By my calculations (and by my troth!) it has been just a little over a year since the last SCS annual update, and I am excited to begin another year blogging at The Soldier-Citizen-Sapiens Project and posting at the SCS Facebook Page.

Two years ago, a friend and I began SCS with the mission of “forging an ethic of three duties.” We believed in a world of right and wrong, and we wanted to present meaningful positions and arguments about both. A firm understanding of right and wrong is necessary for right action, and we believed it was our duty to act rightly, and help others understand as well.

In our first year, we spent a lot of time covering issues of human equality and dignity. We addressed issues of citizenship, issues of racism, and finally issues of discrimination, all from an ethical perspective.

In our second year, we mainly tackled the topics of the role of the Soldier, military professionalism, and briefly on civil-military relations. It was neat that this kind of happened in the same time as the American military was also looking at itself and it’s role in society and the world. We were also able to accomplish some of our other goals, such as improving the professional look of the site, and beginning to give shape to the SCS ethic itself.

But in our next year, there is still work to be done! We have already updated the look of the site, and we will continue to post commentary on current issues from an ethical perspective, and continue to shape the SCS ethic. I am very excited to begin an exploration of military ethics and just war ethics very soon. These topics have been an interest area of mine for a number of years, and I am pumped to be posting on them soon.

But enough about SCS, let’s talk about you!

I want to thank those of you who have visited the site and contributed your comments and ideas. I would especially like to thank those of you who have shared these posts with others, either by sharing them from the SCS Facebook Page, or by linking to them from your blog. We appreciate those of you who have added SCS to your blogrolls, and please let us know if you would like to be added to ours.

I would also like to ask one favor from those of you who come and visit the SCS blog. If you like a post that you’ve read here, please share with others. If you would like to comment on a post, please do. If you would like to contribute a thought that you think would be good for this blog, let us know. We would be happy to feature it here as a guest post, or get you plugged in as a contributor.

I look forward to spending the next year with you, and I can’t wait to hear back from you.

The reforms are aimed at increasing efficiency in the Army as a whole, and making it more effective, which is generally what is laid out in the first post containing the guest blogger’s “philosophy.”

I’m going to go ahead and link all seven of these guest blogger’s posts below. Ordinarily, this blog (SCS) is designed to critique and evaluate, but I really just wanted to compile these suggestions in one place. It is something I can probably come back to, but until then, I’m going to append a rebuttal blog post at the end by James Joyner from Outside the Beltway, where he blogs. Enjoy!

1. How to fix the Army in 66 easy steps (I) - In which the guest blogger outlines his philosophy for proposing reforms.
2. Fixing the Army (II): Let’s downgrade 4-stars and end the regimental system - In which the guest blogger discusses issues from reducing the number of stars on the shoulders of the highest officers, to criticizing the nit-picky uniform changes that have been the hobby of the Army’s highest leaders.
3. Fixing the Army (III): Time to figure out whether the brigade combat team works, simplify unit names, and shutter V Corps - The guest blogger criticizes the recent terminology changes for the war-fighting functions, and makes recommendations that begin to gnaw at the edges of the combined-arms unit concept.
4. Fixing the Army (IV): Trim support-branch generals, civilianize non-deployers – and start mowing your own damn lawn – Here the guest blogger attempts to lay off more general officers, and consolidate – presumably to reduce costs?
5. Fixing the Army (V): LTs who fail should be busted to enlisted to finish their time, and corporal should be a position of honor – This is perhaps the “rantiest” of the guest bloggers posts, making recommendations that seem to insulate the enlisted grades from disciplinary action, and grant them more prestige. I’m also reading a few sideways remarks about women in the military here.
6. Fixing the Army (VI): How can officers hold NCOs to standard if they don’t know what sergeants are supposed to be doing? – A post about trainers and training. Recommendations are aimed at increasing the bang-for-the-buck of training by giving trainers more skills, and reducing the costliest parts of preparing for war. Also a weird item about bayonets?
7. Fixing the Army (VII): Learn some languages, close the Sgt Maj’s academy – This quick last post covers enhancing the quality of the institutional training organizations in the Army, especially the NCOES schools that have been gradually gutted over nearly the last decade.

