Soldier Quotes



Question: Should there be a punishment over these comments or is there no reason for punishment. Why?


To help a little, here is a little background on the subject:

The Limits of free speech in the military

Members of the military have less rights than convicted felons in prison.
But having said that, if a member of the armed forces has an issue, the thing to do is to take it up with his Commanding Officer via the chain of command. If that doesn't do it, writing letters to appropriate elected representatives is allowed. If there is a valid case, that should do it. If not, hopefully the person with the issue has the good sense to back down. The consequences can be serious, and the methods used to quiet the complainers not always legal or honorable.
With 12 years active duty, I only saw one case that was blatant mistreatment of an enlisted person by superiors, but a case could be made that he was asking for it. If you watch the TV news magazines like 60 minutes or 20/20, you will occasionally see a story that indicates that some of the senior officers see us enlisted types as just so much cannon fodder, servants, peasants, or whatever. The ring-knockers are typically the worst. Some of the acadamey graduates think that they are automatically better than an officer that came up thru the ranks or came in via ROTC or some similar program.

I'm completely against this invasion and occupation, but I think the soldiers whining to the press should be held accountable.

I feel for them missing their wives and kids. I really do. But the purpose of them being in the military isn't to get paid for training. They are doing what they have been trained for. If they don't like it, they should have picked another profession.

American soldiers fighting and dying (148 today and holding...) in another land for the stated purpose of bringing freedom where it did not exist previously should not be punished for exercising their freedom of speech.

Soliders are trained to take a lot of crap and act as if it doesn't bother them in the least. Well, every soldier started as a civilian. While they volunteered to do a dirty job, they aren't robots. I think too many people believe our troops don't have lives beyond being a soldier. They have left families and jobs and homes behind and if they're a little irate that they are being jerked around by the brass I think they have a legitimate beef.

It's one thing to gripe in front of a camera. It's quite another to be accused of threatening the morale of the troops.

If The Pentagon really wants to help the morale of the troops then start bringing them home! If the Bush Administration and the politicians want to really "support the troops" then stop hacking away at veterans benefits.

I don't think they should be punished at all. many of those that I have noticed complaining are troops from the 3ID. these men were told they would be home by may, then late july (I think) then september, then were told they would be there "indefinitly"(meaning til rumsfeld says they can come home) these people not only have a RIGHT to complain, but a DUTY to do so.

also, a lot of the troops over there aren't full time soldiers. they are reserves. and many in the military in general didn't sign up to fight wars, but get money for college. (despite your views on people doing so that remains the fact)

I wholeheartedly agree, nighttimer.

This current administration (and its predecessors) is fond of talking about how important our troops are and how much they need to be respected and supported. They are used as backdrops for political propaganda, held up as role models while the cameras are rolling.

They go where they are ordered and do what they are ordered to do, giving up their lives and families. And yet they are not accorded the same freedom of speech civilians have.

Does anyone wonder why veterans from other wars have "gone postal" from time to time?

There was, at the beginning of the last century, an uprising of soldiers who wanted the pension checks that the government had promised them during the Spanish-American war. (It was on the History Channel, and I don't remember what it was called. Perhaps one of the historians on this board can help.) Anyway, police were ordered and fired upon these men who were creating a public demonstration to receive what had been promised to them and what had been denied.

Thanks Paladin Elspeth for your concurrence. I was in the military myself and I know no soldier expects applause. A little gratitude and respect is all the reward any soldier wants.

Soldiers do give up some of the freedoms we take for granted as civilians. If you want to tell your boss to shove it you can do so and go find another job tomorrow. If an enlisted man or woman does it that's an act of insubordination and that's your butt in a world of hurt! A certain amount of discipline and control is expected over what a solider can and cannot say, but it's asking way too much to expect our troops to be happy with their present situation in Iraq.

Shame on the brass if they take action against the soldiers. It's a lot easier to wage a war "in the rear with the gear" or from an air-conditioned office in The Pentagon while somebody else is doing the heavy lifting in Baghdad.

The chain of command, give me a break, this is going more the road of vietnam everyday. I feel sorry for those guys, i hope they just really dont go postal on iraqis, that would not be very good at all. If you punish these guys for that, and the populace of america agrees with that, what will that say to them, being i am sure that its more then a few soldiers that think like this.

I don't believe these soldiers should be punished. Since they are the ones fighting and dying, then I believe that at the very least they ought to be afforded the right to express an opinion on that!

