Saint Martin's Cloak

Writing in the January 2017 Military Review , Richard Adams provides an important caveat in relation to my recent post, Support and Defend the Constitution . I wrote that military officers operate within the constitutional chain of command and generally defer to constitutional authorities. When moral conflicts arise, they raise their complaints to the chain of command, take the issue to higher authorities if necessary, and ultimately resign if they cannot conscientiously execute missions or policies determined to be legal under the Constitution. In Against Bureaucracy , Adams points out the dangers of that approach. Adams writes, But while ideas of initiative and enterprise resonate in military lore, they have become essentially rhetorical since militaries have grown more centralized, less adaptable, more prescriptive, and more bureaucratic. Honeycombed by legalism, avoidance behavior, and inconclusive language, bureaucracy cultivates irresolution, and excuse. Bureaucracy suffoc...

Today is Inauguration Day. Just over 26 years, 5 presidents and 14 congresses ago, I raised my right hand and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. The martial aspects of “support and defend” are obvious. The Army is prepared to use military force at the direction of constitutional authorities to protect the nation. Soldiers, however, are not the only people who promise to support and defend the Constitution. Federal civilian employees take essentially the same oath as military officers. The oath for both is prescribed by 5 U.S.C. §3331. Apart from the use of armed force, what does “support and defend” mean? Here is how I interpret it in my setting.  I will, to the best of my ability, accomplish the missions given me by the chain of command headed by the lawfully elected President of the United States, the constitutional Commander in Chief of the Army, in a manner consistent with the orders, regulation...