And one rebuttal by James Joyner:

1. Fixing the Army (by ruining it) – This rebuttal covers many of the points made by “Petronius Arbiter,” and points out where Joyner agrees with, disagrees with, or neither agrees nor disagrees with Ricks’  guest blogger’s assessments.

I will say one thing. Whether this is new or not, the identity crisis taking place in the military this past year, which was highlighted by former CJCS chairman Michael Mullen, and echoed by the Secretary of the Army John McHugh and former CSA Gen. George Casey, is inherently a good thing. A professional organization that struggles with its role and purpose needs to be having the conversation, while it constantly proposes and evaluates reforms.

Gates pointed out that “less than one percent” of the American population serves in a military uniform, yet their achievements have been “extraordinary” and performed “under the most trying circumstances.” Gates compares the typical American soldier to their J-Crew wearing civilian counterparts: they are 15% more likely to have a high school diploma or equivalent. Almost all officers have an undergraduate degree. Many have masters, and some even have PhDs. In fact, most civilians between ages 17-24, according to Gates, are “simply ineligible or unavailable to serve for a variety of reasons.”

All of this comes from Gates as he sprinkles sideways lamentations about America’s lack of support. He needs more people willing to join up in order to sustain longer dwell times for troops. The Ivy League refuses to admit R.O.T.C. programs on campus. The personnel and benefits spending is crowding out the rest of military budget. “How long can these brave and broad young shoulders,” Gates asks “carry the burden that we – as a military, as a government, as a society – continue to place on them?”

Gates’ message rings clear: ordinary Americans (that’s YOU) aren’t doing enough to support the exceptional American soldier.

America has admittedly asked much of the military for at least the last ten years. The country and the military have sacrificed much in adventures abroad. However, I still find Gates’ remarks inappropriate when I think about them coming from a soldier. Of course the Secretary of Defense is not a uniformed soldier, but in this speech I think he advocates for all American military personnel and should speak as a soldier.

And soldiers don’t present themselves to the people that they serve, start making comparisons and then scold them for not giving more support. No, that is not what soldiers do.

Well…that’s not exactly true, is it? I would suggest that American military personnel have generally cultivated a healthy disdain for civilians who have decided not to pursue the military lifestyle, and an even worse disdain for those who reject the military completely or who protest against it. This attitude is demonstrated in the header photo of this post, but very clearly summarized in a recent report of a marine complaining (coincidentally) to Secretary Gates regarding the marine’s objection to the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The marine complains:

“Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector…and we have gone and changed those values and repealed the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy” [emphasis added].

There it is, spelled out pretty clearly. Marine Corps values are better than civilian sector values. Just like that, stated as a matter of fact and left unchallenged.

This attitude is not only applied to the everyday American, but extends to the civilian leaders of the military as well. General Stanley McChrystal was recently embarrassed in a Rolling Stone profile that documented some of the disdainful remarks by his staff directed against the Vice President, as well as other presidential appointees assigned to Afghanistan to work with McChrystal. An irreverent and openly hostile attitude at times to civilian control of the military was prevalent among McChrystal and his staff. Publication of that article eventually led to McChrystal’s resignation.

In the first chapter of his popular book Lone Survivor, Marcus Luttrell riffs negatively on everything from politicians, to the “liberal media,” to the public in general who insist on imposing “intrusive rules of engagement” and other silly things like the protection of human rights. The public should just let him do his job “killing bad guys”, he says. It goes on for pages!

I am beginning to wonder how long this attitude of broad disdain for civilians can persist within the military before the military will be considered completely out of touch. This is perhaps what Admiral Mike Mullen warned about in the speech he gave in January.

“Our underpinning, our authorities, everything we are, everything we do comes from the American people. And we cannot afford to be out of touch with them…To the degree we are out of touch, I think is a very dangerous course.”

In the same speech, Admiral Mullen recounts the negative perception of the military in the 1970s following the Vietnam War, during which there were broad reports of abuse and harassment of returning vets. The negative perceptions continued into the 1980s and 90s, when a decline in accountability culminated in the famous Tailhook scandal.

It is quite possible that the broad disdain for civilians that I am discussing here can be harmful if it backfires. Forget about support for the wars, I’m talking about support for the military itself!

