Lawful Orders

 

I Matthew E. Robinson do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So Help Me God.

            “No Sir, we cannot do that. It will take a direct order from the MNC-I (Multi-National Corps-Iraq) Commander (CDR) for me to do that,” I replied after gulping a bit and taking a deep breath. I was the Chief of IO (Information Operations) plans serving in Baghdad.

            As I expected the Colonel, the Chief of Staff from one of our subordinate divisions, exploded in a tirade, which questioned my intelligence and general fitness for service. He’d come up to our headquarters to see me and convince me to support a plan that I felt was not only illegal, but also immoral.

            “I understand Sir. I also understand that I am not the one who can say “no” and make it stick, but the Commander is going to have to give me a direct order…and then I might have to refuse.”

            After hearing that, the Colonel stalked off hands clenched. I knew I’d not heard the last of this issue. Sure enough, later that week the division commander paid me a visit while chatting with the MNC-I CDR. The MNC-I CDR was a Lieutenant General (three stars), and the division CDR was a Major General (two stars). I was a Lieutenant Colonel…no stars. The conversation with the Division CDR was a repeat of the conversation with the Chief of Staff, except the volume was louder and my intelligence and fitness was even more suspect.

            “I’m going to talk to your commander,” roared the General as he strode away.

            “Yessir, I understand,” I replied to his rapidly disappearing back.

            Sure enough, the next day the CG (Commanding General) stopped me in the hall and asked me about the issue. “Matt, I need to know more details. Come by my office and brief me this evening.”

“Yessir,” I was stunned that he knew my name. I was just one of the minions buried deep within the command structure. But I went to his office as directed and provided the required briefing. He asked a few questions and then dismissed me, telling me that he would deal with it. I never heard of the issue again. I’ve always wished that I could have been there for the discussion; but, he was an excellent leader would not let a knuckle-dragging minion like myself witness that type of conversation.

The military life is fraught with challenges and dangers, physical, mental, and spiritual, especially when rounds are going back and forth in earnest. It is a crucible in which common citizens find themselves tested. Taken seriously, it burns away the dross, leaving a man or woman of character. The oath of enlistment, first written in 1789, despite occasional tinkering, remained largely unchanged until the Civil War. That conflict introduced language that sought to forestall going over to the Confederacy. It was changed to the more modern version in 1884, and that lasted until 1959 when it was modified slightly.

            When I was a young private, I did not expend much thought about the oath; however, as time passed and my responsibilities increased the oath became more important. Eventually upon commissioning, the oath took on greater import in my life and provided a guide as I sought to navigate the hazardous career that I had chosen. Eventually I was asked to do something that violated my conscience and, I believed, the law. Refusing took courage; but, I had been taught that a good soldier does not simply follow orders. A good soldier measures his orders first against the Constitution and then against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, more commonly referred to as the UCMJ. I survived that first refusal with no repercussions.

            As time passed and I accrued more rank and responsibility, the tests grew more stringent, and the stakes grew higher until I had to face the wrath of a Major General. I’d always been told that as an officer, I needed to have enough moral character to walk away from my career over such an issue. I was thankful that my CDR had seen things my way. It might not have turned out good for me. Fortunately, my CDR was a thoughtful man who believed that doing the right thing was the right thing.

            Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers need wise commanders who think carefully before they act, who weigh the issues and the ramifications of their orders before they issue them. There are many things we want to do in the heat of the moment, when rounds are snapping past, that may not be the best thing.

            During my first tour in Iraq, I called for illumination when taking fire while returning to the FOB. I was denied. Furious, I stormed into the TOC (Tactical Operations Center), demanding to know why I was denied only to find out the firing illumination rounds would have put innocent civilians at risk from the 155 round casing tumbling to earth. Later that same tour, I would stop a gunner from opening up with a 50 cal. in downtown Baghdad, knowing that a long burst from a heavy machine gun would send rounds through many walls of apartment blocks causing numerous innocent casualties, violating proportionality. Proportionality is the concept that you do not kill a fly with a sledgehammer. We settled that issue with small arms fires. What’s the point you might ask?

            We need thoughtful leaders who understand when subordinates question dubious orders. Sometimes the subordinate is incorrect, and the order must be followed as given. Sometimes the order is incorrect and must either be rescinded or amended. When lives, friendly, foe, and innocent civilians, are at stake, we must do our best to limit the carnage. We must be strong enough to take a deep breath and carefully examine the issues at hand. Punishing subordinates for simply asking for clarification or refusing to follow unlawful orders is not the trait of a good leader.

A Time and Land of Prosperity…for Some

 

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States           

We enjoy living in a time of unprecedented prosperity. There is not a lack of resources in our land. Despite this time of abundance, we’re choosing to let some of our fellow citizens, friends and neighbors, go hungry. There is no requirement for this. There is not a lack of food. We have just chosen to be churlish and selfish. Oh, we may dress it up in some sort of budgetary crisis; but, that is only a fig leaf to cover our meanness of spirit.

               Some say that the S.N.A.P. program is rife with corruption. This is not true. Through years of careful planning and experience, we have reduced the amount of fraud to almost nothing. Others claim that we cannot afford to feed the hungry. Again, I find this hard to believe. After all, we can afford extraordinary funding for ICE, growth in the defense budget, and providing extravagant tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations. In fact, with little public visibility, the IRS is administratively reducing the tax burden on the most wealthy and profitable corporations in our land.¹ I find this level of callousness astounding, especially when supported by my fellow Christians.

