“Be sure you’re right. Then go ahead” – The Davy Crockett Show
This is a cautionary tale of two American soldiers. Nearly a century spans the incidents that brought them their notoriety, yet the issues they evoke are exactly the same and timeless: Does an active-duty officer in the military have the right, a moral obligation even, to criticize the actions of his superiors, both military and civilian, if he firmly believes that those actions are incompetent and have dire consequences?
Our first soldier, William ‘Billy’ Mitchell was born in December 1879 into a family of wealth and influence. He seemed a man destined for success. Opting for an army career, he became enamored of early developments in the field of aviation and joined the fledgling US Air Service, then a part of the Signal Corps.
Following distinguished service in WWI, during which he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General, he continued to advocate for American airpower during the lean post-WWI years when military budgets were being slashed to the bare bone. Regarded as a visionary and a man way ahead of his time, Mitchell made a number of prophecies...all of which eventually came true.
Among other things, Mitchell foresaw the mass bombing of civilian population centers, airborne armies being dropped behind enemy lines, and the battleship’s replacement by the aircraft carrier as the dominant naval vessel. These ideas were all regarded as ‘crackpot’ in the early 1920s, yet he continued to advocate for his cause, making many enemies as well as friends along the way.
Mitchell’s undoing came in September 1925 when a Navy dirigible, the USS Shenandoah, crashed during a severe thunderstorm killing 14 men. The airship had been ordered aloft as a public relations gesture during a period of severe weather over the protestations of its own Captain.
Mitchell offered his opinion on this and other incidents that had previously occurred: “These terrible accidents are the direct results of incompetency, criminal negligence and almost treasonable administration of the National Defense by the War and Navy Departments.”
This was the last straw for the army. He was charged with insubordination, court-martialed, convicted, and suspended from duty for five years without pay. He chose to resign from the army and continued to espouse the cause of American airpower, but his time had passed.
Mitchell died in 1936 in relative obscurity, five years before his most famous prediction came to pass. That would be what he wrote in 1924: “One day Japan will seek to attack the United States through the Hawaiian Islands; some fine Sunday morning.”
Fast forward to 2021, and another US military officer finds himself facing disciplinary action for asking his superiors to take responsibility for the fiasco that was the Afghan withdrawal. Marine Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Scheller does not have Billy Mitchell’s panache, public visibility, or prophetic powers. Nor does he appear to have any friends or admirers in high places.
To date, he is the only serving officer in the entire US military to ask for some kind of accounting for the Afghanistan debacle. For having the audacity to question the competency of his superiors, both in the Pentagon and the federal government, he was relieved of his command and ordered to undergo psychiatric examination, as if the very act of asking a question rendered him mentally unfit. He is currently being held in a military brig, purportedly in solitary confinement, awaiting possible court-martial.
Stuart Scheller is a 17-year combat veteran, having serviced multiple deployments. He was some two years away from being able to collect his retirement benefits. He undertook those actions knowing full well what the consequences to himself and his family could be.
Scheller did not have to speak out. He could have remained silent, soldiered on, and kept his job. Had he embraced the ‘woke’ ideology that seems to be pervasive in today’s military, he might have been on the fast track to wearing his own set of stars on the epaulets of his uniform. But Scheller is an honorable man and the thought of acting in a ‘dishonorable’ manner was repugnant to him.
It wasn’t all that long ago when another military officer dared to question the actions of the Commander-in-Chief. Only this time, the President was Donald Trump. The officer in question was Army Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman and the incident was Trump’s supposed quid-pro-quo phone call to the Ukrainian President Zelenskiy, a transcript of which was furnished to the public.
Both Vindman and Scheller violated the same military protocol but the treatment meted out to both was vastly different. Vindman was eventually relieved of his position on the National Security Council but was not court-martialed. Nor was he thrown in the brig in solitary confinement and ordered to undergo a mental evaluation.
