The first duty of an Officer

[RetiredGySgt]

All Officers swear an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. THEN they swear to obey the orders of Officers placed above them.

The first duty of an Officer is NOT the protection of his men. It is Mission Accomplishment. Within the confines of Mission Accomplishment an Officer is to do his best for his men.

The first and primary MISSION of any US Military Officer is to DEFEND and PROTECT the Constitution.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Me thinks a certain 0-5 will be checking in soon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where is Del with his claim that an Officer must protect his troops first.

 

[eots]

"I, _____, 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

 

[JerkInTheBox]

All Officers swear an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. THEN they swear to obey the orders of Officers placed above them.

The first duty of an Officer is NOT the protection of his men. It is Mission Accomplishment. Within the confines of Mission Accomplishment an Officer is to do his best for his men.

The first and primary MISSION of any US Military Officer is to DEFEND and PROTECT the Constitution.

-GySgt, first things first: Thank you for your service. I'll ask that you don't take any of what I'm about to say as belittling or patronizing to the honorable service of our enlisted men in uniform.

-To address your post: You are absolutely right that officers swear an oath to the constitution and nothing else. However, I must disagree with your assertion that an officer's duty is to mission accomplishment alone. In truth, it's really difficult to accurately quantify exactly what an officer's duties are. The text of the officer's oath of office is as follows:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.

-Note that there is nothing in the oath that requires an officer to follow the orders of anyone placed above him. The actual statement that requires an officer to follow orders is in their commission (the document that grants an officer their rank), and it is enforced by the UCMJ (articles 89 and 90). The officer's commission is given and has effect solely "at the pleasure of the president." You can look this up. What does this mean? The logical extension of these facts is that an officer is required to disobey an order he believes to be illegal or unconstitutional.

There is an important difference to note between this and the oath of enlistment:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.

-This specifically charges an enlisted member to follow orders. While they, like all service members, swear the oath to the constitution, enlisted members are given a narrower scope of judgment and responsibility upon swearing in. Now, a good officer will recognize when his men are Sierra Hotel and ensure that they are given the responsibility that their abilities, experience, and maturity warrant. There are, of course, shi@#y officers out there.

-What does this mean? An officer is charged with determining the best course of action for himself, from day 1. This means determining both the best way to accomplish the mission and how he's going to do it while getting his men home. This is the most important thing. Not one or the other. It may be the largest part of an officer's duty to serve and protect the constitution, but it is his sacred charge to bring his men home as safely as possible. Officers and Staff Non-Commissioned officers alone understand the full weight of the burden that is the trust of a nation to both protect them and bring their children home alive after doing so. There is not one officer I have met who would choose a course of action that, while accomplishing the mission more efficiently, would also lead to getting more of his men killed or wounded. As the Marines say, "Mission first, people always."

-As a retired Gunny, I expect that you've seen and have some understanding of the burden placed on any leader. But to imply that an officer's first duty is not to his men is tantamount to heresy in my opinion, and that of many other officers.

respectfully,
The Jerk

 

[Big Black Dog]

Don't you just love a sea lawyer....

 

[JerkInTheBox]

Don't you just love a sea lawyer....

-You're asking for it, buddy. No biscuit. BAD COUNT. BAD.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

This is too funny. A retired NCO dictating what an Officer's duties are.

 

[JerkInTheBox]

I think that as a retired Staff NCO, he would have an idea of what an officer should be doing. However, while he makes a point on a strictly legal level, there is far more to officership and military service in general than simple, rote law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I think that as a retired Staff NCO, he would have an idea of what an officer should be doing. However, while he makes a point on a strictly legal level, there is far more to officership and military service in general than simple, rote law.

No shit?

 

[JerkInTheBox]

I find your candor enthralling. But yes, that is a no-shitter. I'm assuming you have some service time under your belt. Where and which branch?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I find your candor enthralling. But yes, that is a no-shitter. I'm assuming you have some service time under your belt. Where and which branch?

Army. Two tours in Afghan. One upcoming in Iraq. Nice to meet ya.