               Some will misappropriate the passage from II Thessalonians 3:10-15 which contains this little chestnut, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” This ignores the context, a group of Christians who, believing the Lord’s return was immanent, gathered on the hills outside the city expecting their fellow believers to feed them. It is neither directed at the poor in general nor does it blot out the mass of scripture which enjoins generosity to those less well-off.  For those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus, to so easily support policies that crush the poor reeks of the very thing that angered the Lord, see Proverbs 22. But for even the non-believer these actions raise serious concerns.

               A strong nation, a good nation, takes care to help all of its citizenry. We cannot turn away from the poor, mumbling such platitudes as, “Their own poor decisions brought them to this state.” It may very well be true that they made poor decisions along the way; but, which of us have not made poor decisions? Some of us are just fortunate enough to have recovered, and most often it is due to our family or someone else helping us not our own strength, pluck, or ability. Now that we enjoy success to turn our backs on our fellow citizens in their time of need is callous in the extreme. For a nation as well off as the U.S. to casually let the poor go hungry, says something very dark about our culture and moral state.

It shows our lack of concern regarding our fellow humans. It says that we do not care about the poor. It also says that if you are poor or of a different color, then you do not rate our compassion. Speaking of compassion, our attitude toward the poor loudly proclaims our lack of compassion. It also shows how selfish we are. We’d rather turn our backs towards those who have very little in order to keep a few measly dollars in our bank accounts. It says that we are a judgmental and prejudiced society, especially towards those who are less well off. Interestingly it also reveals that we love the rich more than the poor, since we eagerly give the rich and large businesses significant tax breaks while doing almost nothing to help those who find themselves struggling financially. Finally, it calls into question our status as a civilized nation. How can we lay claim to the status of being a civilized nation when we gladly, even eagerly, let our own citizens go hungry?   

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/business/trump-administration-tax-breaks-wealthy.html

A Life of Service

 

               As a young soldier in the early ‘80s, I posed this question, “First Sergeant, why do we call it ‘the service,’ when we’re in the Army?”

               My First Sergeant rolled his eyes, sighed the sigh of someone who must explain a simple basic truth to a slow child and growled, “Listen, you rock-wit-lips, being in the Army means a life of service. You serve the Constitution, you serve the nation, you serve the Army, you serve your commander, and last of all you serve me. Got it?”

               Even though I did not, I had been a soldier long enough to know that the only acceptable reply was, “Roger First Sergeant.” But over the next twenty-six years or so, I learned. Entering the Army, no matter your rank, was entering into a life of service, a life laid down to a higher cause. A life in the Army requires great sacrifice, even in peacetime. There are long hours, difficult and sometimes perilous training, frequent moves, long TDYs, deployments to uncomfortable places, and yes periodic deployments to combat. As soldiers we do those things because we understand that we serve a higher calling. We certainly do not do it for the great pay, and a difficult field-training-exercise in the winter with snow, sleet, and rain rapidly scuffs off any glamor. This is the same for all government employees. While most do not expect the dangers and rigors of military service, they all understand that they accept a calling to something more important than a paycheck or themselves. They serve their nation. Our politicians, servants of the people, need to relearn this basic truth.

               The continuing government shutdown provides fresh evidence of a group of legislators and executive branch officials who have lost sight of their true purpose in life, to serve the nation or people. Rather than take a deep breath and do the hard work of finding compromise and crafting suitable legislation which serves the nation not just their party, they would rather retreat to opposite sides of the aisle and throw soundbites at one another. Consequently, millions of needy citizens, our neighbors, will go hungry in this land and time of plenty. And we are the ones to blame, not them.

               We elected these men and women, and they are only doing our bidding. But you may say, I did not elect them to shut down the government. No, they did not run on that particular platform plank. But we did not elect them to work hard at finding compromise. We elected them to engage in slash and burn politics which suit our particular proclivities. There are numerous reasons we’ve arrived at this situation; but, I think the following are especially pertinent.

               We need to summon the moral courage to stop large donor contributions, no matter the source, to political campaigns. This practice skews politicians away from doing the hard work of crafting responsible legislation that serves the nation. Instead, they focus on appeasing the donors that contribute significant amounts to their campaigns. We must demand that congress pass stringent finance laws that close the various avenues for donors to circumvent restrictions., Freed from the shackles of large donations, legislators will find themselves freer to do actual work for the nation.

               We must abandon our love of political party and the associated disdain for those who think differently than we do. As a society, we must relearn the concept of “melting pot,” and what that really means. We must discard the selfish conceit that somehow I represent all of America and those who do not think like me must be some sort of enemy. Returning to my military example, the Army did not care one whit who I was, where I came from, what I believed, or who my parents were. All the Army really cared about was did I contribute to the ongoing completion of the mission. That mission focus forced all of us to abandon much of our personal biases and work with someone who was quite different. At the end of the day all that mattered to the Great-Green-Machine was, did we complete the mission. When we abandon our misguided desire that everyone look, feel, and think like we do, we will find that not only do we get along with each other better, but solutions to seemingly intractable problems are close at hand.

               We must hold our representatives accountable for work accomplished instead of soundbites delivered. We often punish our legislators for hammering our sensical legislation simply because it does not exactly fit our preconceived idea of good legislation. At the national level, politicians must balance competing regional wants. Successful legislation is often a matter of compromise. When we punish legislators for making a deal, we stymie the process of democracy. Sometimes we must give on one issue in order to get on another. Instead of applauding meaningless speeches and other forms of pandering to a perceived base, instead, we should expect our elected officials to reach across the aisle and craft good legislation that moves our country forward.