It seems groteseque that the US army, does not have some sort of frame work for the soldiers to voice their complaints outside the chain of command. In the Danish military, the soldiers have their own union which acts on their behalf in these types of situation.

Is even more grotesque though, that an old man like Rumsfeld can order these fathers and mothers into the field to face death, then punish them for complaining about his short comings.

An old saying goes...If a soldier ain't bitching, he ain't happy.

Grousing and griping have been a part of the military culture from the time of the Roman Legions, and probably long before.
I've been deployed to combat theaters with no firm date of going home. We bitched and moaned amongst ourselves and then carried on. WE DIDN'T DO IT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

Every soldier who enlists or becomes commissioned, Active or Guard/Reserve, knows full well that they may be deployed for an undetermined amount of time. Nothing *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off more than to hear......But I just joined for the college money...I didn't expect to have to go to war...
There's nothing wrong with feeling sympathy for soldiers in the current situation. But until my brothers in arms are in continuous combat for as long or longer than the greatest generation fought during WWII, they need to check their gripes at the door prior to being interviewed on TV.


I would lose count trying to tally up situations just in the WWII European theater where a bunch of unionized GI's would vote to cease fighting the Nazi's. The US military does have avenues for voicing legitimate complaints: The Inspector General, Chaplains, and congressionals.

If anyone thinks that soldiers have a duty to speak out in the national media that undermines the morale and discipline of the troops, they are not aquainted with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I am amused by the age old criticism about how CINC's and SecDef's are back in Washington, or in secure headquarters during wartime. Yes, I'm sure that Rumsfeld could manage the armed forces much better in a foxhole outside Bahgdad.

The ucmj is a scary thing, but to use it on soldiers in this war for that would be sad. I am a firm believer that each war is unique i guess and this one is no different. This whole war has been televised, plus all the political stuff behind it. Fighting iraq is a bit different from fighting an army bent on world domination to say the least. I for one like the fact they said what they did, simply because i dont agree with the war in the first place for various reasons. But back to the topic, if these soldiers fight for free speech and all of that great stuff should they be punished for thier views and the like, i would hope not, and most chains of command have the army politics going on, something some of you know about, so its not a place you can really go with your complaints for a majority of things. When you join the army, you cannot hold ant reserves for anything, but to take orders and follow them, even if under light latter it was all wrong.

Publicly questioning the decisions of the commanding officer violates the rules of the chain of command. This is prohibited for a very good reason. The military isn’t a democracy, with all of the privileges thereof. Under such a system, the Battle of the Bulge would’ve never happened, and bratwurst would be the cuisine of choice throughout Europe. Everyone want to launch an amphibious assault upon a motivated enemy when you’re severely outnumbered? Let’s have a vote!

Want to encourage mutiny and undermine military effectiveness? Allow for the open and active question of authority. Those soldiers should be punished, even though I would probably agree with everything they had to say.

The military isn’t like the outside world. In the outside world, you can leave your job whenever you want to. It is illegal to force a person to sign away 9 years of their life to a contract with no option to quit if your family suffers. No one in the civilian world can be ordered to sacrifice his/her life.

During the Kosovo war, thousands of soldiers camped out indefinitely in tents along the runway. There was no room for them anywhere else, and after weeks of nonstop missions many of those troops sustained a 30 percent hearing loss from the incessant noise. No one likes deploying to third world countries. No one likes eating MREs for Christmas dinner, or having the homecoming dates switched at the last minute. Those are facts of life in the military, and didn’t begin with this administration. I know of very few officers who didn’t absolutely detest Clinton. They had some really bad deals, too. They also did the right thing and kept their mouths shut, except in private conversation.

Edited to add: Unabomber...their motivations for entering the service are irrelevant. Most soldiers don't enlist because they relish the idea of sitting in a tent for years and eating MREs. If soldiers were permitted to leave before facing a conflict or any unpleasantness, our wartime army would be small indeed.

I thought soldeirs fought because of something they believed in not because of military law, who would join such an army, that would be likeing fighting for n.korea. The point being here is these soldiers were asked a question and they responded, should they be punished for it, i say no. IF this is turning into a george dubba bush vs clinton fight i dont think i will post here anymore.

I had personal experience with one. Is that somehow irrelevant and unpostable?

what do you mean??

Soldiers join and if need be, fight, for a variety of reasons. But they are ALL bound by military law, and they ALL know it. This is an all volunteer military, in no way comparable to the likes of North Korea. Nobody conscriptes, drafted or otherwisw pointed a gun at anyones head to join.

