LTC Vindman, you missed a criticial part of your education....

The Chain of Command.

I was in the Army and Army Reserve for 23 years, and I'm now a patrol supervisor, in a para-military organization. They are similar in that both have a chain of command. A feature of each is there are levels of supervisor/command for both. And a lieutenant colonel appears to have placed himself into the national spotlight, on the side of the opponents of the current president of the United States.

You can have a disagreement on if President Trump did or did not do a criminal act, or a "wrong," act, in the phone call with the president of the Ukraine. That's not the question of this man. He has openly degraded the current Command-in-Chief of the armed forces, and that cannot be tolerated. I said a similar think when it was discovered, in a Rolling Stone article, that then General Stanley McChrystal was openly disrespectful to the then Vice-President, Joe Biden. And that cannot be tolerated.

My good friend and fellow scotch whiskey connoisseur, Mike Ford, Colonel, U. S. Army, has an excellent piece in today's Redstate.com. Recommend you check out the two linked articles.

LTC Vindman: Involving The Military In Political Fights

Posted at 3:00 pm on November 1, 2019 by Mike Ford

My good friend and colleague Bonchie had a good article out the other day, urging us folks on the American team to settle down and relax. His point; Army Lieutenant Colonel Vindman has testified to nothing new one way or another regarding the now infamous phone call between the Presidents of the United States and Ukraine. He further points out that we may do ourselves harm by going after him.

For the most part, I agree. Moreover, I’ve made it a personal policy of mine to never denigrate another man’s valor…unless I was actually on the scene of the incident. My only comment in that regard, is that LTC Vindman appears to have a “very light rack,” for 22 years of service during a time of U.S. armed combat. Another colleague of mine, Streiff has deftly handled that aspect in this well turned article.

Having determined the above, it took me quite a while to come to the conclusion that I should weigh in on this matter. The retired Infantry Colonel in me cannot let this gross lack of judgement and conduct unbecoming a Commissioned Officer, pass without some comment.

As I pointed out on the David Webb show earlier today, focusing on whether or not LTC Vindman should have worn his uniform to testify, is akin to “pole vaulting over mouse turds.” It’s a minor issue at best. The most Vindman could get convicted of in that regard, is if he got nailed on another charge and “bringing discredit to the uniform” while committing that bad act, became part of the aggravating circumstances.

As I told Webb, the thing we should be focusing on, is the fact that a mid grade officer in the United States Army, has openly and notoriously inserted himself into a conflict between the Executive Branch and the House of Representatives—but one half of the Legislative Branch. He has done this two different ways and quite frankly, I cannot determine which is the more egregious.

First of all, it appears that he violated an order from President Trump to not testify before the House Committee. He did so in the most dramatic method possible, parading through the halls of Congress in his uniform, appearing to desire the most attention possible for his act of defiance. It’s of note that the left leaning New York Times and other publications were fully aware of his service record and reviewed it loudly and in hagiographical fashion, even before he had actually arrived to testify, surely an orchestrated public diplomacy event.

There are some who claim that he is under no obligation to obey an unlawful order. They would be correct. However, this isn’t a case of being ordered to murder a prisoner in the heat of battle. This is a conflict between the President of these United States and one part of the Legislative Branch regarding what may or may not be regarded as “Executive Privilege,” and thus exempt from Congressional subpoena. LTC Vindman’s proper course when reviewing said subpoena, would to have been to inform his chain of command in his National Security Council position and seek guidance, while informing the Army liaison of said actions.

By doing so, he would have properly and effectively extricated himself from this fight. The House committee would have undoubtably gone to court and at some time during that process, the issue would be resolved. In no case would Vindman have been put at risk for following that path. Instead, in his arrogance (more on that later) he decided that he was qualified to determine whose authority was prime in this circumstance. He decided to take sides in a fight between the Executive and the House, coming down in favor of the House. That will likely cost him—and rightly so.

The second manner LTC Vindman lost his way has to do with arrogance and its parent, ego. LTC Vindman apparently has both in spades and that is the likely and proximate cause for this display of poor judgement. If you go back to his leaked introductory statement and other pieces of his “testimony,” he makes no statement whatsoever that says President Trump did anything remotely illegal. He never claims at any time, that he heard President Trump demand a quid pro quo for arms aid to Ukraine, although it would be well within US Law and Treaty to do such.

Vindman’s opening statement was long on self congratulatory prose and very short on substance relating to the matter at hand. The few substantive items all appeared to be that Vindman disagreed with President Trump on policy and technique, which is fine as far as it goes, except for the totally unprofessional and possibly illegal way he handled that disagreement.

I would really like to chat with Vindman’s previous military commanders and supervisors. It appears he wasn’t raised right. He apparently cannot understand the difference between command positions—those who get to decide things and staff positions—those who advise the deciders. In his case, he appears to believe that his opinion outweighs The President’s.