               As long as we embrace divisive party-oriented politics we will suffer as a nation. We must become a more literate thinking electorate. For far too long, we’ve let outside monied interests influence our thinking with half-truths, inuendo, and outright lies. Dominated by those who make large donations and other extremely wealthy, political parties have ceased to serve the public. Our legislators, like the Army, must embrace the rigors of a life of service. Of course, they serve in the marbled halls of the capitol, but true statesmen and women understand that they have undertaken a life of service to a great goal and that often entails long-hours and sacrifice…sometimes personal sacrifice for a greater good. An educated and active electorate which holds their representatives accountable may very well bring about the changes we desperately need in government, including elected officials that understand the concept of a life of service.  

Not A Training Ground

 

            In my writing, I try and explore the ideas and concepts that shape our society and world. Though I’m not always successful, I try to direct my ramblings away from individuals and party. As a politically independent voter, unaffiliated with any one party, I find grappling with the concepts and philosophies that shape our world more satisfying since neither party accurately represents how I feel. But today I must set that aside to speak to something directly; something that I feel cannot go unaddressed.

            In a meeting with our highest military leaders the president said, “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

            As a veteran of twenty-two years of commissioned service in the Regular Army, with multiple combat tours, I find this statement appalling. It goes against everything I was ever taught about being a soldier, an officer, a leader, and a citizen.

            Our citizens and cities are not, I repeat not, training aids for the military. For our president and commander in chief to say such a thing astounds me. The practice of deploying troops into a city, without the request of civilian authorities, to engage in some nebulous version of law-enforcement goes against our cultural norms and is legally tenuous at best. Now to say that these deployments should be considered some sort of training exercise is beyond the pale of normality.

            Training is where you practice, where you make mistakes, and where you hone the skills needed to win wars and survive on the battlefield. To think of subjecting our citizenry to such a chaotic environment baffles me. Our fellow citizens are not some sort of training aid that we can use indiscriminately. If we want to train, then use the appropriate training environment, one in which mistakes do not result in casualties and property destruction. For our president to make such an off-handed callous remark not only astounds, it also alarms.

            Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers all take an oath to follow the “lawful” orders of the president. Earlier in that oath is a line that reads, “…to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” For the president, the commander in chief, to so casually put the military into a position fraught with legal and moral conflict is unconscionable. Continually sending troops into cities puts soldiers and the citizenry into positions of potential conflict for no reason. Such conflicts would potentially pit friends against friends, fathers against sons or daughters, and neighbor against neighbor. In a society already struggling to bridge seemingly impossible chasms, such deployments exacerbate the struggle to find common ground and solve difficult problems. The statement reveals a casual disregard for the very people the President has sworn to protect and a lack of understanding about the role and purpose of the military.

            Our military exists to defeat the enemy on the battlefield, and contrary to what our President and Secretary of Defense say, they are quite good at it. Our military is neither a prop designed to elicit an effect from an audience, nor is it a pseudo police force or shock troops designed to put down an imagined insider attack. Troops are not trained in law-enforcement.

            Law-enforcement is a difficult and at times very dangerous line of work. It takes special men and women to engage in this type of duty. Law-enforcement takes subtle skills in engaging the population while separating them from criminal elements. If we believe that our cities are dangerous places, a fact which current data does not necessarily support, then we should hire, train, and deploy more law-enforcement officers. We should also spend more money on those social services which help reduce crime through education and job training. We do not need knee jerk responses to difficult and convoluted problems.

            Deploying troops may sound good to certain elements of the President’s base, but it does nothing to solve the long-term problems that we face. Additionally, it increases the divide our nation currently grapples with. Instead of posturing, we need leadership that rolls up its sleeves and engages in the difficult work of solving problems in ways that bring people together.

A Golden Statue

 

          As a teacher of English Literature and a retired Army operator in Information Operations, I understand the importance of symbology, especially in the visual arena. While verbal symbology is potent, visual symbology is much more powerful. The American public turned against the war in Vietnam due in large part to powerful images streaming from the small Southeast Asian country into our living rooms via the evening news. Careers are often made and broken over the publication of images. So, it is with great chagrin, sadness, but no surprise the I viewed the images of golden statues of President Trump.

 

          As a Christian, I cannot help but call to mind the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego found in Daniel 3:16-28. Now of course, no one that I know of is being called out and thrown into the fiery furnace for their failure to bow down to these images; but, they still give me great pause. What are we saying as a nation when we tolerate and even applaud such blatant self-aggrandizement and adulation bordering on worship? I also know that the President did not ask for the golden statue of him holding up a Bitcoin on the National Mall, but neither did he do anything to stop it. But he did actively share the AI generated picture of a heroic sized golden statue, complete with hundreds of miniature versions for sale, in an imagined recovered Gaza. These images reveal something significant about the character of our president.

            He is a man given over to vanity. The vast majority of us would, and should, recoil at the thought of a supersize golden statue of ourselves. It would make us hesitate, to gulp, and say, “Perhaps not.” Our president however, revels in such over-the-top exaltation. And the worst part is that we encourage this behavior. We simply act as if this level of conceit is normal and acceptable. I do not blame the President for such hubris; instead, I blame those of us who insist on accepting and supporting such vain displays. As the old prophet Hosea said, “They have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind.” Hosea 8:7a

 

            In our culture, our society, we sowed the wind when we stopped demanding a high level of character in our leaders, whether it be political, cultural, or sports. We sowed the wind when

we stopped expecting people to be polite, excusing boorish behavior. We sowed the wind when we started passing off crassness as edgy humor. We sowed the wind when we lowered our standards for entertainment, calling vulgar baseness avant-garde. We sowed the wind when we evaluate education solely on its ability to increase earning potential instead of its ability to improve one’s ability to act as a good citizen. We sowed the wind when we started evaluating a person on the contents of their bank account instead of the content of their character. We sowed the wind when we decided that it was acceptable to round up and detain in substandard conditions certain classes of people rather than provide them with the due process of law guaranteed by our constitution and other legal instruments. We sowed the wind when we handed over the reins of government to men and women not because of their abilities, character, or vote but instead due to their wealth and obsequiousness. We’ve sown the wind.