Vindman was part of a special class of protected individuals known as ‘whistleblowers,’ a designation that Stuart Scheller has been denied. Vindman retired on February 7, 2020, and became a hero to the Democrat party and mainstream media. Subsequently, he appeared in an ad for The Lincoln Project and the progressive group, Vote Vets, beseeching citizens to vote against Trump. One cannot help but wonder what Vindman would say about Biden’s July 23, 2021, call to Afghan President Ghani, urging him to “project a different picture” about the situation in Afghanistan.
The contrast in treatment between the two men could not be more glaring. Scheller’s real crime was that he embarrassed the Biden administration. This was especially galling because Joe Biden himself pronounced the Afghan withdrawal to be an “extraordinary success.” For this heinous offense, Scheller must pay. He needs to be denigrated, defamed, disparaged, and downgraded as an abject lesson to any serving officer who might be inclined to agree with him. Had his statements been made under the previous Trump administration, there is no doubt that he, like Vindman, would have been lauded as a national hero.
The American political landscape of today bears a scant resemblance to that which existed only a few short years ago. Our leaders now tell us that we must accept what they tell us with no questions allowed. Their allies in mainstream media and big tech censor any commentary that the ruling elites do not want us to hear. We must accept and obey or face dire consequences.
Stuart Scheller found this out the hard way. As he sits in his cell awaiting his ‘day in court,’ he might be wondering what he could possibly say in his own defense. Billy Mitchell’s defense during the 1925 proceedings was that he had spoken the truth but truth today is defined as whatever the ruling class says it is. All branches of government, including the justice system, must be made to conform to the new standard.
These are the hallmarks of a totalitarian state. Years ago, American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”
UPDATE: It emerged today that Scheller is either a NeverTrumper or a Democrat. That doesn't detract from the principled stand he made (there are morally upright leftists) but it's information worth having.
(From Andrea Widburg) And an update to the update: Bob Parks has more information about Stuart Scheller's Never Trumpism. I strongly disagree with everything Scheller said about Trump, especially because, as a NeverTrumper, he presumably voted for Biden, thinking that the most corrupt, stupid man in modern American political history would be both a unifier and uncorrupt. That's not bright. Having said that, if one focuses on what catapulted Scheller into prominence, he still pointed out the military brass's utter lack of responsibility for wrongdoing. Also, the treatment meted out to Scheller has a Soviet feel that we all need to challenge.
Caren Besner has written articles published by American Thinker, Conservative News and Views, The Front Page, Dr Swier, Renew America, Sun Sentinel, Published Reporter, Independent Sentinel, News With Views, The Moderate Voice, Canada Free Press, The Liberty Beacon, and others.
Politics in the Case of Col. Scheller
Is partisan politics playing a role in the Stuart Scheller case?
The facts in this case seem pretty clear. We all witnessed the events beginning with the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban followed by the chaotic noncombatant evacuation operation from Kabul’s airport. It was a sad commentary on President Joe Biden’s judgment because had he accepted the advice of his military chain of command (keep at least 2,500 service members in Afghanistan to stiffen the backbone of that government and security forces) this fiasco would not have happened. However, because Biden was evidently in a hurry to exit the Central Asian country (likely for crass political reasons), he rushed the exit process and a catastrophic situation emerged: the Taliban, our enemy of two decades, took over the country, now it will host a new wave of terrorism for years to come and the U.S. left Afghanistan with its tail tucked and lost international credibility.
Just as that embarrassing situation emerged a Marine lieutenant colonel, Stuart Scheller Jr., at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina posted a public video on a social media website expressing criticism of senior military officials for their handling of the withdrawal and demanding they be held accountable. His superior officers immediately relieved him of command and then incarcerated and placed him in pretrial confinement. Although not officially charged, it appears the military laws he stands accused of are contempt toward officials, disobeying a superior officer, failing to obey lawful orders, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.
The politics of this case are widely known. It is suspected the Marine Corps is punishing this young officer for speaking truth to power. After all, as yet no one from President Biden down the chain of command has been held accountable for the Afghan mess, which leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of most Americans. That’s understandable from a political perspective but not from a strict military viewpoint.
