Keep the Military Neutral

Keep the Military Neutral

Proceedings, June 2002
Lieutenant Juan M. Garcia III, U.S. Navy

Politicians from both sides of the aisle have abused their relationship with the military—Admiral William Crowe raised eyebrows for his support of candidate Bill Clinton, and candidate George W. Bush found a useful link to military voters in Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell. The military must stop playing political games and do its duty regardless of which political party gives the orders.

The horrific terrorist attacks of 11 September justifiably obscured the other historic national story of the still-new millenium: the staggeringly close presidential election of 2000. Americans have rallied around the Commander-in-Chief during this time of crisis, and the controversy surrounding the electoral ballot accounting in Florida seems destined to be a curious footnote. But it was only a little more than a year ago that a frenzied debate, at times bordering on hysteria, gripped the country—with the military in the eye of the storm. In a bizarre confluence of timing, deadlines, and postal procedures, the identity of the new President of the United States at one point seemed to rest in the hands of a few hundred military members, as the world awaited the results of the tallying of their overseas absentee ballots. A fundamental leadership challenge central to the definition of who we are and what we stand for as United States military officers was highlighted, but not born, during this controversy: keeping the U.S. military politically neutral.

As a junior lieutenant new to my assignment as flag aide to the Deputy Commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, I accompanied the admiral downstairs to the entryway of the Naval Headquarters building in London to greet the arriving U.S. congressional delegation. As their chauffeur assisted them from their vehicle, I recognized the members from the briefing materials: the staunch antiwar advocate with his ponytail dangling down his back and the controversial freshman, soon to be a household name for her attempt to host a fund raiser at the Playboy Mansion. While my officer-candidate training was unequivocal about the proper protocol, I still will never forget the sense of having the oxygen sucked out of me when I watched the admiral, a heavily decorated aviator and icon in our community, stand ramrod straight and render a perfect salute to our guests. The admiral's etiquette was not only proper but required. His salute symbolized a core tenet of U.S. government: the armed forces serve the elected civilian leadership. The salute acknowledged that relationship and its inherent implication—the military will execute all lawful orders and direction issued by such legitimate authority, regardless of the partisan, ideological, or political affiliation of such officials.

Historically, this relationship has manifested itself in strict political neutrality among the officer corps. Young naval officers were instructed that, along with topics such as religion and the various attributes of fellow officers' spouses, politics was a taboo subject for wardroom and workplace conversation. This strict line of demarcation was respected across the services. Retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak, Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994, said "I think for years there was a kind of a wall, a separation in this country. The professional military were proud, made a point of pride about avoiding politics."1 Formal guidelines delineate such boundaries. Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 prohibits such partisan political activities as soliciting votes for a particular candidate or political issue, and soliciting campaign contributions from other members of the military or civilian employees. Further, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) forbids military officers from using "contemptuous words against the President, Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any state," with violations potentially resulting in dismissal from the military and one year's imprisonment.2 There even exists a particularly draconian school of thought that military members, to preserve this strict neutrality and maintain a measure of distance beyond reproach from any perceived partisanship, should refrain even from voting.3

On the other hand, Clausewitz pointed out that war is a "political act,"4 suggesting that at some level the war fighter is inseparable from the policymaker. Many observers have detected a troubling trend in recent years away from the vaunted historical neutrality. (It is worth noting that General McPeak went on to endorse then-candidate Bush in 2000.) The presidential election controversy might be the most widely reported incident in this trend, but it is not the first or most unsettling chapter in what may be a dangerous backing away from the long-held military "point of pride about avoiding politics."