            So again, I do not blame our President or those around him. They’re only doing the things that we’ve allowed. They are the fruit of the seeds we have planted. When we turned our heads and looked away, we planted seeds. When we sighed and accepted a lower standard of behavior, we planted seeds. We need to think about the seeds that we are planting.

 

           Instead of the seeds of callousness, apathy, and injustice, let us plant seeds of
compassion, justice, activity, and mercy. When we take the time and effort to plant those seeds, we will all enjoy the fruits of a just and honorable society, where our leaders serve the larger body with compassion and fairness.

                      

Free Speech and Criticism

 

            My experiences as an officer, as a leader, in the Army forced me to develop a thick skin. As a private and specialist, I thought my leaders were somehow immune to criticism from below. As an officer, I found that the criticism seemed unending from above and below. My rank did not serve as a shield, rather as a magnet attracting various forms of criticism. Sometimes it seemed to verge on abuse. This was especially apparent in the dreaded forum of the sensing session. In these sessions, the Inspector General (IG) would sit down with the subordinates of my organization and ask them their unvarnished opinions regarding my command climate and general fitness as a commander. Later they would sit down with me and review the results, always a challenging experience.

            Later as a teacher in a High School and a Community College, I learned about the civilian version of the “sensing session.” Each semester, I was required to submit to end of course reviews. Students, under the protection of anonymity, submitted critiques of my instruction. Again, I needed a thick skin. But interestingly, I found both types of criticism useful in helping me become a better instructor and leader. That is one of the many challenges of leadership. Leaders must develop the ability to absorb criticism and possibly learn from what others say.

            As I watch our current administration employ various tactics designed to stifle criticism, I am quite disappointed. Leaders and teachers need broad shoulders, shoulders, capable of withstanding criticism and disparaging remarks. To respond by censoring critics through any means reveals a small churlish spirit; one unsuited to the mantel of command or leadership. To bully, whether through verbal counter attacks or some other legal tool, is not the response of a true leader. The administration employs a number of tactics, verbal attacks, lawsuits, and regulatory threats designed to stifle critical voices and encourage their base. All of these reveal serious leadership flaws.

            True leaders understand that they are imperfect fallible humans. Even the best, most adept, leaders need input and guidance. Using bellicose speech and other pressure tactics does not show strength; those tactics show cowardice and insecurity. As a commander, leader of troops, I enjoyed a variety of retaliatory tools. To use them would have revealed my weakness as a leader, undermined the chain of command, and resulted in a poorly performing unit. Instead, I needed to carefully listen and make appropriate adjustments. As a teacher, I usually knew who wrote the critical reviews. By the end of a semester, I could recognize individual students’ style; and in a small community college the chances were quite good that I would see the students again. In both cases, if I swallowed my pride and hurt feelings, I found that the critiques helped me improve. But it is hard to swallow your pride.

            So, I well understand the urge to lash out at the critic. But I also understand the desperate need of our culture to see the example of a true leader, a statesman. Leaders, statesmen, put the needs of their nation above their own feelings. We all desire to feel loved and appreciated; but, leaders must often make decisions that others find unacceptable. As a leader in the Army, I often made decisions that my subordinates did not like, working late to prepare for an important exercise or mission, for example. As a teacher, I made assignments that my students did not want to complete or assigned grades that students did not appreciate; but, that was part of my responsibilities. So when they complained about their lot whether it be poor grades or long work hours, I did not hold it against them. After all, I understood their plight. But that did not change the state of things and for me to retaliate against them would not have been right.

            And that is the crux of my disappointment with the administration’s response to perceived censure. At this time, we desperately need broad-shouldered strong leaders who can stand the negative comments. No matter what they do, someone will complain. That is all part of the role of being a leader. Good leaders understand this, shrug off the petty complaints and take the worthy comments to heart and perhaps even redirect their actions and policies. So let us abandon threats and frivolous lawsuits designed to badger and bully. Instead, let us embrace thoughtful considered policy that works towards the best result for all of us in the republic. As my mother used to say, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Due Process

 

            You and I enjoy civil liberties. They provide the foundation of our free and open society. They are so important that we enumerated ten of them in the Bill of Rights, ten specific liberties guaranteed under our constitution, nine of which pertain to personal liberties. Among our constitutional rights is the right to “due process of law,” found in the Fifth Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In short, we live in a country where the powerful state finds itself constrained. Due process ensures that you and I can walk the streets, conduct business, or relax in our homes free from the fear that some government agent will come along and spirit us away into some dark cell to rot away without recourse. At least that is the intent.

Recent actions by our current administration call this into question. Due process separates law enforcement from judicial proceedings. Law enforcement officials are not charged with or equipped to determine guilt or innocence. They gather facts and when appropriate make an arrest. Then the judiciary takes over to determine guilt or innocence. If the person is found guilty then the judiciary sets an appropriate punishment. I know that this all sounds like a high school civics class…which is ironic since my teaching certificate includes all social studies…but we seem to have forgotten the basic structure of our government.

I frequently hear or read people saying, “Well, they are illegal aliens so they have broken the law and should be deported.”