 

[JerkInTheBox]

Marines here. Nice to meet you too. Good luck and thanks for serving.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Marines here. Nice to meet you too. Good luck and thanks for serving.

Fantastic. Another fucking Gyrene.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Don't you just love a sea lawyer....

-You're asking for it, buddy. No biscuit. BAD COUNT. BAD.

Being retired US Navy, after 20 years service, and being married to a retired Navy Commander, I think I have a pretty good idea what the duties of an officer are, and yes, I know all about sea lawyers. I also know a good deal about Marines because I took care of them for years. Now, give me that damned biscuit...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All Officers swear an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. THEN they swear to obey the orders of Officers placed above them.

The first duty of an Officer is NOT the protection of his men. It is Mission Accomplishment. Within the confines of Mission Accomplishment an Officer is to do his best for his men.

The first and primary MISSION of any US Military Officer is to DEFEND and PROTECT the Constitution.

-GySgt, first things first: Thank you for your service. I'll ask that you don't take any of what I'm about to say as belittling or patronizing to the honorable service of our enlisted men in uniform.

-To address your post: You are absolutely right that officers swear an oath to the constitution and nothing else. However, I must disagree with your assertion that an officer's duty is to mission accomplishment alone. In truth, it's really difficult to accurately quantify exactly what an officer's duties are. The text of the officer's oath of office is as follows:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.

-Note that there is nothing in the oath that requires an officer to follow the orders of anyone placed above him. The actual statement that requires an officer to follow orders is in their commission (the document that grants an officer their rank), and it is enforced by the UCMJ (articles 89 and 90). The officer's commission is given and has effect solely "at the pleasure of the president." You can look this up. What does this mean? The logical extension of these facts is that an officer is required to disobey an order he believes to be illegal or unconstitutional.

There is an important difference to note between this and the oath of enlistment:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.

-This specifically charges an enlisted member to follow orders. While they, like all service members, swear the oath to the constitution, enlisted members are given a narrower scope of judgment and responsibility upon swearing in. Now, a good officer will recognize when his men are Sierra Hotel and ensure that they are given the responsibility that their abilities, experience, and maturity warrant. There are, of course, shi@#y officers out there.

-What does this mean? An officer is charged with determining the best course of action for himself, from day 1. This means determining both the best way to accomplish the mission and how he's going to do it while getting his men home. This is the most important thing. Not one or the other. It may be the largest part of an officer's duty to serve and protect the constitution, but it is his sacred charge to bring his men home as safely as possible. Officers and Staff Non-Commissioned officers alone understand the full weight of the burden that is the trust of a nation to both protect them and bring their children home alive after doing so. There is not one officer I have met who would choose a course of action that, while accomplishing the mission more efficiently, would also lead to getting more of his men killed or wounded. As the Marines say, "Mission first, people always."

-As a retired Gunny, I expect that you've seen and have some understanding of the burden placed on any leader. But to imply that an officer's first duty is not to his men is tantamount to heresy in my opinion, and that of many other officers.

respectfully,
The Jerk

You are only partial correct. An officer MUST make every attempt to accomplish his mission and that takes precedence over keeping his men alive. If your contention were true NO officer would ever order his men to charge an enemy position, nor order them to clear a building. I can go on and on with orders that clearly put men in danger. Mission accomplishment is the 1st duty of an Officer as well as any enlisted.

 

[editec]

All Officers swear an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. THEN they swear to obey the orders of Officers placed above them.

The first duty of an Officer is NOT the protection of his men. It is Mission Accomplishment. Within the confines of Mission Accomplishment an Officer is to do his best for his men.

The first and primary MISSION of any US Military Officer is to DEFEND and PROTECT the Constitution.

And how they decide to do that is by assuming that the orders given them from the chain of command are consitutional.

It is above the paygrade of the military to decide what is constitutional.

You will agree, unless of course, you are supporter of a military takeover of the government.

Then you can create all sorts of fantasies about how the military can heroically save the nation and its constitution from the politicans.