Bottom line is, when you violate the tenants of the UCMJ, you will meet with due punishment. If not, then the military of the US will cease as an effective fighting force.

I am the only one who mentioned a previous war. It was during Clinton's administration. I think it should be mentioned that many disliked him as well, but said nothing publicly. Your post was a direct response to mine, wasn't it?
It isn't a Bush - Clinton contest (Bush loses, because this is a bigger engagement), but it is pertinent to the discussion.

Ok then, if politics and that are part of the discussion i will put it like this. I am in a national guard unit, during the time leading up to this war, my unit, with the head of it talking with the pentagon was very close three times to being sent, it was a tense period of time for many. Most of the things were about your family and such, but the morale over all was kept in check by, you joined, and this is part of it. So in that light, a soldier is not allowed to think for him or herself and must keep all things personal. Sure many of these complaints are the same through any conflict but this war is so political and televised. This war is very much like vietnam, and is going down the same road and such, at least to me. That will leave me with this thought, if this war was not under such scrutiny as it is now, would this be such a big deal.

That sums the debate in my eyes quite nicely.

These people in the military did not get drafted. They are not there against their will.

We have a military to defend our security and interests abroad. We have a police force to protect our security and interests here. What part of "abroad" don't people get?

If someone didn't want to have to go overseas and fight in a conflict, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE JOINED! Last count I had, there are exactly ZERO people over in Iraq that were drafted into action. If these were draftees b*tching, I'd be helping them whine. But by whining, they are circumventing an entire process created to win conflicts at all costs. What's next? "But I don't waaaaaant to attack that building full of terrorists.....I miiiiiight get huuuuuurt....". Or "send in the single guys, I have a family!".

With everybody here apologizing for them, who will be left to protect us?

Like I said, I think this war is completely bogus, but that's resolved through our elected leaders - not our soldiers. They are paid and given benefits to do exactly what they are doing. I wouldn't want to do it, but I didn't sign up for it either. They did.

Just for the record, I spent 4 years in the United States Marine Corps 1976-1980. Served a year in the Med. Lost friends and co-workers in the Iranian hostage attempt (George Holmes, Dewey Johnson) and in helicopter crashes. In other words, been there - done that. Don't whine in public.

I agree with that statement. Any examples of active duty military openly criticizing the commanding officer on national television and not being punished during the Vietnam war?

You can't make a comparison to Vietnam. Everybody in Iraq volunteered. Most in Vietnam were drafted - there against their will. They were PULLED from their regular jobs and families to fight a sham of a war. They had no choice unless you consider jailtime at Leavenworth a "choice".

The wars may be similar, but the forces are different. You can't compare one without the other.

DO i know of any of the top of my head, um no. Contrast to constrast its the same thing, that war was very political, so is this one. What if this keeps going on for about another 4 years, just random dead u.s soldiers, do you think you might get more complaints then this one. And for the sake of the arguement, like i said, would this be such a big deal if this war and or current u.s leadership was not under such scrutiny, i dont want to think that the current leadership would turn on its own soldeirs. I think these guys will be made examples of in attempts to quiet the rest. To use myself as an example i do not agree with this war, if i had the misfortune of being sent, i dont know what i would do in their position, but more to the issue, i would not be allowed to think for myself as no solider is. So even if a war is wrong, the soldeir has to go through with it anyways.

Mrs. P, there have definitely been hundreds and hundreds of examples of people getting off active duty during or after Vietnam, and speaking out, some of whom were high ranking and influential, such as John Paul Vann, who wrote "A Bright Shining Lie".

But I can't remember anyone on active duty being punished under UCMJ, except maybe David Hackworth, but I think he was just 'persuaded' to resign.

BTW, thank you for serving DR...Semper Fi!


Nileriver....why do you keep saying that soldiers are not allowed to think for themselves. That remark borders on offensive to me, a soldier, who most definitely thinks for himself. Just because some people join up without reading the fine print and mistakenly think they can become activists, doesn't mean you should reinforce a mistaken civilian stereotype that soldiers are robots.

I said you can think for yourself, in a personal manner. Going outside of this means punishment as some here call for, and some dont. I think most people understand what it means to join an army, or a mass of people with guns.

That being said, what is a soldier's' who does not agree with this war to do then. Face punishment for speaking, or be quiet and go with the flow.