The problem with that statement is that the people in question may or may not be here illegally. These people have been denied their due process. We have courts set up to determine someone’s status and adjudicate the process. We are circumventing our constitutionally mandated system for convenience sake; or perhaps to satiate some sort of desire for vengeance against an amorphous them or as a salve to our fear of some imagined invasion. We must remember that we do not follow our laws out of expediency. We follow them because they are just, protect the weak, and lead to a more civilized society. The protections of our system, while not perfect, are there to keep all of us safe, even the illegal aliens. The Supreme Court has ruled that even illegal aliens enjoy the protection of due process. Due process in some form or fashion applies to all of us. Due process protects us from government overreach.

When we turn away from the violations of due process currently taking place, we diminish our society and culture. History will judge us on how well we protect the weak, not the lethality of our military, manufactory prowess, size of our bank accounts, or the value of the Dow-Jones. Dismissing violations of due process will also eventually lead to personal jeopardy. Already U.S. citizens have been detained and deported without due process. The longer we fail to stand up for what is right, the greater our personal peril. Not much stands between you and me and unlawful incarceration should the administration turn its baleful eye on us. But we should not protest these actions which diminish due process out of fear. We should protest because it is the right thing to do.

Those of us who enjoy the current protections afforded by the structure of our society and our positions within it must speak out for the weaker members of our society and culture. Above all, they need our support in this time of peril. Looking away from their suffering reveals our own culpability and smallness of character. Affording undocumented aliens the protections of due process not only follows law and precedent, it also displays kindness and compassion, both characteristics of a civil society. In their case, due process does not grant them a free pass, it merely ensures that they are protected from an overzealous administrative branch. At the end of the process, should they be ineligible for legal resident status, they may be deported. But we should not circumvent the system just to appease our baser urgings. We are better than that. After all, if through our inaction we show that we do not care, they may come for us.

Shouting Past Each Other

            I frequently post essays detailing my thoughts on current culture, society, and political machinations. Normally, I try to focus on ideas that undergird our culture and political decisions and not on specific individuals or their decisions. I try to raise ideas and let readers draw their own conclusions. But recently, I did take the time to criticize a specific policy and the decision that flowed from it.

            As expected, it infuriated some readers, pushing them to respond. I expected this and was not overly concerned. After all, if I enjoy freedom of speech, so should others. What surprised me was the virulence of some of the responses. I was also taken aback by the ad hominem attacks. One respondent demanded that I leave the country, moving to some unspecified place where I would learn the error of my ways and come groveling back, seeking forgiveness for my ignorance and boorish behavior. I was also a bit surprised at the vulgar language bandied about by some of the authors. Now, not all who responded negatively did so with vituperative vigor. Some respondents were gracious and careful in their wording, seeking to convince me with evidence and carefully constructed arguments. These were efficacious, forcing me to do more research and even adjust my thinking. One friend even approached me via a different platform, which resulted in an online conversation. What was the reason they chose another venue? They did not want to enflame the already burning passions. The result, again I was able to improve my understanding and further adjust my thinking. This one post and the associated exchanges reveal what is wrong and what is right in our current political communications model.

            What is wrong? We let our own ideological litmus test rule our passions. Anger replaces thoughtful measured response. If someone says or believes something we find unacceptable, we consider them the enemy and attack their character. We unleash withering broadsides comprised of angry attacks on the person with very little in the way of facts or other possibilities. We use language that is more fit for a barroom brawl than for a collegial debate. Our aim? Humiliation and validation. We seek to humiliate anyone that disagrees with us, and we desperately want validation from those who think the same as we do. We’re quite content to batter each other across the great divide we’ve constructed through our own intransigence.

            This mindset of intransigence and consigning all those who think differently to the enemy camp hobbles our national discourse, our politics, and our government. We accept boorish behavior from our elected officials and the accompanying policy failure as status quo. Oh, we blame those who think otherwise; but, we fail to own up to our own role in digging the dividing canyon and resultant chaos. We’ve forgotten the power of a well-spoken thoughtful word adroitly delivered.

            Returning to my recent experience. Those who sought to savage and pillory me had no real effect on my ideological construct. Their baseless attacks on my character and intelligence so obscured their ideas as to render them impotent. My friends who approached me with thoughtful words, appropriate facts, and well-reasoned ideas forced me to reconsider and reshape my worldview. Their words were powerful in effect, which is what we need. We do not need more braggadocios posturing. We do not need digital bullies who engage in personal attack when confronted with an idea or opinion that they do not like. If we’re ever going to find our way out of the morass which so stifles the goodness of our land, we must recover our ability to engage in civil discourse and even entertain ideas which, at first blush, we do not agree with. When we do that, we can start making good progress towards solving the problems that so vex us. 

Good News, Bad News

 

            I spent almost ten years wearing the “Green Tab” in the Army. The “Green Tab” was a small piece of green felt that I pinned around my epilate underneath my rank insignia, indicating that I was a troop leader. It also meant that I was responsible to my commander for the behavior, good or ill, of my troops. I was also responsible for the equipment and facilities I was signed for. As a second lieutenant I was responsible for over one hundred soldiers, NCOs, and a handful of civilian contractors. I was accountable for four buildings and millions of dollars of communications equipment. Additionally, I was responsible for communications links that sprawled across Europe and at times other parts of the world. The load only increased as I moved up the ladder. As part of this, I often had to bring my superiors bad news, always an experience full of trepidation. During the eighties and early nineties, some commanders embraced a zero-defect style of command. They considered any bad news a failure of one sort or another on my part. Bringing them bad news was always a journey through a minefield full of ambushes; consequently, their subordinates tended to drag their feet when delivering bad news. Often, they did not have a full understanding of how things were in their command; due in part to the hesitancy of their subordinates to deliver bad news and their unwillingness to deal appropriately with problems. Dealing with problems is a significant part of leadership.