Based on his opening statement, his major beef is that President Trump wasn’t doing it the way Vindman wanted him to. Guess what there young Lieutenant Colonel. Somebody should have told you this a long time ago. You are the Staff Officer, not the Commander—certainly not the Commander In Chief. Your job is to advise. Once The Boss makes his decision, your job is to salute, about face, move out and get it done. If you have a beef with a decision, then resign. As a military officer, you don’t get to insert yourself into a food fight between The President and Congress. Somebody should have squared you away on this simple concept a long time ago.

Right now, the U.S Military has a good reputation with the American public. We are well respected. The Army needs to get out ahead of this now and initiate an Article 15-6 Investigation on LTC Vindman’s actions. The last thing my beloved Army needs is to get a reputation of taking sides in political fights.

Mike Ford, a retired Infantry Officer, writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.

This incident has brought back memories of an awesome book and movie, The Caine Mutiny. It has a great closing scene, where the lawyer Barney Greenwald, played superbly by Jose Ferrier, explains how the Caine's officers failed as officers, under the influence of a self serving lieutenant. Greenwald, drunk off his ass because he has "a guilty conscious...and it's making me sick!" explains to the young Willie Keith, "You're learning Willie. You're learning you work for the captain not because you like the way he parts his hair, you work for him because he's got the job, or you're no good!"



When I was in ROTC in the mid-80s, the man who would eventually swear me in, taught me something I remember to this day. "One day you may have to resign. If you are given and order you cannot in good conscious obey, you must tender you're resignation." Sir, let's be honest, you're army career is over, but you will never go hungry. The book deals and other things are in the works. But you should have been a professional about it, and resigned.

A memory of Rocks and Shoals being removed from the Navy....

In my time in the service I was familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and administered non-judiciary punishment while a company commander. I've heard of the Navy's Rocks and Shoals, where relatively minor offenses were punished with floggings. And I knew of "bread and water" confinement before, but I never dreamed it still existed until last week.

No more bread and water: Navy scraps an age-old penalty

The U.S. Navy has come a long way, from its first wooden frigates to today’s nuclear carriers. But in all that time, one thing remained almost as fixed as the North Star: A skipper’s power to throw troublesome sailors in the brig with nothing to eat but bread and water.

Though it sounds like something from an old pirate movie, the antique penalty is not only still on the Navy’s books, it is still actually imposed, despite a century of abolition efforts.

A sweeping update of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 2016, will take effect Jan. 1, bringing dozens of changes intended to make the system fairer and more efficient. Most are the kind of procedural tweaks that concern lawyers, not sailors. But the bread-and-water part will be felt on all decks...

...‘It sounds medieval’

That regulation is no mere neglected relic from a bygone era. As recently as 2017, a destroyer in the Pacific was known as the USS Bread and Water because of the skipper’s liberal use of the penalty to punish missteps like missing a curfew or drinking under the legal age...

...“It sounds medieval, and that is sort of the point,” said Capt. Kevin Eyer, who regularly sentenced sailors to bread and water for minor misconduct before he retired in 2009. “Sometimes you just need to scare a kid. We want them to succeed, but you need to give them a kick in the pants.”

Eyer said that when he joined the Navy in 1982, the penalty was common and never frowned upon by the top brass, who traditionally give ship commanders broad authority.

But the culture in the Navy has drifted away from corporal penalties like bread and water, and officers increasingly view them as counterproductive.

“It just seems anachronistic and stupid,” said Capt. Scott Tait, who joined the Navy in 1992 and has commanded two destroyers.

“I actually can’t believe it’s still around,” Tait said, adding that he had never imposed the punishment himself, nor had he seen it used. “People used to joke about putting guys on bread and water, but I was well into my career before I realized I was actually allowed to do that.”

When young sailors need a minor course correction, he said, instead of ordering a spell in the brig, he often orders them to write reports on works by authors like Patrick Henry or Ayn Rand.

“Some people need to think about character and the consequences of their actions,” he said. “But I don’t want it to impact their permanent record, which could hurt their chances of promotion down the line...”

Having spent a year in jail, as a supervisor, not a tenant, a lot of what we do can sound "medieval." Strapping a fighting suspect to a restraint chair, or in leg restraints (sometimes known as hog tying), securing them in solitary until they wear themselves out. Crude methods, but effective. And I challenge any social justice warrior to come into a jail and use his "de-escalation" techniques on some of these morons.

But I got to say, I'm still shocked it bread and water confinement was still allowed. I know a solider can refused non-judiciary punishment under Article-15 of the UCMJ, and request a court martial. However, sailors at sea, to a degree, don't have that option because they are at sea and there are not full military justice facilities available. Hopefully this change to the UCMJ makes justice more efficient in the Navy.