Firing of military lawyers

[PaulD]

An initial point: although I disagree with the firing of the generals and admirals, they were legal. 3- and 4-stars serve at the pleasure of the President. Doesn't mean I like it.

Also for background, I served as an Air Force JAG from 1980 to 2007, when I retired. I say this to show that I know something about the subject.

Trump purging military JAG lawyers so they won’t be ‘roadblocks to anything that happens’ over next 4 years, Hegseth says

Clearly, the Secretary doesn't understand how The Judge Advocate Generals (TJAGs) are selected. They aren't elected. They are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate.

He also don't understand how military lawyers, judge advocates or JAGs, work. They give advice to commanders to help them comply with the law. The commanders are still the decision makers. During my 28 years as an Air Force judge advocate, I found that commanders wanted that advice to help them with making those decisions. During our conflicts, deployed commanders wanted their lawyers with them.

During his TV tenure, he indicated that our forces should not comply with the treaties that he feels handicap us, apparently including the Geneva conventions. I found when briefing aircrews during one of my assignments that they supported following the rules when they were shown how the rules helped them accomplish their missions. The American armed forces are warriors, not armed thugs!

As an example, various conventions say that we don't attack cultural targets like churches and mosques. I pointed out to aircrews that they don't have an unlimited supply of bombs and bullets; a large one but not unlimited. Every bomb used on a non-military target doesn't do anything to help us win. It is wasted; save it for a target that needs destroying. When it was put to them that way, they didn't see it as a lawyer telling them what they couldn't do; it was a fellow officer showing how to better accomplish their mission.

 

[Tidewater]

Thanks for this. You are absolutely right. JAGs are not the deciders, they advise commanders.
There are Judge Advocates General at all senior levels (a rifle platoon does not have its own JAG). A Special Forces Group has a JAG, to advise the commander on OPLAW matters (and admin law matters and UCMJ when back at home station)
Now, I think the SECDEF has relieved the Services' Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Forces (but not the Space Force? Or do they have their own? Maybe the Space Force is to the USAF what USMC is to the Navy in that regard?)
From what I can tell, the SECDEF has relieved the most senior service JAGs, (not purged all JAGs from all the levels in all the services). Unusual, but not illegal. The bigger deal is the reduction in rank of the billet/position from a 3-star billet to a 2-star one, so their replacements will be 2-stars.

 

[PaulD]

The bigger deal is the reduction in rank of the billet/position from a 3-star billet to a 2-star one, so their replacements will be 2-stars.

That will require an Act of Congress (literally). When someone is confirmed for those positions, they automatically get the third star.

 

[PaulD]

Is independent, nonpartisan legal advice from military lawyers on the chopping block?

Major General Dunlap is a former Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. Early in his career (he was a captain) and at the beginning of mine, he was one of my instractors at the Air Force JAG School at Maxwell AFB.

 

[Tidewater]

That will require an Act of Congress (literally). When someone is confirmed for those positions, they automatically get the third star.

How can a flag officer get promoted from 2 star to 3 star without Senate approval? Congress wrote the statute to take that decision out of their own hands?
And what if the occupant is "Acting Judge Advocate General," not the actual Judge Advocate General?

 

[Jon]

shocking that a guy that thinks he can do whatever he wants is so quick to remove those that always say no to his worst impulses

 

[PaulD]

How can a flag officer get promoted from 2 star to 3 star without Senate approval? Congress wrote the statute to take that decision out of their own hands?
And what if the occupant is "Acting Judge Advocate General," not the actual Judge Advocate General?

Senate confirmation is required. The president nominates someone in this way:

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED AND FOR APPOINTMENT
AS THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE
10, U.S.C., SECTION 8037:

To be lieutenant general

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD C. HARDING

THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUAL FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203(A):

I was mistaken in one thing. Since I retired Congress removed the requirement that a TJAG be a three star. They can be a two star or higher. Since that change, they have still been nominated as three star generals or admirals.

During a vacancy, the Deputy TJAG performs the duties (that's the actual terminology) but stays in their current grade.

 

[Tidewater]

I've related this story before, but it fits here.
In 1942, one of General George Marshall's smart Majors was speaking to his brother-in-law who was a state trooper in Connecticut about the Connecticut police's use of these new "frequency modulating" radios between vehicles to vector cops to intercepts with bad guys. The Major told Marshall, who called in the Army's Chief of the Signal Corps to see what he knew about FM radios.
"Oh, yeah, we know about them but we are not developing the technology because the Army did not invent them."
The next day, the Army had a new Chief of the Signal Corps. There was a new environment (a world war) and this guy was too wed to the ancien regime.

