Respect In The Military

Respect in the Military

It has been said that military standards are higher than the country demands

of its president. And that is true. President Clinton lied under oath.

Perhaps that is not perjury, but an army officer could not do that. Nor

could army personnel have extramarital affairs. Kelly Flynn found that out

when she lost her position in the Air Force and years of pilot training went

down the drain. But for the Commander in Chief, it is another story.

While it is true that the Commander in Chief is able to get away with

misbehavior, military personnel have been warned not to criticize him. In

fact, the various branches have been reminding troops that they can be

prosecuted for publicly condemning the Commander in Chief and in fact there

are cases pending on this very matter ( Komarow 04A). AT the same time, the

Clinton-Lewinsky affair was the talk of the nation. Even school children

have hinted that they knew something about the cigar story. Yet, the

military is considered to be different. They are not allowed to discuss or

tell Clinton jokes in public. In a way, that seems unfair and there is a

debate as to whether or not they should be allowed to criticize the

president. But that debate is only among civilians who do not understand

military life.

What should be emphasized is that speaking ones mind is not an option in the

military. When one joins, they do so voluntarily and give up first amendment

rights. They know this when they join. Just as a police officer is on duty

24 hours a day and is expected to exhibit conduct in accordance with the

badge, the military officer similarly gives up certain civilian privileges.

And violation is more than just a slap on the wrist. Martha Raddatz reports

that a violation can lead to a court martial under the Code of Military

Justice, Article 88 (Stiegel and Raddatz PG). That law says "any

commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, vice

president" -- and on down -- "shall be punished as a court martial may

direct" (PG). Also, the truth of the statement is immaterial (PG). Thus,

just because Clinton admitted to doing the misdeeds, he cannot be criticized

by military members. In other words, one cannot accurately talk about

President Clinton without getting into serious trouble.

The military may seem unnecessarily restrictive or antiquated but there is a

reason for the mandate. Officers must respect their superiors. It is simple

as that. The reasoning behind that is that routines and orders must be

obeyed. After all, soldiers are being trained and must be ready to go into

combat at any time. The reason that the personnel cannot criticize their

leader should be obvious. If a war or conflict were to break out, it would

significantly affect performance as well as the world's perception about the

United States. Thus, no matter how one feels, there must be respect given to

every single officer all the way up the line to the commander in chief. The

fact that Clinton himself has not been in compliance is immaterial. While he

is the Commander in Chief he is still considered to be a civilian.

While it is important to give the president respect, respect to Military

Superior Commanding Officers and Non Commission Officers is perhaps even

more pertinent. If theoretically, when one is in the trenches with

superiors, they must be ready to accept orders willingly. The only way to

accomplish this is with respect and military courtesy. Thus, the fundamental

purpose of having and enforcing a chain of command with expectations of

courtesy and obedience is due to the threat of war. It is important to

remember that war is always difficult. That is why it is critical to have

everything just so and provide a semblance of normalcy, routine, respect and

little conflict within the ranks.

Seifert equates war with a ritualized "game" with its own firmly accepted

rules and regulations (1). In fact, the author believes that one reason why

Western military leaders were hesitant to intervene in Bosnia is because

they were facing an enemy which did not play by the rules (1).Rules would

include the existence of structured armies with a set command structure (1).

International laws of war do mandate that there be a clearly structured

chain of commands and distinctive emblems worn to make fighters identifiable

as members of a particular group of combatants (1).

Along with this picture is an air of seriousness. This is no children's game

because in the game of war, lives are lost. Military courtesy then is