The Oath

 

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. 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.

That is the oath of enlistment. I first said those words in February of 1981, shortly before I shipped out to Fort Leonard Wood for basic training. I would repeat them during a reenlistment ceremony and as the reenlisting official for many of my subordinates over the years. Later I would say the following words upon receiving my commission as an officer in the Army:

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; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

In both cases, I swore allegiance to the Constitution, to the body of ideals which frame our national government. As an enlisted man, I swore to obey the orders of the President as long as they were lawful. Interestingly, the oath for officers omits the reference to the president. In both cases, our oath is to support and defend the constitution. As an officer, there were several times in which I had to confront a superior officer, once a two-star general, over issues that violated our constitution. Fortunately for me, those higher up agreed with my understanding of our constitution and my career survived. I wonder if it would today.

Our president seems to have forgotten that those who serve in our government take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not an oath of fealty to the president. The backbone, the strength of our government lies in the fact that those who serve, do not blindly serve a man or woman. No, they serve the nation by their devotion to a body of ideals encapsulated by the Constitution. This is often difficult.

I remember the fear and trepidation that I felt as I told a two-star general, “No sir. We cannot do that it is illegal and immoral.” Deployed to combat in Iraq, I felt quite alone and without support. Fortunately for me, the three-star general above both of us agreed with my interpretation of the situation and the matter was dropped. But it was not fun. 

I hope that someone will educate our President, reminding him that the government is not his personal fiefdom and governmental officials serve a higher purpose. It is not fun to hear the words no, that is unconstitutional or illegal; however, those in power need to feel that check when they want to go outside the law. Given our Presidents proclivity for revenge and retribution over any perceived slight, real or imagined, I hope that they have the courage needed and our support as necessary.

The Inspector General

During twenty-seven years of military service, I periodically ran into the Inspector General, better known as the IG. As a young, enlisted soldier my primary interaction with the IG centered around preparing for and enduring periodic IG inspections. Of course, we were always told that you could go to the IG as a final recourse if we were being abused somehow by our chain of command or the Army in general. I never felt the need to turn to the IG for help. As an officer, my interactions with IG were more…challenging. The IG came and inspected my units periodically. These inspections normally included a “sensing-session,” in which my subordinates had the opportunity voice their complaints and concerns without repercussion. I survived all of the out-briefs without serious problems. Then there were the individual IG Complaints. As any active duty officer will tell you, these complaints come our way occasionally. Again, I survived these without much issue. Once I was told that I did not talk to civilians very well. But other than that, I do not remember anything which negatively impacted my ability to complete my mission or hampered my career progression. The IG exists to ensure that Army leaders comply with appropriate law and regulations. It also exists to ensure that Army leaders, men and women entrusted with significant power and authority, do not abuse their soldiers through capricious or inappropriate application of that authority. The Army IG traces its history all the way back to 1777. It has served to help soldiers and commanders alike better serve our nation for over two centuries. Despite the angst it causes leaders sometimes, the IG is a necessary brake on unbridled power.

On the evening of twenty-four January, President Trump authorized the firing on between twelve and seventeen Inspectors General of the government. The government is a relative late-comer to the need for and role of the IG. Congress set up governmental IGs in the turbulent period after the Watergate Scandal of the Nixon administration. They serve the same purpose as the Army IG, they work to ensure that leaders follow the law and do not abuse their power. Though the president has the authority to fire and replace IGs, the president must show cause and give thirty days notice to congress before termination. There are over seventy IGs in the Executive Branch, with over thirty requiring Senate confirmation. Though they are generally considered as nonpartisan, Presidents may remove and replace them. However, the firing of such a number while apparently circumventing the law is concerning. The IGs serve as a legal and regulatory watchdog as well as brake on unconstrained power.

As an officer, I enjoyed extensive powers which expanded as I was promoted. An inappropriate application or use of those powers could have seriously impeded the careers and personal lives of my subordinates. Later in my career my decisions and actions could have serious consequences in regard to the conduct of war and national policy and image. The IG is a necessary component of the military and government. Senior leaders may not like the IG; but, they need the IG. As a law-abiding nation we need an independent and strong IG to ensure that those entrusted with wielding great power do so in a way that not only complies with the law but also best serves the public interest. This applies to the President and Executive Branch. 