Likewise, these TJAGs, if they did not advise their service chiefs that using Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to justify discrimination against certain soldiers on the basis of their race or gender was a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the XIV Amendment and then they did not resign in protest when the policies continued after providing that advice, then they are part of the ancien regime.
I am not saying this situation transpired, just that if the situation was like that, then thanking them for their service and wishing them a happy retirement is not inappropriate.
It is also possible that Trump and Hegseth got rid of them because Trump and Hegseth wanted them to find legal justifications for illegal activities, and, when they refused, they were shown the door. If the latter is the case, then some kind of evidence is going to be necessary, something besides "this is what you would do if you are going to do something illegal." (Professor Rosa's comment on the situation.")
You are an attorney. If a cop without a warrant kicked in a citizen's front door because the citizen refused to let the cop in and the cop gave his justification, "this is what you would do if you are going to do something illegal," you know a judge would take a dim view of the cop's actions.

 

[dtgreg]

I'm seeing blacks and women fired and replaced by white men with infinitely lesser credentials. If you're not planning to break the law, you're not worried about "roadblocks" to what you plan to do. No one stands in the way of legal decisions. Obviously, you're planning on breaking the law.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm seeing blacks and women fired and replaced by white men with infinitely lesser credentials.

Interesting. Who are the white men with infinitely lesser credentials?

Looked it up myself:
Army TJAG white guy to white guy. (LTG Joseph B. Berger III to MG Robert A. Borcherding)
Navy TJAG: white guy to Hawai'ian woman, Rear Admiral Lia Reynolds, law school at Univ. of Hawai'i).
Air Force TJAG: white guy to white woman (LTG Chris Plummer to MG .Rebecca Vernon)

To recap, we went from three white men under Biden to one white man, one white woman, and one Asian-Pacific Islander woman under Trump.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm seeing blacks and women fired and replaced by white men with infinitely lesser credentials.

Did you mean the SECDEF himself? That I would buy.
Lloyd Austion was no great shakes, however. He presided over the most embarrassing American military defeat in half a century and fired no one for the failure, which means he put his stamp of approval on the error.
But yeah, credentials between Hegseth and Austin, big drop-off in credentials

 

[dtgreg]

Interesting. Who are the white men with infinitely lesser credentials?

Looked it up myself:
Army TJAG white guy to white guy. (LTG Joseph B. Berger III to MG Robert A. Borcherding)
Navy TJAG: white guy to Hawai'ian woman, Rear Admiral Lia Reynolds, law school at Univ. of Hawai'i).
Air Force TJAG: white guy to white woman (LTG Chris Plummer to MG .Rebecca Vernon)

To recap, we went from three white men under Biden to one white man, one white woman, and one Asian-Pacific Islander woman under Trump.

My bad, I got off topic. We were talking about lawyers. I was talking about Joint Chiefs and FBI, although, being from Alabama, and looking at the mugs of the new FBI guys, they WOULD appear to be DEI hires to someone born and raised in this State.

 

[dtgreg]

Did you mean the SECDEF himself? That I would buy.
Lloyd Austion was no great shakes, however. He presided over the most embarrassing American military defeat in half a century and fired no one for the failure, which means he put his stamp of approval on the error.
But yeah, credentials between Hegseth and Austin, big drop-off in credentials

I believe that's a bit disingenuous, at best. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was negotiated by Trump. The chaotic execution was a live grenade dropped in Biden's lap.

Our Country's foreign objectives are not supposed to change with the wind every four years. I invite you to examine what is happening to NATO currently. Once it's gone, we will probably never get it back. Who does that benefit the most? I'll give you one guess.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I believe that's a bit disingenuous, at best. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was negotiated by Trump. The chaotic execution was a live grenade dropped in Biden's lap.

C'mon, he had months to make sure this went smoothly - if you've ready ANY of the AARs it would be obvious this was literally the most poorly planned military action in half a century or more. The administration had PLENTY of time to figure out how to do this - they basically 'dropped a live grenade' into the lap of the US military over there and told them to figure it out in real time.

