Talking to Congress About A-10 Treason

[GURPS]

Air Force probing alleged 'treason' remark by general

Post is reported to have told Air Force officers attending a recent weapons and tactics conference in Nevada that it is their duty to support the service's budget priorities by refraining from offering opinions inconsistent with those priorities. Air Force leaders have proposed retiring the A-10 fleet but Congress has refused, and some inside the Air Force have sided with Congress.

Post's alleged comments were first reported by Tony Carr, a retired Air Force officer who writes a blog called "John Q. Public." Carr said he learned of Post's comments from a number of officers who were in the audience at the time Post spoke.

Carr said Post prefaced his remark in the closed-door conference by saying, "If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it." He then said, "Anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason."

"These comments can be seen as nothing less than an attempt to intimidate subordinates into refraining from exercising their rights to free expression and civic participation," Carr wrote.

 

[SG_Player1974]

Air Force probing alleged 'treason' remark by general
"These comments can be seen as nothing less than an attempt to intimidate subordinates into refraining from exercising their rights to free expression and civic participation," Carr wrote.

Funny... I was under the impression that freedom of speech and expression were really not an option when you sign up for the military.

 

[barsook8]

In one way, this is business as usual: there are always disagreements (like in any organization) and sometimes the disagreements take on strange forms. But this is a big for the military (or for any agency that is part of the executive branch). These folks work for the Chief Executive (i.e., the President) and not for Congress. So, on one hand, we need informed decision-makers, but on the other, it is (at minimum) inappropriate for military officers to seek out members of Congress. The more correct way to approach this is to state your views in/on forums within your sphere. Congress is smart; they have lots of staff members who can find folks to speak up on behalf of the A-10. Then, and only then, can the "insubordinate" AF officers correctly voice their opinions: when they are subpoenaed to testify.

This is in many ways similar to the Air Force vs Congress C-17 battle of years ago. What's different these days is the number of military officers who see it as their right to be so highly political. As SG_Player1974 correctly noted, when you sign up you give up a number of your civilian civic rights. And rightly so.

The A-10 issue is a tactical, small beans one. The bigger, and more problematic, one is the dissolution of professional ethics in the officer corps. You expect politics from the senior officers (kind of goes with the turf). You don't expect it from what we always counted on to be the more professional group: the junior officers. If you want yet another example of how the military is being stressed (as a result of say underfunding, over-deploying, social experimenting, and silly senior leadership in the Pentagon and White House), look no further. Last time we had such turmoil "in the ranks" was the last years of Viet Nam and its aftermath from the mid 1970s to mid 1980s.

 

[b23hqb]

Funny... I was under the impression that freedom of speech and expression were really not an option when you sign up for the military.

Apparently not, with the AFIG and congress reacting to and investigating the accusation the way they are. It seems to me as a 25 year active/reserved retired, these officers have every right to question political decisions straight from the top, quietly and respectfully, as long as they do not disobey orders. Not a good path for promotion, but sometimes, especially with current leadership lapping up all obama wants, conscience is more important.

The A-10 situation is purely political to further the F-22 and F-35 programs that will benefit certain lawmakers districts, while weakening the overall defense of the nation.

Nothing invented beats the A-10 platform. Come up with a better idea that is proven to be superior, then mothball the fleet.

 

[RPMDAD]

I think that is really bending the definition of Treason, insubordination maybe more like it.

 

[Ken King]

Funny... I was under the impression that freedom of speech and expression were really not an option when you sign up for the military.

Pretty sure there is a section of law that says " No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a member of Congress."

 

[PeoplesElbow]

When asked of the capabilities as long as they stick to the facts about performance, lethality etc I do not see a problem. However when they get into mission need etc that is for the senior leadership to determine.

The A-10 was a purpose build aircraft, it has no other uses. This means that it does that single job extremely well. Other multipurpose aircraft are always a compromise of "good enough" that may or may not be as effective/cheap etc. The question is who/what will we be fighting in the future? The JSF was originally proposed because it would be "cheap", much cheaper than an F-22 but it is rapidly approaching that price point.