Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 09/21/2006 View Wed 09/20/2006 View Tue 09/19/2006 View Mon 09/18/2006 View Sun 09/17/2006 View Sat 09/16/2006 View Fri 09/15/2006
1
2006-09-21 Home Front: WoT
StrategyPage: Let's Kill all the Military Lawyers
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Grunter 2006-09-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Require a 6-month combat experience for a JAG, especially in the current theater for those with less than 4 years of practice. Problem solved--they would either get killed, or gain a "perspective".
Posted by twobyfour 2006-09-21 00:23||   2006-09-21 00:23|| Front Page Top

#2 My opinion of the legal 'profession' is well known. It goes double for those trying to protect terrorists while hanging our own out to dry and wearing the uniform of this nation at the same time.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-09-21 01:09|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]  2006-09-21 01:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Sadly, "grounding" is required of all lawyers, JAG and civilian.
Posted by Captain America 2006-09-21 01:25||   2006-09-21 01:25|| Front Page Top

#4 It's a most convenient two-fer. Politicians and bureaucrats tie our hands, while we take all the shit from people who have no idea what we do. A three-fer, actually, seeing as most of us remain in debt up to our eyeballs well into our 40s.

There's a reason I'm an ex JAG. Keep it up, gentlemen, and maybe more of us will say "fuck it."
Posted by exJAG 2006-09-21 05:00||   2006-09-21 05:00|| Front Page Top

#5 Why is that Ex? Were you hoping to do good, and became disillusioned by the bureaucracy?

Too liberal for you, or not liberal enough?

If more JAGs departed, would it be better, or worse, for the services?

What did you see your role to be while you were there?
Posted by Bobby 2006-09-21 06:13||   2006-09-21 06:13|| Front Page Top

#6 After squelching that strike on the huge Taleban funeral, there needs to be a top-to-bottom review of JAG procedures. If field experience is what it takes, then so be it. All of our troops need to be fighting on the same side.

Your bitterness is understandable, exJAG.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-09-21 07:38||   2006-09-21 07:38|| Front Page Top

#7 Operators believe the JAGs are grandstanding, especially by saying one thing to uniformed people, and something else to the media and Congress

Please someone, say this isn't really so.
Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-21 08:02||   2006-09-21 08:02|| Front Page Top

#8 Here is the lone comment from the StrategyPage piece. It gives you some insight into the depth of the moonbattery out there. Not that any of us have any doubts.

AlbanyRifles

JAG officers rotate through varied positions during their careers. Sometimes they are prosecutors and sometimes they are defense attorneys. Our legal tradition believes in a strong advocacy for the accused, no matter what their alleged crime, and that the hurly burly of the courtroom will lead to the vital truth.

The work of the various JAG officers in these cases is nothing more than what they are trained to do and are expected to do....they are to advocate within the law anything and everythign they can for their clients.

I would rather they do that for all and get one or two wrong than cherry pick and predetermine guilt or innocence.

Some folks insist that we treat terrorists and illegal combatants the same way we would treat American citizens charged with a crime. It is either stupidity writ large, or some devious mechanism for tying our hands. Or a combination. All I know is, something needs to be done, and it probably will not get done until a LOT of Americans had suffered horrible deaths. Only then will the rage of the sensible people drown out the whining and sniveling of the ankle biters.

Leftism, delenda est! Islam too!
Posted by Texas Redneck 2006-09-21 08:04||   2006-09-21 08:04|| Front Page Top

#9 It is either stupidity writ large, or some devious mechanism for tying our hands.

It's stupidity writ large, by the ankle biters.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-09-21 08:15||   2006-09-21 08:15|| Front Page Top

#10 I've always believed the impact of 8 years of Clinton-Gore-Gorelic-Aspenism was far worse than we could learn from any open sources. I suspect Bush has kept it from us as well because he wanted to keep it from the enemy. Don Rumsfeld's memoirs could be goodies.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-21 08:18||   2006-09-21 08:18|| Front Page Top

#11 The JAG should all be converted to election day poll watchers in our big cities with cameras. Then they would do good at least one day a year.
It's a start.
Posted by wxjames 2006-09-21 09:34||   2006-09-21 09:34|| Front Page Top

#12 Redneck, the vast majority of the time, the clients we advocate for are commanders.

Bobby, it’s not a question of too liberal/not liberal enough. It’s a question of doing everything possible to help commanders accomplish the mission. Civilians make the rules, we digest and deliver them. And 95% of us construe that message as strongly, as favorably, as we can to our commanders, because we want them to crush the enemy and win.

JAG officers, as much as any of y'all, are infuriated and disgusted with the humane this and restrained that. They're in Afghanistan and Iraq, right next to the commanders and the troops, observing the consequences of our self-defeating ROE in first-hand anguish. But it is not within our power to change the rules: it’s up to Congress and the Pentagon – or, up to the commander to ignore them. At this point, I would advise commanders to do exactly that, while I go make it all look good on paper for them. A commander willing to risk his career would get a lot of officers to follow suit. I am certain this already goes on, and it will continue so long as stupid rules deny us decisive victory.