In preparing for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995, then-Representative Newt Gingrich (R-GA) dispatched top aides and lawmakers to the Army for sessions in military strategy. After the Republicans gained control of the lower chamber, Mr. Gingrich became Speaker of the House, and he began having freshmen Republicans helicoptered to the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in Fort Monroe, Virginia. Nearly ten hours of audiotapes highlight the speaker theorizing about his partisan "revolution" with active-duty military officers at TRADOC. Seeing himself as "the Duke of Wellington," Gingrich spoke of wanting to bring other Republican members of the House up to the level of "captains" in their understanding of military strategy and tactics. Ultimately, a mid-level officer expressed concern about the nature of the link between the military and a political party, concluding in a memorandum that the entire operation should be kept "as low key" as possible. A general wrote Mr. Gingrich a letter suggesting that the support given Congress should be made "more" bipartisan. Now the Pentagon's Office of Inspection General says the Army improperly provided the services without charging the politicians. Critics have called this apparent political collaboration a textbook violation of DoD Directive 1344.10.5

The era of the Clinton administration witnessed several "uprisings" that certainly met the technical criteria for Article 88 violations. Many observers have written that President Clinton entered office mistrusted by the military because of his draft record. But it was his 1993 proposed relaxation of the ban on gay and lesbian service that unleashed a torrent of disapproval among the ranks. Aided by a then-blossoming technology called e-mail which was quickly becoming a fixture in American homes (as well as ships and submarines), servicemembers roared their disapproval of the Commander-in-Chief in long chain e-mails that quickly blanketed the fleet. The mood among sections of the military brass became so hostile that, in a stunning statement, a sitting U.S. senator, Jesse Helms (R-NC), publicly warned President Clinton that he would be in physical danger if he visited such military bases as Fort Bragg.

The officer corps was even more incensed during the Lewinsky affair, since it followed the sacking of Navy and Marine Corps officers for alleged sexual assaults during a convention of the Tailhook Association, as well as the forced retirement of several senior generals charged with sexual harassment. Both Navy Times and Army Times published letters from active-duty officers denouncing Clinton as a "criminal," while other officers openly circulated petitions supporting the impeachment and removal of their nominal leader.

In the summer of 2000, the Pentagon agreed to send more than 30 displays of military hardware—including some of its most high-tech weapons, such as the Marine Corps V-22 and Army unmanned drones—to be on exhibit at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, directly across the street from the Republican National Convention.6 Critics viewed the Defense Department as allowing the GOP to use the military hardware as political props. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon insisted that the displays were being sent as part of an effort to "educate elected officials on the military's capabilities and their equipment." Bacon said the equipment was not part of the convention itself. (He did not specifically address the question of why a display could not be set up right on Capitol Hill in Washington for lawmakers who want to be educated about the military.) The decision to participate came at a time when military spokespersons had decried a funding shortage. The displays cost thousands of dollars and required nearly 200 military personnel to travel to the site.

At the peak of the controversy surrounding the Florida recount, at least two major U.S. military units felt compelled to issue their personnel official warnings reminding them that it is a crime for officers to publicly express contempt for civilian political authorities. The official notices were sent out by the Air Force's Air Combat Command and the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, which together comprise 156,000 soldiers and civilians at 32 bases, after press reports quoted military officers denouncing the Democratic Party and Vice President Al Gore over challenges to military absentee ballots cast in Florida.7 Brigadier General Jack Rives, the top legal officer at the Air Combat Command, sent a message to officers telling them that "this is not the time to send e-mails or otherwise get involved in an improper or unprofessional manner with the continuing controversy over the presidential election." Colonel James Rosenblatt, the staff judge advocate for the Training and Doctrine Command, sent an e-mail reminding the command's generals and lawyers of the content of Article 88. He also urged local commanders to conduct educational sessions for their subordinates "on the question of civilian control of the military." Rosenblatt told The Washington Post it was the first time in his 28 years of military service that he had felt it necessary to issue such a cautionary message.

So why should this stream of events be troubling to military leaders of all ranks? After all, every American, civilian or military, is entitled to his respective opinion. And if the recent Pew Institute poll stating that two-thirds of the U.S. armed services claim Republican loyalty has any accuracy, isn't it only natural and inevitable that the military be associated with the GOP?8 Our Royal Navy ancestors, the source for so many of our naval traditions, actually had active-duty officers who held voting positions in Parliament.9 Few citizens are affected in a more visceral way by the decisions of our elected policymakers than those who serve in uniform: closing/realigning bases, reducing force levels, canceling weapons systems, and most significant, whether to wage war. Many have argued that the failure of military leaders to pose objections to the civilian leadership during the Vietnam conflict was an abdication of their professional responsibilities, and ultimately might have cost the lives of untold numbers of their brothers-in-arms. (This argument has never been more compelling than now, when the percentage of elected officials who have served in uniform is at a historic low.) What is wrong with aligning ourselves with a partisan identity that arguably has been more responsive to our needs?