What will happen if the military loses the faith of the public, particularly after a decade of fighting, of wounds, and of pain? The veterans of the Vietnam era were certainly not well taken care of. What is to say that those who have sacrificed in recent years won’t be similarly treated?

But more than this, an attitude of exceptionalism and disdain is simply unprofessional. If you have read any of the sources in one of my previous posts on military professionalism, you probably saw that the foundation of a profession is the relationship between the profession and its client; in this case, the relationship between the military and the civilian public.

In this relationship, the profession is autonomous, but is accountable to its internal professional ethics and to the client. The profession also derives its legitimate authority from the client. The client is allowed to create limitations to the profession’s autonomy, and may also withdraw their authority from the profession. This of course does not destroy the profession’s infrastructure – all personnel, materiel, and institutional knowledge can be left intact – but the profession loses its legitimacy.

Therefore professionalism – existing as a legitimate profession – has much to do with satisfying the needs of the client. While the profession may not be happy at all times with the restrictions put in place, it must comply to maintain its professionalism…to maintain its legitimacy. Creating tension on this relationship with an attitude of disdain or exceptionalism is damaging to the profession’s legitimacy.

As a counterpoint to the position I have taken in this post, I am thrilled to report that the American public recently voted the U.S. military as the most trusted organization in the country, according to a recent Gallup poll. While I have dubious thoughts about the causes of such a high rating, what this means is that the relationship between the military and the public is not completely imperiled at this time.

I think now is the time to address this issue, before it becomes a larger one. Before American soldiers are brazenly ridiculed in public, and before the military itself damages its own legitimacy.

After realizing the possibility of damaging the civilian-military relationship, there are now a lot of open questions that are important to the SCS project. What does a healthy civilian-military relationship look like? What are the duties of a SOLDIER to the CITIZEN? What, if any, are the duties of a CITIZEN to the SOLDIER – what Robert Gates called “our sacred obligation?”

As we continue to pursue these ideas, please share you own. Any soldiers out there? What do you think of civilians? Of civilian control of the military? Civilians, do you agree with the high confidence ratings of the Gallup poll (a record 78%)? Why or why not? I urge to continue this discussion, here or anywhere.

The Declaration of Independence was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, who also wrote over 17,000 letters in his lifetime containing his thoughts, arguments, and casual correspondence. The language of The Declaration of Independence was heavily borrowed from other sources, including his own previous work and other contemporary writings by his peers. All of this leads me to declare that Thomas Jefferson was probably one of most famous first American bloggers, and we would be proud to call him an intellectual ancestor to The Soldier-Citizen-Sapiens Project.

So because today is the 4th of July, I wanted to take some time to remark on Thomas Jefferson’s most famous blog post ever, and highlight how the SCS ethic is influenced by the thoughts and words included in that document. The document is a manifesto on the dignity of human beings, on human equality, and the role that government has in assuring that dignity and equality. The Sapiens segment of our ethic will take much from this masterpiece.

Jefferson’s preamble:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [emphasis added].

I have highlighted four words in this first sentence of The Declaration of Independence to point out why Jefferson felt he absolutely had to write these passionate words of rebellion. Words like necessary and should add a normative dimension to the reason behind why the colonies are declaring their independence. This is no mere revolt, but an unavoidable consequence of what must happen when human dignity and equality is being challenged. There is a duty in this act of rebellion; a loyalty to the principles of human rights.

At SCS, we work on the foundation that certain actions are owed, or that there is a duty to perform the right action. By fulfilling that duty, we are acting in accordance with the SCS ethic. The supremacy of human rights supersedes any sort of “political bands” or societal structure. Indeed, we will see in Jefferson’s next section that governments and political structures only just purpose is to preserve and guarantee these human rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [again, emphasis added]

This passage begins with the oft-quoted line about “unalienable rights,” and which also states that all people are created equal. Certainly Jefferson’s meaning has to do with human dignity, for he certainly doesn’t mean equal abilities or even equal opportunities. It is a very self-evident fact that each person is not equal. Each person is completely different from another in ability and opportunity. The grandest discovery of the Age of Enlightenment was the assertion that although people were physically and circumstantially very different, they were all equals in having intrinsic human dignity. As for Jefferson’s unalienable rights, I hope to give them (and this phrase) better treatment when I tackle human nature, and the duty found in the Sapiens piece of the ethic.

