Connect with us

Military

When soldiers should disobey orders

Published

on

The United States military has existed for hundreds of years on the precept that the commanding officers determine the goals, the courses of action and the strategies.

It is up to individual soldiers then to follow those orders, even against a soldier’s personal preferences or instinct, to achieve the overall objectives. But that’s apparently now so out of date, says a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Gen. Mark Milley, the chief of staff for the U.S. Army, made a stunning comment about the order and discipline of the institution: that soldiers can and probably even should disobey orders.

On some occasions.

In a statement reported by the Army News Service, he suggested the goal of the commanding officer needs to be a priority for his soldiers, rather than the specific instructions.

“We’re the military, so you’re supposed to say, ‘Obey your orders,’” Miley said. “That’s kind of fundamental to being in the military. We want to keep doing that. But a subordinate needs to understand that they have the freedom and they are empowered to disobey a specific order, a specified task, in order to accomplish the purpose. It takes a lot of judgment.”

He said, for example, if there are orders for whatever reason to seize “Hill 101.”

“I’ve said the purpose is to destroy the enemy,” Milley said. “And the young officer sees Hill 101, and the enemy is over on Hill 102. What does he do? Does he do what I told him to do, seize Hill 101? Or does he achieve the purpose, destroy the enemy on Hill 102?”

Milley said the soldiers should take “Hill 102.”

“And he shouldn’t have to call back and say ‘hey boss … can I go over to 102?’ He shouldn’t have to do that,” Milley said. “They should be empowered and feel they have freedom of maneuver to achieve the purpose.”

Advertisement    

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Military

Training Accident Leaves 15 US Marines Injured at Camp Pendleton

Published

on

A total of 15 US Marines were injured Wednesday during a training exercise that involved an amphibious landing vehicle at the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, according to the Marine Corps.

Though the vehicle was engulfed in flames, all of the Marines involved were able to escape, the marines said in a statement. The landing-accident took place at approximately 9:33 a.m. local time when troops were in the middle of a scheduled battalion training.

The Marines are currently being treated for injuries.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the Marines and their families as they receive medical care,” the statement added.

This is the latest in a string of accidents for the US military. Back in July the US Marine Corps canceled all flights for the KC-130T Hercules Transport planes after a crash killed one sailor and 15 Marines in Mississippi.

Continue Reading

Military

Combat vets say tattoo policy is big barrier to re-enlistment to Marine Corps

Published

on

Time may be the biggest factor causing combat veterans to leave the Marine Corps, but there’s another reason that should not be underestimated, some vets say: the Corps’ tattoo policy. Jeff Schogol wrote an article on Marine Corps which describes problems that combat vets have with Marine Corps tattoo policy.

Brian Davenport was barred from re-enlistment in 2015 because two of his tattoos were so close together that they were considered to be one tattoo that was too big under the Marine Corps’ tattoo policy at the time, he said. He and other Marines have a similar story: When the Marine Corps stopped deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan in large numbers, tattoos became a career killer for them, even if they had ­combat experience.

“As soon as we got back from Afghanistan and we found out we weren’t going to be going back, everything just did a complete 180,” Davenport told Marine Corps Times. “It was more stressing the little things: your uniform, appearances.”

Where have all the combat vets gone?

The Marine Corps is facing a drain of battle-tested Marines. Davenport deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 as a machine gunner, but he felt the Marine Corps did not value his combat experience after he returned, he said.

“You had leaders saying, ‘We don’t care that you’re a combat veteran,’” he said. “I had a second lieutenant, he was brand new and he’s like: ‘No one cares about Afghanistan. That’s over. We’re moving on. There’s a new Marine Corps.’”

Davenport’s return from Afghanistan coincided with the Marine Corps’ drawdown from 202,000 to 182,000 ­active-duty Marines that was driven by cuts to defense spending. On the day that Davenport found out that he could not re-enlist because of his tattoos, he went straight to an Army ­recruiter, who was able to get him into the Army two days after he left the Corps, he said.

During the drawdown from 202,000 Marines a few years ago, the Corps ratcheted up its enforcement of tattoo policies. Starting in 2014, Marines were required to submit photographs of their tattoos for re-enlistment.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. ­Robert Neller has explained the reason for the Corps’ tattoo policy: “We are not in a rock and roll band. We are ­Marines. We have a brand. People expect a ­certain thing from us,” he told Marine Corps Times in February 2016.

Marine veterans often look to get jobs as police officers, but local, state and federal law enforcement agencies are very strict on whether applicants can have visible tattoos, Neller added.

In June 2016, the Marine Corps announced an updated tattoo policy, which allows visible tattoos to extend further on Marines’ upper arms and thighs. Although some Marines would have ­preferred a more lax policy, Neller certainly listened to their opinions on the matter, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Ronald Green said at the time.

Continue Reading

Most Popular (30 days)

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe now for free

Sign up today for free and be the first to get the latest news & intel from our former military journalists. Support our Veteran writers and get the latest news and exclusive intel.

We won't disclose your personal information to third parties without your permission.