If our military surrenders its political neutrality, we risk compromising our public credibility and our mission cohesiveness, two attributes that could be difficult to recover.

The first trait we damage is our credibility. President Dwight D. Eisenhower foresaw this potential more than 40 years ago when he warned of the buildup of a "military-industrial complex." If the armed services are perceived as being inappropriately in one partisan camp, what credibility can our senior officers hope to carry when they are summoned to testify on Capitol Hill in front of members of another camp? Abandoning our role as silent servants of the elected representatives in favor of an overtly partisan ideological stance will taint the testimony of every flag officer, as observers will wonder if testimony is given objectively, or with an eye toward benefiting the favored party. Over a range of issues, the armed services will be vulnerable to questions regarding their stewardship of the taxpayers' resources, and whether we've joined with "the politicians" in a "conspiracy against the electorate."10

The second fundamental underpinning of our armed services jeopardized by overt partisanship is mission focus. With few exceptions in our nation's history, when the legitimately elected representatives of the citizenry have issued orders, our men and women in uniform have saluted and executed those orders, regardless of their partisan stripe. Allowing our military to be colored by an ideological tint would undermine morale and create divisiveness. In a culture where the chain of command lies at the heart of all decision making, the potential for undue influence over a subordinate's political choices cannot be ignored. The endorsement of a candidate by a senior officer, whether explicit or tacit, sends a powerful message to junior personnel, many far from home and experiencing their initial voting opportunity. (Some have even decried public endorsements by retired officers as inappropriate. It was former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral William Crowe who broke historical precedent by endorsing candidate Clinton in 1991, an endorsement made particularly eyebrow-raising when it apparently was reciprocated by President Clinton with his nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James. A decade later, candidate George W. Bush made campaign stops attacking military readiness flanked by four-star icons Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell.) More ominously, the socioeconomic demographics often associated with U.S. party politics might drive wedges between rungs of the chain of command, with fissures ripped open between disparate geographic, religious, and ethnic groups, and widen the chasm between officer and enlisted. Now, during the opening salvos of what promises to be a long war against terrorism, our nation's armed forces cannot risk allowing bubbling dissension within our ranks to distract our focus from that mission.

So what can be done to arrest this troubling trend? Navy leaders of all ranks must step forward and remind shipmates of our obligations as U.S. service members in this regard. Indoctrination into a command should include training on the requirements of DoD Directive 1344.10, as well as the prohibitions set forth in Article 88 of the UCMJ. Make clear that like other banned subjects, political screeds are inappropriate over military computer networks. The military environment has led the way in evolving at different times to end tolerance of a drug culture, overt racism, and sexual harassment. Demand from your peers a workplace environment in which there is no possibility that your subordinates could sense personal pressure to adopt a certain political bent. By all means, every U.S. citizen should follow the issues of the moment, register to vote, and actively take part in the miracle of democracy that is America. But when we cross the bow, step on the flight line, or enter the base gate, remember that we are professional members of the armed services, entrusted by our fellow countrymen to follow the direction of their popularly elected representatives.

Year after year, polls show that our armed services are among the most highly admired professions in all of society. By not compromising our credibility, we have earned the trust of the American people, who not only have bestowed on us the resources to do our job, but also have lent us their sons and daughters. By keeping our focus on our mission, regardless of which party is directing it, we fulfill that trust. Let us not lose that which makes us so special.

The Author:

Lieutenant Garcia is a graduate of the University of California at Los Angeles, Harvard Law School, and Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He served as a White House Fellow from 1999-2000. A naval aviator, he is the assistant operations officer on board the USS Constellation (CV-64).

© 2002 U.S. Naval Institute. All rights reserved.