For a sitting President to circumvent the law by firing IGs without cause and replacing them with men and women more compliant to their wishes does not engender confidence. Rather, it raises unnecessary questions and exerts a corrosive effect on public confidence. As annoying as it may be, the President should comply with the law and let the IGs do their jobs in an unconstrained fashion. 

All My Troops

 

As an officer in the Army, I served in a variety of leadership positions at numerous levels. I learned very quickly that the Army did not let me choose my soldiers. Oh, there were times in which I was allowed influence in certain key positions; but, normally expected me to lead and train whatever troops they sent me. It was up to me to lead them to success. I also found out that most of my soldiers did not share my worldview. Some of them embraced a radically different lifestyle. That is not a criticism of them. We just looked at things differently. The Army required that I evaluate their character on the Army values of: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. I was also obliged to evaluate their ability to conform to Army standards and perform their duties as assigned. As long as their personal proclivities or tastes did not impact on their ability to serve, I could not denigrate them. We embraced the idea that it said, “US Army” on our uniforms. Of course, this diversity led to interesting late-night conversations in the barracks, command posts, foxholes, and during long convoys. But in a secular multi-cultural Army, you must embrace this style of leadership.

As a leader of troops, I needed to take care of all the soldiers assigned to me. I was responsible for setting the conditions for their success. I was also responsible for defending them no matter what their personal beliefs were. I was especially cognizant that the weakest members of my soldiers, those of the lowest ranks and various minorities of all types, were especially vulnerable to predatory behaviors of others, especially those senior in rank. It was up to me to create a command environment that fostered the success of all my soldiers, not just the ones that looked and thought like me. As long as they did their duties, lived up to the Army values, and did not get into some sort of legal trouble, they would enjoy my encouragement, support, training, and protection…yes protection. As a leader, I needed to make sure that not only did I create a command climate that was fair towards all my soldiers, but I also had to make sure that I protected all of my soldiers, regardless of their personal worldview. When I did that my soldiers prospered and my organization functioned well.

Our politicians need to embrace this mental paradigm. Like it or not, we are a secular multi-cultural nation. We started down this road long ago, long before we even considered revolution. An interesting letter from the home office in Amsterdam to Peter Stuyvesant, the governor of New Amsterdam in the mid 1600s, instructed him to let those of differing beliefs alone as long as they were peaceable and abided by the laws. This decision set our nation on a course of letting those of differing worldview alone. It also means that I must learn to live next to and respect the rights of those whose worldview differs from mine…perhaps even drastically. Our politicians need to remember that they represent all the members of their constituency, not just the ones who elected them. This is especially important for the president.

Our president serves as the only nationally elected official. Every other elected official serves a smaller constituency. It is incumbent upon the president to remember that they must keep the needs of all the nation in mind as they make decisions, not just those who elected them. Those weakest members of our society look to the White House for support and protection. As a commander of troops, I had to keep all my soldiers in mind. In a like fashion, the president needs to keep all the citizens of the nation in mind as he leads. This does not mean that he makes decisions that everyone likes. Indeed, a president is elected based on what they say they will do in office, and they need to fulfill those promises. But he needs to remember that even those with differing worldviews look to him for protection. Success at the ballot box does not justify policy abuse. 

In Ezekiel 47:21-23 we find an interesting and instructive passage. Through the prophet, God provided the Jews instructions for reoccupying the Promised Land. He told them that they would find “sojourners” there, people who were not Israelites. They were not to drive them out. Instead, they were to treat them as native-born children of Israel and give them an inheritance alongside the returning Jews. While the situation is not the same, the instructions to those in power are very relevant.

Those in power must remember to take care of those who are weak and vulnerable. Power does not grant license to abuse or trample the weak. Those in power must wield it in ways that not only fulfills the desires of those who elected them but also protects the weakest and marginalized members of society. To do otherwise is to abuse power.