I’m in Zenster’s neighborhood when it comes to, ahem, "accomplishing the mission," and too often, our civilian leadership imposes rules on us that actively prevent this, no matter how much interpreting and construing we do. That’s the reason for the “ex.” Civilian leadership will not risk themselves, while ankle-biters on all sides blame us for the restrictive ROEs, so fuck it. I have a family to take care of and law school loans to pay off. Let some other douche deal with it, like, oh, say, my husband, who is still a JAG Corps NCO. Hopefully, not for much longer.
Posted by exJAG 2006-09-21 09:42||   2006-09-21 09:42|| Front Page Top

#13 exJAG - how many commanders who are 'disgusted' with the 'imposed' ROEs have publicly resigned over the issue. This is one of the points of Col. Harry Summers’ influential book On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context. No General Officer ever resigned over the civilian handling of the war. They bitched about it afterward, but not during. A commander who is willing to send the young men out into danger but is unwilling to risk career advancement says a lot about careerism within the service.
Posted by Omasing Glinesing6559 2006-09-21 10:18||   2006-09-21 10:18|| Front Page Top

#14 Thank you for elaborating, exJAG. Such firsthand insight as yours is valued quite highly here at Rantburg. If you feel so inclined, please hang around and give us the benefit of your experience whenever you feel it to be relevant.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-09-21 10:22||   2006-09-21 10:22|| Front Page Top

#15 Omasing Glinesing6559:

This I can elaberate on for the commanders. Some are only concered about their careers (dubbed "lifers") and are despised by their troops. Most commanders stay in to, "modify" the rules they are given and to limit the damage stupid leadership rules do. You can't save your men from a meat grinder if you quit in disgust. They hold their nose and try to get the job done and bring all the boys home alive. Hopefully no one notices and they can get promoted to leadership positions next to the civilians so they can help change civilian thinking.

Vain hope for changing the thinking of Morlocks, but they keep trying.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-09-21 10:29||   2006-09-21 10:29|| Front Page Top

#16 exJAG: thanks for the comments. As a moderator, let me second Zenster's comment. Please stick around; we appreciate your insights.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2006-09-21 13:33||   2006-09-21 13:33|| Front Page Top

#17 Same here exJAG - very illuminating. Thanks for that.
Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-09-21 17:01||   2006-09-21 17:01|| Front Page Top

#18 Same here exJAG - very illuminating. Thanks for that.

mine too.. begrudgingly! :-)
Posted by RD 2006-09-21 18:04||   2006-09-21 18:04|| Front Page Top

#19 Thanks for the encouragement, gentlemen. A few parting remarks.

I know everyone is furious about the cemetery last week. None more than I, because I can picture exactly how it happened. But ROEs are not written in a vacuum; you'd be surprised at how much interference we get from the State Dept., which somehow gets to have a say in MOOTW. And that slime-pit of ignominy, I think you'll all agree, is where most of our problems trace back to.

It is not JAG procedures that need a top-to-bottom review. I realize we have some poofters who would be better suited to ambulance-chasing -- what profession doesn't. But the majority of us see ourselves as soldiers like any others, doing the best we can with what we're given. And frequently, what we're given is a steaming pile of diplo-tranzi horseshit.

We work for the warfighters, doing all we can to make sure they can do what they need to do. We cannot wiggle past every suicidally stupid obstacle every time, and yes, sometimes it's flatly because some pansy leftist gives terrible advice. But those occasional failures are all the public sees. Imagine how much worse it would be if, for example, State drafted all our ROEs, with no input from lawyers who understand that it's perfectly legal to kill people in wartime.

All I'm saying is that a headline screaming "Kill all the Military Lawyers" is pretty freakin outrageous. A friend of mine from OBC was among the 11 injured, badly, by that Akbar asshole's grenade in the TOC in Kuwait. A helicopter full of my colleagues was shot down near Tikrit in Nov 03, all dead; one was a week away from retiring in Hawaii. If that makes you happy, I may as well head over to the Daily Cooz or al-Jazeera for love like that.

/Well, this is Rantburg!
Posted by exJAG 2006-09-21 18:09||   2006-09-21 18:09|| Front Page Top

#20 The term "civilian leadership in war time" is the oxymoron of all oxymorons. ExJag is spot on with regard to these silent uniformed colonels and generals. They all despise Rumsfeld and his cronnies with passion, but most wait until well after retirement to say if damn thing, if they ever do.
Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-21 18:09||   2006-09-21 18:09|| Front Page Top

#21 Only parting for the evening, I hope.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-21 18:17||   2006-09-21 18:17|| Front Page Top

#22 Thanks, exJAG. RB's a rough place, especially so for lawyers, lol. Your info and understanding is very valuable to us and anyone else who cares about our survival. The majority here appreciates the bind you're in - fighting uphill every step of the way - and what you find time to share with us. I promise we won't kill all the lawyers, lol.

You should look for posts by Verlaine in Iraq - I'll bet you guys could compare notes and identify the specific wankers who keep fouling up the works in this war - for all of us.

Regards.
Posted by .com 2006-09-21 18:22||   2006-09-21 18:22|| Front Page Top

#23 A few parting remarks.

And damn fine ones at that. Don't be a stranger, exJAG.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-09-21 18:38||   2006-09-21 18:38|| Front Page Top

#24 I may as well head over to the Daily Cooz or al-Jazeera for love like that.

And stay away from those places. You'll poke your eye out! You'll get ... er, COOTIES!
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-09-21 18:39||   2006-09-21 18:39|| Front Page Top

#25 ex-JAG, appreciated your comments. But, as General Franks would attest, the problem with JAGs (as well as law firm associates in general), is putting law over practicality.

There are more Lindsey Grahams out there than not, where law reigns supreme, and the 'real' world be damned.
Posted by Captain America 2006-09-21 19:24||   2006-09-21 19:24|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:49 Texas Redneck
23:47 Frank G
23:45 Texas Redneck
23:44 Thoth
23:43 ex-lib
23:42 .com
23:41 trailing wife
23:41 .com
23:40 Thoth
23:39 Rafael
23:39 .com
23:38 Abdominal Snowman
23:37 Thoth
23:33 Thoth
23:33 trailing wife
23:31 .com
23:31 Thoth
23:27 Thoth
23:26 trailing wife
23:25 Grolurt Hupising1286
23:23 Broadhead6
23:20 Grolurt Hupising1286
23:20 Zenster









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com