I have to disagree with you there, DR. I don’t believe in placing different rules on conscripted soldiers. That would be the equivalent of placing higher value on one soldier’s life over another, which is wrong and certainly not conducive to winning a war.

Thanks DTOM...I bought a book by Hackworth. He mentioned retiring and throwing away his medals, as well as going into years of seclusion in Australia after serving in Vietnam. I don’t believe he ever made a public, televised statement against the commanding officers while on active duty though.
A lot of soldiers were against the war effort over there (to include my father), but I don’t know of any who voiced the opinion publicly until they were discharged.

Mrs. Pigpen



Surely, under such a system, the battle of the bulge would never have happened because the German soldiers would have refused to fight?

Its sad to see that the only way a modern military can operate is if the individual soldiers refuse to listen to their own conscience and simply obey orders.

Soldiers are human beings. They should have as much right as any one else to voice their opinions. Regardless of their military status. I would even go as far as to say that a military which surpresses its own ranks has no right what so ever to be used as an instrument of liberation!

That's true! But then, we wouldn't have wars to begin with would we?

Edited to add: I should've said D day with the amphibious assault. I messed up on my military history.

The way I see it, there shouldn't be free speech in the military. I'm not saying that soldiers have bad ideas, I'm saying that this can hidner the authority of officers, leading to potentially dangerous situations. I believe that whereas it's not the wisest idea in all situations, soldiers should put their faith in their commanding officers, do what they say, and just realize tt they know what they're doing.

Moif...I respect your opinion, and if it works for the Danish Army,great...but I expressly disagree with your argument.
Any military that operates like a democracy or even unionized would be combat ineffective on a colossal scale.

To keep good order and discipline, soldiers absolutely must obey orders. Soldiers can listen to their own conscious and not enlist!
Soldiers are indeed human beings, and for anyone who would believe otherwise, we are actually pretty well treated, and most leaders at the squad and platoon level listen to comments and suggestions from the ranks. Of course, not in the heat of battle.

When it comes to keeping my men alive in combat, I have the final say, because I have the knowledge and experience to bring them back home. It's for this reason that we don't hold votes on what to do.

Dontreadonme



A very good point! and one which many of those soldiers should have considered if they did indeed enlist for college money.

(Sigh) Of course you're right. Soldiers can't go around saying just anything they want to for the cameras. All you have to do is work in a non-military environment where there is constant kvetching going on to know that whether or not the complainers are right, it makes morale worse and undermines authority.

I respect our military, big time. I hate to see anybody used for propaganda purposes.

Lest we forget that they are suffering temps of 115.o and general hostility. Some may even begin to suspect that they were sent there for bogus reasons. All that combined can easily lead to incredible weariness and slip of the tongue. These are kids were talking about, that are not fighting for anything they believe in. Thats the psychological difference between defense and invasion, as per Vietnam.

If they are punished, so be it. Sure! Punish them twice over, once with the unbearability of the situation and twice to appease the enormous Bush/Rumsfeld ego. Maybe if they get home alive they can give their sons and daughters plenty of reasons to NEVER join the US Military and especially not for college funds. Maybe some day when greedy politicians will want to wage a war for their own self interests the population will finally have the good sense to say, 'No'.

Really I think we should cut them a break, at least as big a break as has been cut the Administration for their lies and deciet.

Hey, lets get Bush over there for a few weeks in his fancy fighter pilot uniform. He can yell 'Bring em on' all he likes as he bakes his brain? in the sweltering sun. Maybe he'd quit cutting vets benefits, ESPECIALLY , in a wartime situation, the audacity is astounding!.

I like how this thread is going, i didn't expect it to be this big a hit.

I will, now that it has gotten heated, throw in my 2 cents:

The fact that soldiers complaining to a running camera from CNN would damage the morale of the people at home because complaining would make it look like they can't handle a little challenge and they are just giving up. It's understanding that they are mad because their rotation time to go home has been extended because what's left of Saddam's regime wants to be a pain in the butt but they have to understand that whining will release a whole bunch of negative confidence in our troops in the states.

Complaining isn't what the soldiers did wrong. They challenged the authority of the commanding officer by saying, "If Donald Rumsfeld was here, I'd ask him for his resignation." and "You call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building."
On national television. There's a difference. No one needs to put a smile on their face and toast their bottle of iodized poo poo water to the commanding officer with a "to your health, we love it here!" sentiment. Publically challenging the commander was the specific bone of contention.

Edited to add: I am very grateful that many posters here have a genuine regard and respect for military members. It saddens me to see them in such a desperate situation as well. However, as DTOM explained, challenging authority puts lives at risk and undermines military effectiveness.

