of whether or not to be in Iraq, tempting as it is, and what other courses could have been followed, the strategy of committing more troops to the conflict leaves a factor out of the equation:  where do the 'extra' troops come from?  It isn't as if there are battalions of spare soldiers waiting in the wings whittling tent pegs.  The situation is more like a revolving door, even ironically.

Without an increase in overall troop strength, the only thing 'sending more people to Iraq' does is increase the number of time the same people are deployed.  During Vietnam, the draft provided the 'cannon fodder,' an unfortunately apt description.  Today, though, the same people are sent to the conflict time and again.  For some this will be a satisfying fulfillment of duty, honor and country, but it is still a heavy burden on both the troops, their spouses, and their children.

40 years of church activities

      

1957, Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, Protestant Sunday school

 

   1997, Bernkastle-Kues, Germany, Episcopal Convocation of American Churches in Europe conference

 

   

I'll have to get some kind of photo this year to make it 50 years, but this year's will be with a civilian congregation.

For those who have any interest, in both of the above photos, I'm in the front row.  In the Sunday school photo, I'm on the far right, and wearing a hat.  In the conference photo, I'm on the far-left and kneeling.  My daughters are with their friends in the back row on the right (black t-shirts).

GI in Afghanistan

Pale Man in the Desert