The Death of my Air Commando

Sadly today I had to put down my cat, Mando. Short for "Air Commando." He was just a kitten with his eyes barely opened when I answered the free kittens ad upon my arrival to Fort Walton, Florida. He was my best friend in the last of my single days, and he converted my wife from her dog-centric upbringing into a cat person. Mando lived with my wife all through her law school years and perched himself on her piles of law papers. My wife labored through law school despite Mando continually convincing her it was best to just take a nap for a little while.

He was black, he had all his claws up until his death, yet he was incredibly gentle. He was great around other animals and people. Mando was a great living being.

We had hoped he would join us at our retirement home, and climb trees and bask in the sunshine. He was only ten years old when he died today.

He will be missed.

The Stealth RIF & The Keep America's Promises Act

The Air Force is drawing down as the American financial crisis looms, and as wars appear to be coming to something resembling an end. I've blogged previously about the effects this effort has had on some officers, offered voluntary separation (some who applied and were denied), who were then booted at the fifteen year point. Some of the 157 majors, kicked out five years shy of a hard earned retirement, are challenging that maneuver and have pursued legal action against the Air Force. I was skeptical of their claim initially. After reading more about the language Congress used when drafting the law, ie that officers with less than six years should "normally" be continued until retirement, I changed my mind. I think they have a case and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

In the meantime, Montana Representative Denny Rehberg has championed their cause, and is pushing for legislation to correct the situation. The Keep America's Promises Act appears to be getting some support. Perhaps these 157 officers won't be scrapped to the boneyard after their long service after all.

Recent promotion boards show the service is using other ways to thin the force. A once 96-ish percent promotion rate to Major has now dropped by roughly 30 percent. Men and women who have served nearly ten years, much in or supporting combat operations, are getting the message that their futures in the Air Force are anything but certain. Meanwhile, the Air Force continues to kick out individuals who fail the physical fitness test, and the service is steadily making the test harder by reducing "safety" requirements once associated with testing in too hot, or too cold conditions. The sacking of civilians to administer the test, in my opinion, will result in more PT failures due to the increased number of testers with their own moving target subjective standards.

Despite the GAO office's report that the Air Force has more whistle blower complaints than any other service, I'm guessing policies will be put into place to rid the service of those with "paperwork" (which every whistle blower likely earns for their troubles). As I understand it, that is the crux of the legal argument being made by the 157 majors mothballed at fifteen years, that Congress essentially meant that officers without negative records should normally be continued until retirement. I wouldn't be shocked to see this policy come out in some form or fashion.

The take away is this... Those of us in the air service have no job security. Despite your best efforts, you may be shown the door rightly or wrongly. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like soldiers who consider themselves already dead, in order to clear the fear when rushing enemy troops, we should do the same with our career mentality. Consider your career already dead, and do the right thing for the nation while you serve. Double your efforts to guard your integrity and be better than your peers by actually focusing on something greater than your career. While others concentrate on the new standards and magic formula for getting promoted in these uncertain times, we have an opportunity to consider doing something great for our troubled nation and its ability to defend America.

And don't listen to the inferiors, who delude themselves by thinking that their ladder assension skills make them good military officers, when they tell you, "Pick your battles, pick your battles, pick your battles." They don't battle, that's why their precious careers are so unscathed with war wounds.

As a fellow officer recently told me, "The military didn't give me a sword to fall on, rather to fight with and I'm about to swing away." The nation hired us to display courage and to fight, not to manicure our careers and avoid the fray. There are many battles that need to be fought, and too few showing the character to fight them. There is no better time than now to do the right thing. After all, what do you really have to lose?

The Big Blue Hamster Wheel

I have to chuckle every time I hear somebody bring up the topic of the Inspector General (IG) to right a wrong in the Air Force. I don't chuckle because it's funny, I do so to fight back the sadness. The service has done a great job imparting to airman the perception that there is actually a system of accountability, although a recent Air Force Times article suggests that the perception isn't quite accurate. The perception is one of accountability, that there is a referee to cut through the politics and ego of bad commanders, and to make the right call when it comes to reprisal or regulations. The reality unfortunately is a Big Blue Hamster Wheel, designed to make the victim of reprisal show his or her cards so that the command can come up with a strategic response as required, and to make the victim run out of energy and hopefully give up trying to right the wrong. Chances of getting the wrong corrected through the IG lie somewhere between slim, and none, unless you happen to have some pull with somebody of influence. Politics trump objectivity.