The second highlighted portion of this chunk of The Declaration of Independence explicates what I mentioned earlier – how just governments are instituted as a guarantor of human rights. Indeed, this is what makes them just. Right duties inside a governmental structure are covered under the Citizen piece of the SCS ethic.

The last highlighted portion is again an appeal to duty to “throw off” an abusive government, BUT to establish a new one in order to protect “future security” of the people. This implies NOT that government is inherently evil, but is actually necessary and unavoidable. Many would use these words to rail against a government that they dislike or consider “abusive,” and simply end their solution there. What they never seem to mention as they use these words is that dissolving an abusive government implies that you will establish a just one.

I will skip posting the entirety of the next part of the Declaration of Independence, which is an accounting of the abuses suffered by the American colonies under King George III, and explains the detailed reasons for the colonies’ rebellion. It also documents the attempts that the colonies made to work within the political process by appealing to the King, to Parliament, and to their kin in England. But because of these continued abuses that contradict human autonomy and dignity (and an inability to resolve these abuses politically) the colonies were compelled to declare independence from England.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

There is a lot of beauty in this document. It is a very elegant distilled statement about the meaningfulness of human dignity, and the inherent duty of preserving it.

For full text of the Declaration of Independence, click here.

I would even go as far to say that one of the reasons this blog exists is because there are questions out there about the military profession with answers that are not easy to find, and I wanted to go explore those questions.

There appears to be an identity crisis occurring in the American military. The highest leaders have begun vocalizing the need to reflect and study the ethic of  The Profession of Arms. They have started a discussion within the American military, and have even published papers and other materials to provide resources containing the answers (and possibly more questions) about what it means to be a professional military.

It is also very appropriate for me to present to you some of the very best modern reading on the military profession. I am delighted to be a promoter of military ethics, and I hope you will take some time to give these materials a browse. Some are provided with links; others are not. As always your feedback is encouraged and welcome.

 The Moral Warrior – Martin L. Cook (SUNY Press, 2004)

Martin Cook is the Admiral James Bond Stockdale Chair of Professional Military Ethics at the United States Naval War College. In chapter 3 of his book, he lays down the fundamentals of military professionalism by defining the meaning of a profession as an ethically guided organization. He describes the relationship between “client” and “professional” and the moral obligations they have for each other. He helps us to understand both the need for autonomy of the profession, keeping the trust of the client, and being relevant to the needs of the client [Link to SUNY Press site].

The Army’s Professional Military Ethic in an Era of Persistent Conflict – Snider, Oh, and Toner (Strategic Studies Institute, 2009)

Under the premise that sustaining and enhancing the military’s effectiveness is what dictates whether an action or policy is right or wrong, this study reflects on the meaning of military professionalism on both an individual level and on a total-force level as well. It asserts that the military must be guided by an ethic to be considered a profession, or it is just another mere apparatus of government bureaucracy [PDF File/SSI Website].

The Profession of Arms: An Army White Paper (2010)

This paper is meant to be the inaugural document in a year-long study on the “professional military ethic.” It does a good job at restating the entire position, and indicating a few important items about the professional military ethic’s identity: the pursuit of excellence, self-sustainment of the profession and its professionals, and its important role as performing a function for its client that the client cannot do itself – defense. There is finally an important caveat about the necessity of civilian control of the military, and the importance of deference to civilian authority. [PDF File].

“Chairman Calls for Military Self-examination” (CJCS speech at National Defense University, 2011)

Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen gave a speech earlier this year recognizing the need for the military to examine itself and its relationship with the American people. While he doesn’t admit a disconnect with the American people, he implicitly admits the possibility that the military can lose touch of the people from which it derives its purpose, and recalls some specifics from earlier times when this was the case [Press Release/Speech Transcript].

