UCMJ?

This is coolbert:

"It is 'better for military advice to come up through the chain of command,'" - - Gen. James Jones.

This is something that has not been encountered for almost sixty years now? NOT since the time of Doug Mac Arthur in Korea?

This from only today. Thanks to NewsMax.

"Gates: Generals Should Keep Their Advice Quiet"

"WASHINGTON -- Despite the fierce policy divide inside the White House over Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that the military will fall in line with whatever President Barack Obama decides"

Top American military commanders are being rebuked in public by their civilian superiors? Those persons in authority over them? Commanders [?] [Mc Chrystal] in the field being admonished for having made statements that could be construed as being mildly critical or disloyal to the President and very senior civilian officials?

Secretary Gates, SecDef, criticising, very gently, General Mc Chrystal for comments made to English NATO allies regarding the situation in Afghan.

"Gates comments [the criticism] come days after the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, bluntly warned a London audience that Afghan insurgents are gathering strength and any plan that falls short of stabilizing Afghanistan 'is probably a shortsighted strategy.'"

According to Gates:

"Obama's military and civilian advisers need to give the president candid _ but private _ advice."

Well, what Mc Chrystal has said does fall within the purview of the American military UCMJ? Uniform Code of Military Justice! Even well-meaning criticism from the military directed toward civilian authority is not allowed, even if truthful? Within the confines of UCMJ, TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE!!

It can be suggested that Mc Chrystal by his pronouncements is in violation of Article 88 and Article 134 of the UCMJ both:

Article 88 - - "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the 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, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Article 134 - - "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces"

Criticising strategy and policy and doing so in PUBLIC [or in private for that matter], even if not mean-spirited, constitutes "contemptuous words"? Criticising strategy and policy too may be seen as helping to create "disorders and neglects"?

I am sure that General Mc Chrystal now regrets his words spoken, even if spoken in good faith and with honesty and truthfulness - - and no intent to disrespect civilian superior authority in any manner. Controversy following around a senior commander with great responsibility cannot be a good thing. A little mis-speak and the consequences are not good for all parties involved, and NOT GOOD FOR THE MISSION EITHER!!

coolbert.