I have learned this from first hand experience. I have filed two IG complaints in my sixteen years of service, and both as a field grade officer. The first was a complaint against a squadron commander, two full bird colonels, a two star, and a four star, because the command was not complying with regulations that required commanders to give airmen time to work out during normal duty hours. Airmen working twelve hour days, without time to workout, would be punished if they failed the PT test and could be kicked out. I elevated my complaint up every rung of the IG ladder, all the way to the DoD IG. The result? It wasn't investigated, although an Air Force Audit Agency report came out as mine was at the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) level, and it essentially said the same thing my complaint said. The solution? The regulation requiring commanders to give airmen time to work out during normal duty hours was removed. But my complaint wasn't worthy of even being investigated.

The second complaint I filed, oddly enough not too long after the first one, alleged (again oddly enough) reprisal by that same command. I was given a letter of reprimand by my wing commander, a few months prior to my primary promotion board, and it was placed in my Officer Selection Record (OSR). It had two charges. One, that I had gotten pulled over for allegedly failing to signal a lane change, and arrested with that singular charge. Two, that I had lied in a conversation with Public Affairs (PA) over a story I was considering doing for the Air Force Times. I told the commander that the singular charge of failing to signal a lane change was false, and that I had been unlawfully arrested. He wasn't concerned and didn't wait for it to go to court (where the charge was dismissed), and he wasn't concerned when I told him I would be filing a lawsuit against the police officer in question (which was filed and is ongoing). I filed the IG complaint with the SAF/IG and, against my express wishes, they kicked it down to the IG of the command I said was retaliating against me. They evaluated whether I should be punished for the dismissed failure to signal charge, and they evaluated whether I had lied to PA. To help them evaluate that second charge, I provided the audio from the meeting in question with PA, which I had covertly and legally recorded because I expected retaliation from the command. The audio proved I had not lied, and that it was the PA lieutenant who worked for the wing commander who had lied. The result? The IG found no wrongdoing, and the wing commander went on to become a flag officer.

In my experience, the IG is a complete waste of time. I don't recommend it to anybody who wants to correct a problem. As one of the IGs (a friend of mine) told me during the process, "remember, I work for the commander." Therein lies the problem, and the reason why the Air Force has such a dismal record when it comes to investigating reprisal complaints.

A General Who Deserves Our Thanks

It has been awhile since I read a post from Tom Ricks' blog and thought it was worth reading. I was pleasantly surprised when I read this one about General Mario Taguba deserving recognition for his patriotic service, and how his integrity led to the end of his career. Great comments on the thread too, one being the comment from "Hunter" on how to contact the General and thank him for his service.

If you don't know who he was, please read the Best Defense blog post on how this General showed integrity for the sake of America, regardless of how those above him felt about him doing so.

Hunter provided this contact information from the General, and I encourage all to send him an email of thanks for his integrity, courage, and sacrifice on behalf of America.

Antonio Mario Taguba, Alexandria, VA 22307
Email at Pan-Pacific American Leaders & Mentors where is now serving as Chairman: chairman@ppalm.netsee http://www.ppalm.org/governance

Freedom of Speech in the Military - Sgt Gary Stein

An active duty Marine is facing an administrative discharge for comments he made on his Facebook page dubbed Armed Forces Tea Party, according to various news reports.

The charge levied against Gary Stein, according to the news report above, is using contemptuous words against the President and engaging in political activities. Reuters reports that the comment that got Stein in the government's crosshairs was, in Stein's paraphrased version, "I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me." The article then says that Stein clarified the comment to mean he would not follow unlawful orders from the President, and that at one point the ACLU sent a letter to his commander in 2010 about his Facebook page stating, the ACLU "strongly supports the First Amendment rights of service members to discuss and critique the government's policies and conduct."

Can those serving in the military critique government policy and conduct? The Reuters article quotes an Army veteran and radio host, Rick Rogers, who stated, "There's a firewall between the military and civilian politics -- you don't criticize the government while you're in uniform."

I disagree with Rogers. There is nothing that prevents service members from criticizing the government. As to Stein, I think the "screw Obama" comment might be found to be contemptuous by the administrative discharge board. His clarified statement that he would refuse unlawful orders is perfectly fine, since it is expected and legally required of all who serve in uniform. Of course that doesn't mean the non-judicial administrative board will agree. It's unfortunate that the Corps has decided to pursue an administrative discharge board rather than go the court martial route. Administrative discharge boards for legal issues are, in my opinion, only used when the government is afraid that its claims might lose in the judicial branch because they can't withstand the scrutiny of the legal system.