            As a leader we must solve problems, and shooting the messenger is not a good way to solve problems. After you shoot a few messengers, they stop telling you the truth. They know that you do not really want to understand what is going on You simply want to feel good. I had one supervisor who had a sign on his wall which read, “If it looks good, it probably is.” That summed up his zero-defect view of the world quite well. In the late nineties, I took over a recruiting company, which was known across the command as a very problematic company. The commander had stopped caring and let things slide for a long time. Following the example set by the commander, most of the NCOs had stopped caring and did little to complete their mission. Before I took command, my commander pulled me aside and told me that I should, “Clean house.”

            One of the problems that I found was several NCOs who espoused racist attitudes and regularly used inappropriate language and actively sought to enlist young men and women that also embraced such an unacceptable attitude. It was evident that this problem was a cancer that infected the company, even into the leadership. It was so bad that it had drawn the interest of the local chapter of the NAACP. Gathering the evidence, I approached my commander with this disturbing news.

            Fortunately for me, he was not the kind of commander who would shoot the messenger. Instead, he, with clear eyes, assimilated the information, and together we took the actions necessary to root out the sickness and rectify the situation. Our willingness to confront the problem head on and take appropriate action to hold the guilty individuals accountable so impressed the NAACP representatives that instead of pillorying us, they applauded our actions. All this was due to my commander’s ability to absorb bad news, develop a plan, and then take affirmative action. Had he been a “shoot the messenger” kind of leader, the problem would have festered.

            Good leaders understand that at times they must deal with bad news. Dealing with bad news takes courage and fortitude. Beating up the bearers of bad news causes them to either keep it to themselves or to shade, color, or lie about it so that it is no longer bad. Either way, problems languish without a solution, often hidden from sight. Sooner or later, they will manifest themselves and usually are much worse and harder to solve due to the delay. We need fearless leaders that can face up to problems and then labor to solve them, not leaders who shoot the messenger.

The Tanker and Poetry

 

            “Sir, I’m just a DAT. I can’t understand that.”

            It was the early ‘90s at what was then Fort Hood, Texas. I was serving as the Signal Officer in an Armor Battalion, 3-66 Armor to be exact and training a young officer on how to use his radio. Now, I’m not a technically oriented person; however, the Army in all its collective wisdom decided that I would be a Signal Officer. In fact, my first assignment as an officer was to 5^th Signal Command, a fixed station unit which used satellite and terrestrial microwave technologies to extend voice and data communications from the supporting base to tactical units deployed to Europe and around the globe. Survival as an officer in such a highly technical organization required mastery of many different technologies and the leadership required to employ them. I was in over my head. Survival and promotion required that I learn and study. Fortunately, I served alongside some of the best NCOs and technicians in the free world who made my success their success. I went from that heady technical world into the tactical army replete with the hulking M1A1 Abrams and all the associated heavy machinery of armored warfare, and as the Signal Officer I was required to master a new set of technologies, FM and AM radio and the various computer systems required to shoot, move, and communicate. I also had to teach the tankers to do the same.

            DAT stands for Dumb Ass Tanker, a moniker the tankers tossed around with great aplomb and pride; though it was not a term they would accept from a non-tanker such as myself. The M1A1 Abrams is an incredibly complex piece of equipment. It uses a turbine engine, taken from the aviation world and modified to drive the 50-ton behemoth. Properly employed, an Abrams equipped battalion is an incredibly lethal organization able to rapidly kill and destroy over amazing distances. To appropriately fight such a tank or organization requires the mastery of many different skills and is not, repeat not,  possible for those of limited intellect. Though they loved to wrap themselves in the mantle of the DAT, tankers, good tankers, are among the smartest individuals to wear the uniform. Years later, after I retired from the Army, I plunged into a new world.

            I sought to satiate my innate abilities and teach English and Social Studies in the High School and Junior College arena. This required a return to school. So, I found myself in Graduate School. On a whim I signed up for a course Poetry, Form and Function. Dr. John Poch, the professor, asked me to stop by for a chat before the semester started. He informed me that this class was not sitting around and chatting about poems over coffee. While we would read and discuss the great poems through the ages, we would be required to write a poem each walk, using a particular form…none of them free-form. He wanted to see if I was willing to work in such a highly technical environment. Again, I was in quite over my head; however, with his help I learned and grew. I found that the world of poetry was much more technical and thrilling than I had ever known. I never became a great poet, that required a level of commitment, inspiration, and ability I was either unwilling or unable to summon. But I found a new love of the world of poetry, especially the Metaphysical poets of the seventeenth century. This new world of letters, social studies, and education required mastery of a new set of skills for survival.

            Success in any field of endeavor requires mastery of skills. It has always been that way and always will be that way. Pick any field and you will find that success hinges upon mastery. Blue-collar, white-collar, or techie, it does not matter. Mastery leads to success. My grandfathers and uncles, all blue-collar men were masters of their chosen trades. My father, a history professor, was a master of his chosen trade. And mastery, requires an intensive effort to understand the intricacies of craft, intellectual prowess in other words. The world is and has always been a complex place impervious to easy formulas or pat answers. This is what makes developing a political philosophy based on memes so hazardous.

            A meme is an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media.¹ These fill the social media world and often induce a good laugh. But many people are starting to develop their political or religious world view through data gathered from memes. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times detailed this cultural shift. ² And while this article focused on conservative efforts in this arena, liberal groups display the same sorts of changes. “Influencers” seek to inform their audience through memes, claiming that modern youth do not have the attention span or time to consume and digest political material presented in more traditional formats. They claim to influence their target audience via memes and other similar formats, and they appear to be quite successful in their stated goal. But there is one glaring problem.