Juan M. Garcia III, 32: a Flag Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy and the Aide-de-Camp in London to the Deputy Commander in Chief of U.S. Naval Forces Eur

Juan M. Garcia III, 32, is a Flag Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy and the Aide-de-Camp in London to the Deputy Commander in Chief of U.S. Naval Forces Europe, who is directing the Joint Task Force designing contingency operations in Kosovo. Garcia, whose hometown is Corpus Christi, graduated from UCLA and became a Naval officer after receiving a joint J.D./M.P.A. degree from Harvard. Prior to his London assignment Garcia was stationed at Naval Air Station Barber's Point, Hawaii where he accumulated more than 1,200 hours piloting the P-3 Orion. He flew 30 armed missions in support of Operation Desert Thunder in the Persian Gulf, including an emergency landing during a sandstorm. While in college, he organized and taught English and U.S. civics classes for candidates for immigration amnesty at an East Los Angeles Jesuit mission. Garcia has also served as a legal advisor and counselor to shelters in Washington, D.C., Corpus Christi and Honolulu and started "The Sky is the Limit," a program that introduces youth from troubled homes to the opportunities available in naval aviation.

Juan Garcia with former Harvard roomate Sen. Barack Obama

Meet Juan Garcia - District 32
Juan Garcia with former Harvard roomate Sen. Barack ObamaDistrict 32 (pdf. map) presents a mosaic of virtually every environmental concern found across Texas, with strong forces often pulling the area toward opposite ends.It covers most of Corpus Christi, all of Port Aransas and stretches north through Aransas and Calhoun Counties. It's home to the Padre Island National Seashore, the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail and boasts some of the richest hunting and sport fishing in the country.The area also has a high concentration of heavy industry, particularly petrochemical refineries. Forecasts show tourism and service industries growing faster and representing an increasingly larger part of the economic pie, but industrial sources of pollution will continue to present serious public health challenges well into the future. The district also maintains a sizable cattle ranching sector, an Army Depot and a major Naval Air Station - each with its attendant environmental challenges.For the past nine years, District 32 has been represented by Gene Seaman – a man who seems blind to the ecological richness of the coastal bend and harbors little interest in protecting his constituents from toxic industry. Seaman managed to get an 8% on TLCV’s 2005 Scorecard. He racked up a big Zippo-Nada-Zilch on the 2003 Scorecard.The district historically swings Republican, but in the Sharp/Dewhurst race of ’02 it broke 50-50 – revealing an independent streak in voters there. And Seaman has been weak in recent elections. It looked like he would lose in 2002, but he got a last-minute infusion of Tom Delay’s scandalous TRMPAC money and squeaked that one out.Juan Garcia may be the perfect candidate to provide some much needed balance, energy and leadership. And really, that’s under-selling the guy. The truth is, you can’t make up candidates like this.Garcia is a naval aviator who flew multiple armed missions in the Persian Gulf and in Kosovo and, now retired from active duty, serves as a naval flight instructor. He has a Harvard law degree, a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and now works as an attorney. He was selected as a White House Fellow, where he worked with the Secretary of Education. He’s served on boards of numerous community groups and is a legal volunteer for the Corpus Christi Women’s Shelter. He’s a young, articulate family man.…Oh, and he’s a charter member of Surfrider Foundation in Corpus, a group dedicated to preserving the Texas Open Beaches Act, protecting dune systems and enhancing water quality and the ecological health of the coast.When it comes to natural resource issues, Garcia really gets it. That’s why TLCV was proud to endorse his candidacy earlier this year. We believe that Juan Garcia will do more than just replace Gene Seaman’s consistently wrong-headed votes with good ones. We think he’ll provide actual leadership – and that he’ll be able to do so much earlier than is typical for new House members. Juan is a charismatic and persuasive guy – the kind of person who you’d expect to round up an extra handful of votes on any given measure.We sat down with Juan to talk shop not long ago, and he started rattling off details about the environmental challenges facing his district.Air Quality. Garcia says that as a father of four kids, he’s deeply concerned about industrial pollution and its effect on public heath. “We have six refineries and a disproportionate incidence of asthma on the north side of town. And now we’re talking about putting a new one in at Ingleside.” Garcia says. The military base in Ingleside was shut down as part of the Base Relocation and Closure Act, and the site’s fate is now under debate. “We could flip a switch and have a college there,” Garcia says. “That’s what we need. We’re on the edge of non-attainment of federal air quality standards and we have asthma rates shooting up. Is another refinery the best answer? Why don’t we get some clean industry in there that will provide jobs and education opportunities?” Don’t expect that kind of talk for Seaman, whose campaign finance reports are loaded with contributions from industrial polluters.Energy. While recognizing the importance of the traditional energy industry to Corpus, Juan says he sees great potential for wind power in and around the district. “Wind power should be a big part of our future,” he says. “The technology has moved forward by leaps and bounds. There are issues that still need to be resolved, like dealing with flight patterns of migratory birds. But the potential here is huge.” He points out that Corpus will be confronting its past for years to come – with two unfunded Superfund sites sitting on the north side of the bay. “We need to start moving in the right direction today. We have a great spot for a wind farm on Hope Diamond,” he says.Bays and Estuaries. Garcia goes first to his experience as a founder of the Corpus Christi chapter of the Surfriders Foundation when talking about the health of the bays. Needless to say, when pollution causes beach closures, you get some pretty angry surfers. But he also talks about the economic health of the region depending on vibrant ecology. “Tourism is a leading industry here. If the bays are hurt, that all goes away. The anglers leave. The bird watchers leave. And all the businesses that support them go away. It would be pure disaster.”Open Beaches. The community has struggled in recent times with a City Council vote to close to vehicular traffic 7,200 feet of the beach near Packery Channel to accommodate a new resort development. Regardless of the outcome ultimately reached by the community in this local government issue, he’s worked to ensure that the requirements of the Open Beaches Act are met and exceeded, with multiple access points to the beach. Philosophically, Garcia and Seaman couldn’t be farther apart on this issue. During the last regular session, environmental bad-guy Dennis Bonnen had a bill to gut the Open Beaches Act – a move widely opposed by Corpus Christi citizens. The bill was repeatedly knocked down on the House floor for technical issues and sent back to committee. Each time, Gene Seaman had an opportunity to single-handedly stall the bill – since he sits on the Calendars Committee, which sets bills for floor hearings. And each time, Seaman refused to exercise his prerogative to “tag” the bill.In addition to conservation issues, Juan’s campaign themes have focused on education, health care, public safety and restoring integrity and fairness to the political process. On each count, he skips the platitudes and lists specific, detailed proposals for helping Texans and the citizens of District 32 lead richer lives.We’re guessing that the power structure in Austin – backed by the big polluters and insurance industry - will pour a lot of last-minute money into this race, trying to hold on to one of their lock-step voters. But we think Juan will peel off a fair number of voters who traditionally vote Republican, and bring people to the polls who usually don’t vote. He needs our help. We’ll bring you more news on this race as the election nears. Stay tuned.