For example, had the government chosen a court martial, it might lose on the charge that Stein's contemptuous speech against the POTUS was illegal. Article 88 of the UCMJ states:

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.

Stein is not a commissioned officer, so he did not violate Article 88. As to political activities, that would likely be difficult for the government to prove unless they have evidence that Stein was pushing a particular candidate or political party, and did so while representing the military.

The administrative discharge board is not a legal proceeding, and Sgt Stein will not enjoy the benefits of the legal system when his "case" is heard. That is unfortunate.

UPDATE: According to CNN, Stein also said in January that the President is "the 'Domestic Enemy' our oath speaks about." I think he's going to have a tougher time than I thought.

Imagine a Vampire Squid in Camo

Interesting piece today in the New York Times opinion sections. Greg Smith has pulled chocks from Goldman Sachs after twelve years. He has decided the firm's culture has lost its way. He calls it toxic and destructive. His article reminds me of things I read and learned while working on my master's thesis. He says the culture has lost its integrity, and leadership role models peddling nonsense to its clients in order to make a profit at their expense. He projects that this role modeling will take the firm down a worse road in ten years, and he doesn't want to be a part of it anymore. He says a few individuals in leadership lost the culture on their watch.

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

I agree with Greg, an organization cannot survive if it loses sight of the interests of its clients, and replaces that interest with self interest and careerist ambition. If leadership loses its integrity and has no concern for doing what is right (accountability), and thinks ideas and principles are quaint "beliefs" that get in the way of the immediate goal, then a culture will become short sighted, and populated with inferiors who will ruin an organization like a swarm of locusts eating the hard work of superiors before them. There is a lesson to be learned here for all organizations, including those of us in the service.

Drone Strikes in Peoria?

I thought this discussion of Attorney General Holder's policy speech at Northwestern was interesting, particularly the point made by Judge Napolitano that the same policy could be used to justify drone strikes within the United States.

Post Civil War laws, ie Possee Comitatus, prohibit the military from using force in America in a law enforcement role. But law enforcement and military functions, as discussed in Holder's recent speech, are blending to meet, what the AG called, a unique threat that crossed all lines. There are already loopholes to Possee Comitatus that allow the military to operate domestically in cases related to the war on drugs. It's interesting to ponder whether something similar will be done in the case of the war on terror.

Amazing times we live in.

Are Truthers Nuts?

I saw this topic come up recently in a conversation between military officers, and just wanted to throw my limited two cents out there since I've never commented on the 911 Commission's report before, or some of the ideas and theories that surround it.

I'm glad that people question. Sincerely. I'm glad that they question everything.

That being said, I just don't get these Truther claims. I'm not saying Truthers are nuts, but I am saying that I find Truther claims hard to stomach. I'm uninformed and haven't spent any time combing through arguments one way or another. But, whatever its errors, like any investigative product, I just cannot imagine the 911 Commission's report didn't get the essentials correct.

I will not call Truthers crazy, and I like that they question and bring up important discussions that at the core are concerned with accountability and trust. We need those core items in our government, in our civil organizations, and in our personal daily lives. Accountability and trust are important, and the discussion illustrates how well we're doing here in America.

But I am no Truther. Not by a long shot.

That is all.

The Comedy of Assassinating Americans

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Holder's Rules on Assassinating Americans

The three part test that must be met, according to Attorney General Eric Holder, before the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen is legal are:

1. Must present an imminent threat of attack against the United States.

Would be interesting to know how the AG defines imminent.

2. Capture cannot be feasible.

This point is particularly interesting given the OBL raid and news reports like this one from CBS News:

Harrier jets flying from an amphibious carrier off the coast were ready to take a shot if the CIA drone missed. There was even an option for sending in Marine Ospreys with Special Operations Forces to collect any intelligence left after the strike, but that was never used. It was all part of a secret buildup which has occurred in and around Yemen as that country emerged as home to one of al Qaeda's most active branches.

3. Must be consistent with the laws of war.

Many groups are calling for the legal memo to be released by the administration, so that the public can get a better understanding of the legal reasoning that shows such a killing is consistent with the laws of war. At this point, the government is fighting the release of that legal reasoning in court.