            The issues surrounding political theory defy easy explanation via meme. The problems we face as a nation or culture are much more complex. They always have been. This is not some sort of new societal geopolitical problem. A study of history reveals that once you get more than two people living together, problems become very complicated, refusing easy definitions and solutions. All of us love easy definitions and simple solutions; however, the real world does not work that way. It is impossible to compress a serious problem, such as the Israeli Palestinian conflict or progressive tax theory, into a short catchy phrase which entertains.

            We live in a complex world with many competing constituencies. Finding solutions which adequately services these, sometimes widely divergent, groups takes knowledge, understanding, time, and wisdom. You cannot employ a shortcut, but that is exactly what many “influencers” claim to do. They posit a new generation, which understands the world intuitively and is able to bypass the work of learning. They claim that “only young people know what the new world is like.”³ They purposefully sell an entire generation short and pander to its baser more ill-informed instincts.

            Such a crass and self-serving paradigm leads to faulty myopic policy which ultimately separates and does not serve the nation or society as a whole. Good policy takes thoughtful communication between stakeholders. Comprehensive strategy and programs require some level of compromise. Memes corrode compromise by creating cartoonish representatives of “the other” which bear little resemblance to actual people or groups. We need to stop flinging such snarky and sarcastic images at each other, claiming to have “owned” the opposition. Good governance, governance which serves the greater good for the greatest number of people, takes time, effort, intelligence, cooperation, and wisdom. We ought to jettison memes as a means of creating policy and building consensus, putting them in their proper place, a tidbit of humor that causes a chuckle. Let us leave the real work of developing a coherent and cogent policy to thoughtful consideration and hard work.       

           

1.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html

3.  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html

Juneteenth

            “@#%$!&* Baby Killers!” The epithet joined by a half-crushed beer can, bottle rocket, and offal soared out of a crowd on the other side of West Colfax Ave. in Denver, Colorado. It was the summer of 1981 and two friends of mine, fellow service members, and I were hoofing it back to Lowery, Air Force Base in the middle of the night. We’d attended a midnight movie, forgetting that the city buses stopped running at midnight. Being young and in shape we were unfazed by the prospect of the several-mile hike back to the barracks. However, we were surprised at the vehement treatment by the late-night crowds. In the days of long-haired rockers our buzz cuts identified us as military as clearly as if we’d worn our uniforms. We made it back to the barracks after a long and interesting night, but that is another story for another time. What really stuck with me was the hurt and anger I felt at being targeted by my appearance and nothing else.

            That experience has given me a small insight into the daily struggles that people of color face. Unlike my fellow citizens of color, I eventually left the military and grew a beard, and unless I wear my “Army-Retired” hat no one can really tell that I was once a soldier. Societal thoughts and practices eventually shifted, and thanks replaced curses. Unfortunately for my fellow citizens of color they don’t change, and our culture still suffers from lingering prejudice, which is why Juneteenth is so important.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

            While progress has been made, we have not arrived at that long-anticipated day Dr. King spoke of so eloquently. Those of color and other marginalized populations still suffer the indignities of prejudice. Often and in many ways, the playing field is tilted away from them. They still suffer from, often unseen, systems which make progress achingly difficult, if not impossible. To reach the goal of content of character we must continually strive for it, and that is why Juneteenth is so important.

            Remembering and celebrating Juneteenth helps reinvigorate our commitment to equality and opportunity. The hoary hand of prejudice often rises out of the tomb of historical eradication and must be re-slain and re-entombed. Sadly, the stream of human depravity flows through each generation. We cannot simply dust off our hands and say, “The job is done.” Juneteenth reminds us to find and root out what remains of societal and cultural prejudice. In many ways we’ve come far, let us not grow lax and let lingering hatred erode our progress. Each Juneteenth offers us an opportunity to think and reapply ourselves to the work of creating a more noble culture. Looking around provides us ample opportunities to address this centuries-old problem, ample opportunities to build a better society, ample opportunities to make a land where all can breathe free. Juneteenth is a good day to pause and recommit ourselves to the work still required.

EO and DEI

 

            I joined the Army in 1982 as the Army was reinventing and rebuilding itself from the post-Vietnam chaos. One of the challenges we faced was creating a force that somehow represented American society…demographically. Now as a private, this largely passed over my head. I was most focused on keeping the sergeants happy and avoiding interaction with officers altogether. Eventually I earned a commission, and this issue became one of many that I worried about. Truthfully, it was fairly far down on the list. Other items, maintenance, weapons qualification…and cleaning…, physical fitness, and paperwork filled most of my days; however, this issue did have significant impact on my world, namely as Equal Opportunity, normally referred to as EO.

            The EO program and all its subsidiary components was the Army’s plan to protect various minorities and to ensure that the force better represented the American demographic as a whole. For most of us, especially the white us, the EO program was fairly innocuous. It did not influence our daily lives. As an officer, I interacted with the EO program as a portion of the IG and other inspections. I also had an EO NCO in all my units who helped me make sure that I treated everyone evenhandedly. Rarely, I would have to answer an EO complaint. Fortunately for me, all those complaints against me were unfounded, though the investigation process could be intimidating. The Army used EO complaints and periodic EO briefings to help educate and improve the force. Though these efforts were not perfect, they helped us discard some old and rather bad habits. The EO program also influenced promotions, and here is where many complained.

            I was a young lieutenant when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the cold war wound down. The Army went through a series of reductions, shedding thousands of soldiers, NCOs, and officers. In many ways it was a daunting time professionally. Many friends, excellent officers and NCOs, found their careers cut short by the downsizing. In this atmosphere it was quite easy to blame EO. Though I do not know the exact mechanisms, I do have some knowledge of how the Army pursued creating a force that was demographically aligned with the American population.