The politics of this case aren’t lost on some members of Congress who wrote the secretary of Defense concerned that the charges brought against the Marine may be politically motivated and a possible attempt to silence future whistleblowers criticizing President Biden.
Representative James Comer (R-KY) and Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) sent a letter to Defense secretary Lloyd Austin requesting information about the case. “In the wake of a terrorist attack on U.S. forces and Afghan nationals that killed 13 service members, Lt. Col. Scheller posted a public video on a social media website expressing criticism of senior officials handling the withdrawal from Afghanistan and demanding they be held to account.” They continued, “It appears that these charges would also relate to his criticism of senior military officials for their actions in connection with the withdrawal from Afghanistan.”
Consider the hard facts surrounding this case. The Marine Corps is a military branch of the Defense Department charged with executing the orders of the president and enforcing the law. In this situation, politics aside, the Corps is fulfilling its legal obligation to charge the officer with a violation of the law. After all, Colonel Scheller had the opportunity to resign his commission and then speak out about the Afghan fiasco and no accountability. He chose a different course of action and for that reason he’s now in trouble and will likely pay a high price.
Let me explain the stark reality facing this officer. Every officer in the armed services understands the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), especially a former battalion commander like Colonel Scheller, who studied the code and was a primary enforcer of the law among his Marines.
All members of the military are subject to the UCMJ, a federal law, enacted by Congress in 1951 to establish a specialized legal system. The president, with the constitutional power of the executive and enforcement of the UCMJ, creates and maintains the Manual of Courts Martial (MCM), which is the mechanism for carrying out the enforcement of that congressionally prescribed law. It is to this system which Colonel Scheller, like it or not, must now submit.
The purpose of military law is “to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States.” It’s a unique law for a special group of people with a high calling to defend the United States and to do so requires that all uniformed members maintain apolitical obedience. That’s why, by law, military personnel on active duty are prohibited from engaging in partisan politics and criticizing senior officials which means they forfeit some of their civil liberties in order to serve.
Colonel Scheller does appear, based on media reports, to be guilty of violating at least four UCMJ laws (Article 88 (contempt toward officials), Article 90 (disobeying a superior officer), Article 92 (failing to obey lawful orders) and Article 133 (conduct unbecoming of an officer). A courts martial will likely convene to determine whether the charges are correct and if he is found guilty by a jury of his peers, he will be punished. This may sound unfair and undemocratic, but that’s the nature of military justice and what’s required of an apolitical military.
The military justice system depends on maintaining an apolitical foundation and the members of Congress who wrote Secretary Austin about the Scheller case smell a political motivation. That might be true, and if politics is found to be the reason behind the Marine Corps’ actions against Colonel Scheller, then that’s tragic for our armed forces and for America. Unfortunately, there is some justification for believing politics are at play in this case.
Last week in congressional testimony, General Mark Milley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, said “I am trying to stay apolitical and I believe I am. That’s part of my professional ethic, and I’m trying to keep the military, the actual military out of actual domestic politics. I think that’s critical,” he added.
Of course, given the revelations in the same congressional hearing about General Milley’s participation in widely reported interviews with political book authors, some members of Congress and a growing number of Americans are suspicious about the general’s claim that he has remained personally apolitical. Further, there is growing concern that others in the uniformed, hierarchy to include even some in the Marine Corps, might fall in the same category as General Milley, and that would be unnerving.
That’s why more congressional oversight is constitutionally critical at this time to protect our military and the nation. Is the Scheller case really about enforcing the UCMJ and keeping our services apolitical? Or has ugly politics infected the ranks of those who oversee our armed forces, and thus for the good of the country, an emergency frontal lobotomy is necessary?
Mr. Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army officer and the author of eight books. His new book, Give Me Liberty, Not Marxism, chronicles the Marxist threat and how the Democratic Party and China seek to radically transform America.
Image: Public Domain
No comments:
Post a Comment