Juan Garcia the come back kid.

Garcia has also been busy securing the restoration of the Dr. Hector P. Garcia (no relation) office builiding. He was the first Mexican American to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This is the highest award a civilian can receive. Dr. Garcia organized the American G.I. Forum (1948) initially to improve veteran benefits and enhance medical attention. But it soon expanded to address educational and vocational training, housing, public education, poll taxation, voter registration, hospitalization and employment. Today the American G. I. Forum has nearly 160,000 members in 502 chapters in 24 states.

If you are in Corpus this Memorial Day Weekend...
then you should swing by Juan Garcia's 40th Birthday Party.
Spend the Sunday evening of Memorial Day Weekend or May 28th in the shadow of the USS Lexington at the Blue Ghost Landing Beach Bar, and join Juan for his 40th Birthday Celebration. Free admission. Join us between 6-10 PM for an evening of dancing, drinks, and a special live performance by Juan's rock band, with surprise special guests! (And the much requested "Army of Juan" t-shirts will be available).

For more information please log on to Juan's web site:www.electjuangarcia.com
Remember, Monday is Memorial Day so you don't have to go to work (hopefully)...
Posted by Eddie on 05/25/2006 at 11:24 AM in HD 32, Lt. Cdr. Juan Garcia, Sparkling City by the Sea Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (0)