During an email debate with a fairly liberal friend, I commented that it is "amazing the number of U.S. Military personnel that cringe when they have to salute our Commander-in-Chief" meaning, of course, Mr. Clinton. I based this on a couple accounts I've read from Naval and Marine servicemen.

I personally do not care for what he has done to the U.S. Armed Forces, in the way of cutbacks...however, that is not the reason for this post.

I was challenged to provide proof that there are many in our military who feel that Clinton is not the "leader" he should be.

I ask a favor:

Would anyone from ANY military please take a few minutes to write your personal feelings about this? Tell me what you feel about Clinton, who for all intents and purposes dodged the draft, as a military leader? For those in the United States Armed Forces, would you tell me how you feel personally about having him as a Commander-in-Chief?

I will be including ALL responses, unedited unless otherwise requested, by Friday evening if possible.

I know this is an odd request and I mean no offense whatsoever, but this is the best place I can think of to get answers from those who serve their country.

Thanks in advance, and

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4848-2000Nov29.html

Military Personnel Warned on Politics
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 30, 2000; Page A35

Two major U.S. military commands, one in the Air Force and the other in the Army, recently warned their personnel that it is a crime for officers to express contempt for the nation's political leaders, either in speech or in e-mail correspondence.

Brig. Gen. Jack Rives, the top lawyer for the Air Force's Air Combat Command, said he acted on Nov. 21 after reading in news stories comments from military officers who were upset by Democratic Party challenges to military absentee ballots cast in Florida. He sent out a message to people in his command, which includes 89,000 troops at 17 major bases, 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."

Col. James Rosenblatt, the staff judge advocate for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, said he decided to send out his own lengthier message after seeing the Air Force message.

Citing "the swirling political process associated with the presidential elections," Rosenblatt sent an e-mail reminding the command's generals and lawyers that Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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." (Rives noted that the article forbids officers from being contemptuous of governors and legislatures only of states in which the officers are physically on active duty.)

Rosenblatt, the top lawyer in his command, which has about 67,000 soldiers and civilian employees at 15 major bases, concluded his message by suggesting that the current situation may provide an opportunity for commanders to conduct educational sessions "on the question of civilian control of the military."

With 28 years of service in the Army, Rosenblatt said it was the first time he ever felt it necessary to remind officers that it is against military law to express contempt for political authorities. However, Rives noted that parts of the military have issued similar reminders twice in the past decade after military personnel publicly criticized President Clinton.

A violation of Article 88 can result in dismissal and one year's imprisonment. But prosecutions under the article are rare, and Rives and Rosenblatt said they weren't aware of any in recent decades.

That being said....I am no longer in the military and can say what I like .

I served in the Navy from 93-99. The budjet cutbacks were one of my main concerns for leaving the navy. My friends and I always used to cringe every time we heard our political leaders tell with pride how the military was "doing more with less". Yes we were being overextended and underpaid. I'll give you an example.

I served aboard the USNS Sirius T-AFS-8 from 93-96. Our schedule made a drastic change after we decomed four of our 8 AFSs. That left 2 on each coast. Before the decom the schedual went something like this: 3 months in the Med, 3 in Norfolk. After, it went like this: 6 months in the Persian Gulf, 2 in Norfolk. That means these sailors could only expect to see thier family for less than two months a year. Appaling! What's worse is that this type of duty is only a two year duty... unless you extended your duty another year. That extra year meant that those 3 years on these ships counted as 4 years of sea duty and you also got an extra month of leave for that year. Well, most people took the extension while the rotation was 3 in, 3 out. Then they changed the rotation and those that hadn't started thier third year were screwd. Worst is that they never got to use that extra month of leave because there was no time to take it!

Also, there is the issue of pay...but thats another discusion.

Yeah, I used to cringe.

Thank you for that post, I was not aware of the legal ramifications. However, with your permission, I will use that post, as it is VERY indicitive of the "general consensus," as the author mentions never having to make this warning before. I believe it vindicates my position somewhat.

Operator,

If you do not mind, I'll include your post...and thank you very much for it.

To All Others,

I was not aware of the legal issues involved with my request.

I respectfully withdraw it.

Si Vis etc

Dan