Right wing blogs of various types are beating drums on behalf of an as-yet-unidentified US Army soldier who got into a bit of a confrontation with the moderator at a YearlyKos panel discussion. The soldier was a sergeant in uniform; the moderator was (or is, I'm not sure which) a reserve officer. The moderator took exception to the soldier appearing in uniform, and the right is spinning this as a soldier getting "shouted down" at Kos.
Right now, there are two videos of the incident. Neither paints a complete picture of the scene. In the official video, the soldier's comments are almost entirely inaudible. In the other video, from Pajamas Media, some of the commentary from the moderator is not clear. In the interests of figuring out just who said what, I've assembled a composite transcript from the two sources.
Soltz: I just want to close out here. First off, I would like to thank the panel, I want to thank everyone who came, General Clark. I want to thank... we're out of time.Soldier: I will be fast.
Soltz: Let me make this real clear to you, sergeant. You're in the uniform of our country. If you ask me a political question, I'm going to take you outside...
Soldier: [inaudible]
Soltz: Listen to me...
Soldier: [inaudible]
Soltz: and we're going to have a captain to...
Soldier: [inaudible]
Soltz (shouting): Hey, you want me to come down there and ...
Soltz: Hold on a second, sergeant. Let me come down there and talk to you real quick offline. But I want to let you know if you say something political...
Soldier: These are ...[Inaudible. Soltz is talking over him.]
Soltz: If you say something political, if you use my uniform, or our uniform of our country to say something political, for or against,
Soldier: These people are... [Still crosstalk]
Soltz: I will have to talk to you.
Soldier: ...right here. OK. They helped me. I will not let anyone say anything bad about these people [turning while saying this, talking as much to audience as to Soltz] because they're good. I believe in what they're standing for. But I have a question. And if there's one person that deserves to ask a question, that deserves to speak, from [?] what I went through. Please.
Soldier: I have a quote from FM 22-100, the Army Leadership Manual. "Just as fire tempers iron into fine steel, so does adversity temper one's character into firmness, tolerance, and determination." I care about the Iraqi people. I fought beside them, and we shared the same blood, tears, and sweat. Iraqi casualties have gone down. I will give you my money, all the money I have in my pocket, if you can show me that Iraqi casualties since the surge began have not gone down.
Soldier: Please. I have a computer, and their are computers all around here. Search. I will give you all the money in my pocket.
Someone on panel: It's not about the number...
Soltz: Stand down. I just want to say... look, before we get a real Army issue, I ... I believe that a great unit in the military's got discipline. That we've got good units and bad units.
Soltz: For the sake of the Army, I want to thank you. Everybody that's come here. I want to thank the Kos panel, I want to thank all our panelists. For the sergeant, I will see you outside. I want the name of your commander and first sergeant, and you will never, ever use my uniform again in the name of political purposes. I want to thank you guys. [Stands, exits.]
[Scattered applause from audience]
General Clark: Let...let me say something on this. We're... there are a lot of people here who love this country and there are a lot of people here who may have differing views one from another, and we support as elements - members of this community, everyone's right to speak. Um.. And so I think here what we've got to be careful of is we don't get our military members and people who have military associations mixed up in politics in a way that's improper for them. This one's going to have to be looked at. I don't know what the right answer to it is right now.
General Clark: I know that people who serve in Iraq, just like I did when I was in Vietnam, have very strong feelings about what they're doing. Most of 'em believe in it. I hope... The polls show, I guess, 30 percent really believe, 30 percent aren't sure, and 30 percent believe it's failing. At least that's the most recent poll I've seen. But people say morale's good during the surge; I hope it is. And I'm proud of the men and women in uniform. But I do think it's really important that we keep our military institutions separate and out of the political questions.
General Clark: When General MacArthur spoke at the Military Academy in 1962 to Cadets then, he said, "These great questions of state are not your concern." They're not yours. They're not yours. You may study them in an academic sense; you don't participate in them as a member of the armed forces. You participate as an individual.
General Clark: And that's the issue that Jon's trying to discuss with the sergeant here this morning. It is an issue of propriety. It's also an issue of legality.
While General Clark was speaking, the Pajamas Media folks followed Soltz as he left the stage to confront the sergeant. This took place while General Clark was talking on stage.
Pajamas Media: I had a brief opportunity to ask Mr. Stoltz [sic. name misspelled on video, also] about why he was so angry.
Pajamas Media (to Soltz): You just had a very heated exchange. What was it about?
Soltz: Well, look. You don't use the military uniform to talk politics. It's against the law.
Pajamas Media: So you want to have a talk with him outside...
Soltz [waving hands]: I don't want any of this...this is... what is this? I mean...
Pajamas Media: I'm...I'm with media covering the event.