The fact that American troops have the courage to speak honestly and candidly is a credit to how democracy works. I'm less concerned about their remarks undermining support for the war over here than I am about the morale of the soldiers over there.

I have nothing but confidence in the troops in Iraq. I have considerably less for Bush, Rumsfeld and the whiz kids at The Pentagon. Nobody's challenging the authority of the brass. But it isn't undermining the mission on occasion to wonder if anyone in Washington had a freaking clue how messy a job "waging peace" was going to be.

Bush can talk all the trash he wants to the Iraquis to "bring it on." It isn't his butt that's on the firing line. His morale seems to be just fine!

You try telling the CEO or VP of your company that they should resign on national television...think you'd have a job the next morning???

Do you think they care at this point? A ticket home may well be worth the trouble.

Not with a dishonorable discharge. That would mean very little hope of gainful employment for a long time, if ever.

If you don't have a chain of authority, then nothing gets done. It's as simple as that. Tasks that soldiers are ordered to do may not seem like the best or right thing, but they might not know everything abou the situation that their superiors do. Naturally, the higher up the ladder you go, the more information about a situation the people have, and those people can make the best decisions abut the situation and how to act.

The difference of course, is that Rumsfeld is an elected politician, and as such is open to any and all criticism any citizen wishes to address to him.

All this 'Commander in Chief' nonesense is just nostalgic twaddle left over from the old days of kings and sovereigns and should be dropped into the waste basket of history.

The people are the real CIC. The politicians are just civil servants doing a job, on behalf of the people. And the soldiers are of the people.

GW Bush is not a king!

You are incorrect, Moif.

The position of Secretary of defense is the second highest ranking position in the Chain of Command, and is an appointed, not elected position. Soldiers are not allowed to openly criticize him any more than their Brigade Commander.

As for the Commander-in-Chief, who but the duly elected leader of a nation should wield the power and responsibility to maintain and commit the armed forces? The ability to declare war on another nation has to be approved by the congress. (Of course every president in our history has circumvented this.)


I agree with this in principle, but the 'people' don't get sensitive intelligence briefings, have at least a somewhat focused vision for the direction of the nation, or collectively have expertise in administering a technologically advanced, highly mobile, all-volunteer military.
In another thread perhaps, I would be interested in knowing what changes you would make in this regard, but soldiers simply cannot speak out against the chain of command in the national media. Forget about it being detrimental to the overall morale, it undermines the inherent authority of those placed in leadership positions, from the President on down to the infantry squad leader.

Right. If every soldier gets away with dodging authority and insulting it, then what you have is total mutiny. That can damage morale at home and for the troops at the front

Those who applaud the soldiers' speaking out are those who don't want us to have a strong and successful military, period. Especially those who have themselves served and thus have no excuse for not understanding the need for discipline.

There's a time and place for everything. In front of TV cameras is neither.

That is an absolutely ludicrous statement. How do you make the leap in logic that defending the right of an American soldier to engage in their right of freedom of speech undermines "a strong and successful military?" I served in the armed forces, but I never gave up the ability to think independently or question authority when I thought they were as wrong as a three-dollar bill.

Every soldier swiftly realizes that being in the military means a curtailing of the rights you enjoy as a civilian. You can't come and go as you please. You can't decide to roll out of the sack and diddy-bop into work as late as you please as the mood strikes. And no, you can't speak your mind freely and suggest the way the brass is going about things is incorrect without suffering some form of retribution.

However, this notion that openly griping about an extended tour of duty somehow subverts discipline and esprit de corps is crap. Nobody has willfully disobeyed orders, bugged out, or fragged an superior officer since these remarks first came to light.

This war is costing almost $1 billion a week. Presently 148 American soldiers have been killed and many more wounded and maimed for life. They are coming home to find their veterans benefits slashed by a Republican Congress and Administration that says "support the troops" on one hand and cheats them of their earned rewards on the other. Maintaining a "strong and successful military" doesn't mean heaping empty platitudes upon them while they're on the battlefield and stabbing them in the back to pay for a budget busting tax cut.

Soldiers aren't stupid. They know when they're being used to make up for failures of diplomacy or advance political careers. It's ironic that people seem to think that when a person makes the decision to enlist and serve their country that by choosing to protect our liberties they should give up all of theirs.