            When the Army had a board for promotion or retention, the board would first determine all those administratively eligible for promotion. From that very large pool of highly qualified individuals the Army would then develop an order of merit list. In some ways this could be a bit arbitrary, but it was based on performance in general and in certain key positions, company commander, platoon leader, and the like. Once that list was created the Army would scrub it for demographic concerns. And this is where things get a bit sticky. Is it fair to move someone down on the order of merit list to elevate someone else based on race or gender? If we were talking about elevating an unqualified or lessor qualified individual over a more qualified one that would be problematic; but, such was not the case. The Army started with a very large pool of highly qualified individuals and sought to fill positions in a way that reflected our nation. Awaiting those board results was nerve wracking, but that was part of the process. The result of all those angst inducing machinations? The Army developed a highly professional force that well represented our nation.

            Sometimes when a board did not go your way, which happened to me, the temptation would be great to blame the EO process instead of your performance. The temptation to abandon cooperating and helping peers was also great. In one battalion that I served in our commander sensed a growing disunity and competition between the lieutenants. He gathered us all into a room and gave us this bit of very good advice.

            “Your fellow lieutenants are not your competition. You are only competing against yourself. If you strive to be the best officer that you can be and pull together as a team, then promotions and retention will take care of themselves.”

            It was excellent advice and helped build teamwork in the unit. As I remember, all the lieutenants in that room made captain and I knew several that made the exulted rank of colonel. But his true point was to avoid blaming others for our own lackadaisical attitude towards professionalism. This is the siren song of railing against EO, DEI, or any other program designed to help make the workforce more representative.

            Through its efforts the Army shed its post-Vietnam problems and emerged as a force which valued professionalism, afforded all members opportunities for advancement, and resembled the nation demographically. Did it always work? No, no organization, plan, or program is perfect. Later when I commanded a recruiting company, I learned even more about how this worked.

            As a recruiting company commander, my professional career hung on meeting monthly enlistment goals. These goals varied and were always hard to meet. While I met the raw numbers on a regular basis, I only mission-boxed once, recruiting speak for meeting all the numbers and categories assigned. I received regular reports on the demographics of my enlistees. The number-crunchers at Fort Knox, USAREC HQ, measured my success against the demographics of my company area. Truthfully, I never worried too much about the exact demographics as I struggled to meet the raw numbers. But I did find the data interesting. One area that I always failed in was enlisting wealthy white males. Rich kids just are not that interested in a life of service. They have many options. The Army understood the importance of a force that reflected the nation as a whole and how that enhanced unit cohesion. DEI and its predecessor EO worked to build a viable, vibrant, and strong organization.

            We do best as an Army, an organization, indeed as a nation when we strive to include all members of society. This comes with challenges as there are members of our society that find proximity to others uncomfortable. We all feel most relaxed around people who are like us. Most of my friends look kind of like me…old white guys. But it is those friends who think differently that add color and character to my life. And so it was in the Army.

            Though we all wore BDUs and “bled green” as it were, our differences brought vitality to the organization. My comrades from differing backgrounds brought different skills to the table. They often had a different way of solving a given problem. We were better for our eclectic character. I always found “Joint” (multi-service) and “Combined” (multi-national) operations challenging and invigorating. It is the same in society.

            We need not retreat from DEI and EO. These programs do not solve all problems, but they are a step in the right direction. Our country will thrive the most when people know that they are evaluated on the content of their character and abilities and not some arbitrary standard of sameness. All members of society have something to offer, and we need to do our best to open doors for their participation.

Deeds Inform Trust

 

            I’ve been reading a variety of posts and memes encouraging me to take a wait and see attitude towards the tactics of ICE rounding up all manner of aliens. ICE, under the direction of the administration, not only raids numerous workplaces, but also camps in the government buildings where immigration courts meet and detains or arrests individuals when they come in for scheduled court appearances. They are casting as large a net as possible in order to meet the stated administration goal of deporting more undocumented aliens than President Eisenhower. Their efforts and tactics have caused a considerable stir across the nation, and significant demonstrations in Los Angeles and New York. Some question the legality of detaining someone while they are attending a court ordered meeting as part of their process. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men and women are being asked to wait and see while in custody.

            The idea of waiting and seeing implies a certain level of trust in the administration to properly work the system, to respect the concept of due process. Many of the memes and other postings claim that an undocumented alien does not deserve due process, which is untrue according to our legal system. In fact, due process enables us to verify a person’s legal status and take the appropriate action, whether that be release or deportation. Due process enables us to protect the innocent and hold the guilty accountable for their actions. We’ve long taken the stance that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and this is why I’m uncomfortable with the wait and see recommendation.

            Our administration has shown itself very willing to discard due process. They have already deported American citizens, adults and children. This callous attitude toward due process and human rights does not warrant my trust. Their willingness to deport citizens without cause, other than being brown and in the wrong place and wrong time, has eroded my trust. They must take steps to show that they understand due process and the roles of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches. When they have trampled on due process, they have infringed upon the role of the judiciary. This lack of respect for the constitutional roles of government concerns me greatly. What is to stop them from detaining and then deporting me?

            This cavalier attitude towards due process and other civil liberties has eroded trust, and the administration needs to take appropriate measures to rebuild that trust. This does not mean that they need to give up on their stated goals; they just need to move the levers of government according to the Constitution and laws of the land. A population which does not trust its government will soon feel adrift and unattached. In this time, we need to work together to address the multitude of challenges that lay before us. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of good leadership and strength of character; both of which seem in short supply these days.