Soltz: No, hey, no, I just... No, it's the bottom line is that you don't use your military uniform to speak politics. You speak as a civilian. This is why we have a good, disciplined military. It's against the law. You know, I don't appreciate people using military uniform to speak politics. It's... our military's above politics. Period. That's it.
Pause. Gen Clark speaking in background.
Soltz, as sergeant approaches: Turn that off for me, please, so that I can speak to him off the record. Thank you. This is a soldier that needs some guidance.
Soltz (to sergeant): You were totally out of line, soldier. I want the name of your unit, I want the name of your commander...
Inaudible crosstalk between Soltz and sergeant. Soltz sees that camera is still on.
Soltz (to camera): Excuse me, please, I'm trying to have a conversation.
Pajamas Media: I'm media covering the event.
Soltz: That's...
Soldier: You can record. I don't have anything to hide. I don't have anything to hide. I wanted to talk to him anyway. You said [?] ... Oh, yeah, yeah... [goes back to bag].
Soltz: I want to talk to you in private.
That's what, as best as I can determine, what was said at the convention. Now, let's look at a couple of basic facts:
Fact 1: The wearing of uniforms at political functions is expressly prohibited under both Department of Defense and Army regulations. It's prohibited at all political functions, not, as at least one right-wing blog claims, just at those run by "totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive" organizations.
Fact 2: Soltz did not, as many are claiming, silence the soldier. He attempted to warn off the soldier, then let him speak, then went to find out what unit the guy was with. The only person he silenced was one of the panelists who was going to answer the soldier's question.
Now that all of that's out there, let's talk about this situation, and why it's different from another recent situation that involved veterans in uniform. That's a good idea to begin with, and doubly good because right-wing blogs are accusing us of hypocrisy for speaking out in favor of the last case, but not this one. (And never mind their own flip-flop.)
In the earlier case, a member of the Individual Ready Reserve was disciplined for wearing parts of his fatigues that had been stripped of all insignia including name and branch of service while protesting the war. In this case, someone who (as it turns out) is not currently on active duty wore his Class-A uniform, with all insignia and ribbons, to a political function in order to speak out in favor of the war.
The key differences between these cases do not involve the opinions that were expressed. The key differences involve the status of the soldiers, and the way the uniforms were worn. Marine Cpl. Kokesh was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. He had completed his active duty time. He was not a member of any reserve or guard unit that trains regularly. His military duty consisted of keeping uniforms in a closet and making sure that the military had a current address for him should they need to recall him to duty. The unidentified sergeant appeared to be on active duty when he was at the convention, and had already been warned at least twice (including once by a retired 4-star) that what he was doing was inappropriate. Cpl. Kokesh wore fatigues without insignia - the type of thing that anyone can go buy at a surplus store. The unidentified sergeant was in full uniform, and clearly identifiable as someone who is definitely with the military.
"Clearly identifiable" is the key there, in case you were wondering. The Marine reservist who got in trouble was not clearly identifiable by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. The Army sergeant was clearly identifiable, and he went to great lengths to make sure that everyone knew that he was speaking as a soldier. And that, as both Mr. Soltz and General Clark said, is not proper or legal.
Addendum: Shortly after posting this, it occurred to me that there's one person who's about to become involved in this mess who really deserves some sympathy: this sergeant's company commander. That poor sap probably has no idea what his week's going to start off with.
- Log in to post comments
Funny, you picked the one quote I made in jest and nailed it to your cross.
Now, answer me this - is the YearlyKos a political event or is it a blogger convention (as it was billed)?
Did the sergeant make a political statement, or was he just asking for a little clarification?
Did he bring discredit to the uniform, or did Solz just discredit himself as a non-partisan actor?
If you'd have bothered to read the DoD directive in it's entirety (sans blinders) you'd have arrived at the same conclusion a reasonable person like myself would conclude. the young buck sergeant is in no trouble nor should he be in trouble.
And his commander is pleased that his troops have the gumption many on the political Left can't seem to summon.
My response to this comment is a bit long, so it's set up as a new post here.
And the Kokesh incident was entirely different. Kokesh brought discredit to the uniform while he was wearing it. he was reenacting little torture dramas on the National Mall as if our soldiers all engage in illegal activities. He harrassed tourists while he and little pals pretended they were on patrol.
Kokesh was still in the military - by his own admission on his blog, he had used his military ID to enter a military base in Germany to preach his propaganda.
The whole story is at my blog and linked to the same post you linked here - if you're willing to make the same effort I made to get the facts before I wrote.
This as yet unidentified sergeant is in the reserves - not on active duty (if you'd done your research, you'd know that instead of guessing and lying to make a point). He didn't bring discredit on the services as Kokesh the Drama Queen brought discredit.
There's no "flip-flop" from the Right on this - just from the Kos Kids - and their willing accomplices.(re:You)