There was an article in The New York Daily News last January about military pay that really resonated with me. It read in part:

With the 4.1 percent military pay raise that just went into effect, the basic monthly pay for a private first class became $1,290 a month or about $15,480 a year, according to the Pentagon.

The sergeant who would lead a squad into battle would receive at least $1,733 a month (or $20,804 a year) and the second lieutenant in charge of a platoon would be paid $2,183 (or $26,204 a year).

Comparisons with pay scales today for civilian jobs are difficult, since the military has housing and subsistence allowances for hazardous or hardship duty. The service offers enlistment bonuses of $3,000 to $20,000 and thousands of dollars in educational benefits.

But even rough comparisons are eye-opening.

The basic pay of a private first class would work out to about $7.44 an hour for a 40-hour workweek, a sergeant would get $10.48 and a second lieutenant $13.11.

The military also pays no attention to a 40-hour workweek, and the troops don't get overtime and it's impossible to put a monetary value on the risk and stress of duty in a combat zone, said Andrew Krepinevich, a former Army officer and head of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Krepinevich said the pay scales and the unpredictable length of the deployments in the war on terror will pose a problem for the all-volunteer miltiary in retaining troops. He said, "They're going to be asking more and more, 'Do I want to make a career out of this?' "

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, salute the troops for the sacrifices they make.

Myers noted that when he's with troops in the field he constantly marvels at how "they rarely complain about their circumstances. They stand ready to answer any call," he said and their reward is "the realization that they are making the world a safer place for all of us."

Gen. Myers is right. Our troops rarely complain about their circumstances. But when they do they are accused of undermining discipline and hurting morale. Heaven forbid there might be even the slightest possibility that they are complaining with just cause. "Shut up. You joined and that's the way it goes. Live with it," seem to be what some of you are saying. "Protect OUR freedom of speech, but you gave up yours." Is that how those of you who want the troops to just sit there in Iraq and suck on it think the troops should look at their situation?

Whose morale is really at risk here? It seems to be the morale of some of the posters in this thread they are most concerned about.

That's the point I was going to make Welcome to America's Debate btw

It is exactly the same thing. It's called insubordination. If you do that at your job, you will be fired.

Free speech is (mostly) an illusion. As DTOM pointed out, the soldiers whine complain and moan a lot...among themselves. But a certain level of composure needs to be maintained when on national TV. They crossed the line, and should probably be discharged at the least.

--cheers

yes, but your civilian job does not strip you of such illusionary freedoms they fight for, or make it so one day you have to cross a mine field with enemy gunfire comeing in. Same difference, but harsher reality. If a soldier makes a boo-boo on his/her job, it gonna cost him/her and people around them, is that the same for the people running the show all the way up, how do they yeild to mistakes made. Its funny such harsh punishment should be handed down to some low level government employee, but at the top, saying things that get the war going in the first place should be shrugged off/passed off.

Nighttimer, I understand that not all orders that you were given made sense and that you questioned them. However, it's not good to have people doing this constantly. If every time someone issues an order, they have it questioned by a person, or even several people, then chances are that that task isn't going to either get done in the necessary time-frame that many orders can have, especially in combat, or, the task isn't going to be completed at all.

Hazardous duty and hardship pay are mutually exclusive. It is 150 a month (five dollars a day) total.

Its a volunteer military. The rules are stringent. Insubordination of that caliber is entirely punishable, and rightly so. Disagreeing with your orders happens all the time, but whining to the media is completely unacceptable.

First, believe it or not, part of our Army is in fact Unionized in an Oblique manner. Full time reservists and guardsman are in unions.

First, every male member of my family since the revolution has been in the american military, including myself, and my generation has produced a crop of relatives that are females, and now in the military (my cousins of my generations kids, my kids are too young) so right now I have 12 family members in, 2 in active operations in Iraq, one marine, one SF.

That being said, I understand the reason for military discipline and not flapping your gums in public. They did cross the line with the Rumsfeld comment.

You know who can complain in public? the family! THat is the real unfortunate part of the climate today, that somehow is lost, that families are afraid to speak up because somehow that is "not supporting the troops"- this is a real check and balance that is missing right now. That is why I never fail to use the opportunity to speak out about this war when I can. I think we do need an outside omsbudsman agency to handle lower rank complaints, this would go along way to deal with so many of the militaries real wrongdoings, such as the basic training fiascos. The chain of command is a joke, and does not work.

I don't think they should be punished more than a little article 15 duty, the summary kind that doesn't go in thier record, to remind them to maintain thier military discipline.