A fantasy that I have very little doubt appeals to many on this board.

Every military Junta that has ever taken over a nation claims they're defending that nation's way of life.

Few of them ever create anything more than a fascist regime.

God bless this nation's military officers colleges for churning out so many high ranking officers who actually DO understand the subserviant role of the military in this nation's management.

 

[Granny]

The current CINC swore the same oath - so why is he doing such a piss poor job?

He's unfit to be CINC. Hell, he's unfit to be a president.

 

[ConHog]

All Officers swear an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. THEN they swear to obey the orders of Officers placed above them.

The first duty of an Officer is NOT the protection of his men. It is Mission Accomplishment. Within the confines of Mission Accomplishment an Officer is to do his best for his men.

The first and primary MISSION of any US Military Officer is to DEFEND and PROTECT the Constitution.

And how they decide to do that is by assuming that the orders given them from the chain of command are consitutional.

It is above the paygrade of the military to decide what is constitutional.

You will agree, unless of course, you are supporter of a military takeover of the government.

Then you can create all sorts of fantasies about how the military can heroically save the nation and its constitution from the politicans.

A fantasy that I have very little doubt appeals to many on this board.

Every military Junta that has ever taken over a nation claims they're defending that nation's way of life.

Few of them ever create anything more than a fascist regime.

God bless this nation's military officers colleges for churning out so many high ranking officers who actually DO understand the subserviant role of the military in this nation's management.

Incorrect, every member of the military from the lowliest private to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is responsible for determining whether an order is lawful or not.

As for an officer's first duty. It is to complete his mission. However, a good officer ALWAYS considers his men's welfare when planning a mission.

 

[JerkInTheBox]

An officer MUST make every attempt to accomplish his mission and that takes precedence over keeping his men alive. If your contention were true NO officer would ever order his men to charge an enemy position, nor order them to clear a building.

-you are correct. I simply find it hard to accurately say what my duties as an officer are. The responsibility is something deeply personal and it's often an indistinguishable blending of duty to the constitution and responsibility to subordinates. You did help me see it a bit more clearly, though. So you are thanked.

And how they decide to do that is by assuming that the orders given them from the chain of command are consitutional.

-Officers assume nothing of the sort. A good officer will scrutinize even the slightest hint of illegality in an order. The process doesn't take long, we call it the "common sense" or "retard" check, and it is applied to every order given to a competent officer or senior enlisted member.

It is above the paygrade of the military to decide what is constitutional.

-Completely untrue. Though the constitutional power to arbitrate on matters of constitutionality is vested in the supreme court, military members are charged with supporting and defending every line in that document in both letter and spirit. Look carefully at the oath of office. An officer is expected to consider the legality of his orders, and the context of such consideration can be nothing but the foundation of our laws, the constitution. Read up on disobeying unlawful orders and you'll find that military members both carry out and disobey orders at their own peril. If an officer or enlisted member is implicated in the illegal actions of their unit, though they were acting under the direction of competent authority and direct orders, that member is guilty! Helloooo Nuremburg. I rule on the constitutionality and legality of every order I receive, but I don't have to tell anyone about it.

You will agree, unless of course, you are supporter of a military takeover of the government

.
-That's absurd, given my explanation.

Then you can create all sorts of fantasies about how the military can heroically save the nation and its constitution from the politicans.

A fantasy that I have very little doubt appeals to many on this board.

-Not many people really think about our purpose in the constitutional context. We support and defend the constitution, and obey the lawful (read: constitutional) orders of the president and the chain of command.

God bless this nation's military officers colleges for churning out so many high ranking officers who actually DO understand the subserviant role of the military in this nation's management.

-Interesting. I went to one of those military officers colleges and they spent 6 semesters of ethics classes teaching us how to properly weigh and judge the legality of any order we receive. Needless to say, the vast majority of orders are legal, and we are obliged to follow them, and we do so with pride (most of the time) We are proud to serve and we are all subordinate to the president and the constitution, but do not make the mistake of believing we see ourselves as subservient.

Your Thoughts?

-The Jerk