 

[dtgreg]

C'mon, he had months to make sure this went smoothly - if you've ready ANY of the AARs it would be obvious this was literally the most poorly planned military action in half a century or more. The administration had PLENTY of time to figure out how to do this - they basically 'dropped a live grenade' into the lap of the US military over there and told them to figure it out in real time.

We had been in Afghanistan for 20 years and you really think it wasn't going to look like Vietnam 1975? Of course it was.

There is a reason Trump tried so hard to get the previous Congress to raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. So it wouldn't occur on HIS watch. You've got to admit that he knows what's unpopular. Still, gotta give people who don't need more money even more money.

 

[crimsonaudio]

We had been in Afghanistan for 20 years and you really think it wasn't going to look like Vietnam 1975? Of course it was.

There is a reason Trump tried so hard to get the previous Congress to raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. So it wouldn't occur on HIS watch. You've got to admit that he knows what's unpopular. Still, gotta give people who don't need more money even more money.

Seriously, read some of the reports from the people involved with it. It wasn't going to go well for thew Afghanis, but we literally had planes taking off with no manifests, just making their way to US bases wherever they could. We had JAG officers out stringing up concertina wire to try to hold off the crowds.

There was ZERO help from the administration, just orders. They hung those troops out dry.

 

[Tidewater]

I believe that's a bit disingenuous, at best. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was negotiated by Trump. The chaotic execution was a live grenade dropped in Biden's lap.

No, sir. For three reasons.
1. The agreement had a bunch of milestones, in order for this agreement to proceed, the Taliban must do x, y, and z. If those were not complied with to the satisfaction of the US, then the agreement was null and void. The Taliban failed on their end of the deal numerous times so the US could have announced the deal was off. Biden wanted to be able to say he ended the war (which I supported because it had become a stupid war for us to be involved in.)
2. How the US was going to get out was not on Trump. That was on the Biden Administration and it looked to me that there was a bunch of "turn off the lights and run."
3. The US had built an Afghan army that relied explicitly on aerial resupply to keep outposts resupplied and medical coverage ensured. Most of that aerial support was planned and maintained by US contractors, not US military personnel. The Biden Administration (doubtless on advice from SECDEF or against SECDEF's advice) decided to pull those contractors. The Afghans themselves were not able to maintain aircraft and plan air missions themselves. When the air-support contractors left, the air support collapsed and the Afghan Army was forced to resupply via ground convoys, which the Talibs loved, because ambushing is easy. Combat Outposts became isolated and fell one by one, and the stampede for the door was on. All of that was due to the Biden Administrations decision to pull contractor support.

Our Country's foreign objectives are not supposed to change with the wind every four years. I invite you to examine what is happening to NATO currently. Once it's gone, we will probably never get it back. Who does that benefit the most? I'll give you one guess.

I can tell you from talking to soldiers in NATO that the US cutting and running from Afghanistan after asking their NATO allies to help us there, and so many of them getting killed there uselessly has damaged the US in the eyes of NATO countries. They have said to me, "You guys asked us to go, so we went. We had guys killed there. Then you pulled out. Why should we trust you in the future?

 

[Tidewater]

C'mon, he had months to make sure this went smoothly - if you've ready ANY of the AARs it would be obvious this was literally the most poorly planned military action in half a century or more. The administration had PLENTY of time to figure out how to do this - they basically 'dropped a live grenade' into the lap of the US military over there and told them to figure it out in real time.

I think the CENTCOM commander should have been relieved of command (Marine four-star) not so much for the crap show but for failure to plan the withdrawal adequately.
The fact that neither Joe Biden nor Lloyd Austin fire him means they approved.

 

[Tidewater]

Who does that benefit the most? I'll give you one guess.

This is something of a Republican talking point, but this one happens to be true.
What effect did the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan have on Putin's willingness to invade Ukraine?
Putin was probably watching from the Kremlin saying, "Holy cow. Those guys are a soup sandwich under a firehose. I guess this is a great time to take advantage by settling scores with the Ukrainians."
Look at when the Russians started massing troops on the Ukrainian border. Exercise Zapad (West) 2021 was in September 2021 in Belarus and western Russia, and when the exercise finished, the Russia troops stayed and Russia moved more and more troops to the border.

 

[UAH]

I think the CENTCOM commander should have been relieved of command (Marine four-star) not so much for the crap show but for failure to plan the withdrawal adequately.
The fact that neither Joe Biden nor Lloyd Austin fire him means they approved.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan reminded me too much of the withdrawl from Vietnam. There were many other alternatives to consider.