What else is out there that you have seen? We are trying to get a decent blogroll out soon, so please send us links to important partners out there who are doing the work of defining The Profession of Arms. You can send them (or other relevant news items) to newslinks@scsblog.org

3. We Don’t Make A Dime

This blog will not accept payment for any advertisement or endorsement. We do not do this for the money. We do it to promote the search for truth; to determine right and wrong. Please do not make any offers to this blog seeking advertising or endorsement.

We think it is important to have the appearance of neutrality in order to preserve our intellectual integrity. Furthermore, this blog is not very costly to host or maintain thanks to WordPress.com, which offers a free blogging platform to all.

It is unnecessary at this time to accept payment for the work we do at SCS, and we like it like that.

The article covers the “great psychological difficulty” of killing in combat, even though the act of a soldier killing an adversary seems pretty straightforward. After all, entering and killing in combat is the first task of all soldiers everywhere. However, there is a natural reluctance amongst many soldiers with the act of killing.

Several explanations and solutions are detailed in the piece. Lieutenant Colonel Pete Kilner is heavily quoted, who is an ethics professor at West Point. Lt. Col. Kilner has done extensive research and writing on killing in combat, and is regularly consulted by media in conversations about conscientious objectors. I am admittedly a large fan of Lt. Col. Kilner. He is a large part of what caused me to begin this blog, back when I still called it a “Diary of Three Duties.”

The phenomena of soldiers showing reluctance to kill in combat was originally noticed by S.L.A. Marshall, who conducted a famous study and concluded that up to 75% of American soldiers in WWII did not fire their weapons, or deliberately fired ineffectively, in order to avoid killing another human being. The solution at that time was to provide more realistic training scenarios in order to acclimate American soldiers to the act of killing; things like changing marksmanship targets to human silhouettes instead of ordinary targets with concentric rings.

The modifications in the training environment weren’t enough. Soldiers in combat may be better acclimated to killing, but struggle with their deed after the fact. In the BBC article, Lt. Col. Kilner explains the current problem:

“They don’t like to talk about [killing in combat]. In general, if you’re a soldier and you’ve killed in war, you lie and say no…Such acts are veiled by jargon, or not spoken about at all. We talk about destroying, engaging, dropping, bagging – you don’t hear the word killing.”

There seems to be a dissociation or a distancing of oneself from the act of killing. This seems like a natural coping mechanism for an act that is counter-intuitive for a human being, but avoiding the issue can be just as psychologically damaging as the killing event itself.

I really admire Lt. Col. Kilner’s approach to dealing with the powerful experience of killing in combat. He advocates proactive ethical reasoning about the act of killing, putting the soldier through that process – hopefully beforehand – and creating and understanding about how the act of killing is just. In his expertise, he has found that an understanding about the ethics of killing is important in maintaining a soldier’s psychological health, and probably promotes ethical decision-making in combat. Part of what we intend to do at SCS is some of that ethical reasoning work for which Lt. Col. Kilner advocates.

If there is one element that is lacking in this article (and I think from Lt. Col. Kilner’s work), it is the many varieties and forms in which killing can take. Lt. Col Kilner’s treatment of killing is usually abstract, involving one killing actor and one adversary, and in a scenario in which the means of killing are largely unknown. I wonder if there is a psychological difference in killing when the confrontation is hand-to-hand, or by a sniper, or a bomber aircraft, or even in a missile silo. Unless I’ve missed it in Lt. Col. Kilner’s work, I would like to see some treatment of that issue. It is certainly interesting to me.

Please enjoy the article – and if you did, please let me know about it here and leave a comment. You can also visit Lt. Col. Peter Kilner’s blog Thoughts of a Soldier-Ethicist, and read his very interesting posts and thoughts. He has written a reply to the BBC article there, and announced his intentions to deploy very soon. The Soldier-Citizen-Sapiens Project wishes him well, and a safe deployment.

We will be happy to see him return home, and continue his very important ethics work.

Democracy (coined from δῆμος (dêmos) “people” and κράτος (Kratos) “power”) means that it is people themselves who form a community, a state, a government – and these things do not exist without the perpetual exertion and participation of people.

Citizenship is this constant exertion of an individual’s will, in the presence of other people who are exerting their own. When these individual wills unite in cooperation, there is a state. When they collide…there is war.

To that end, The Soldier-Citizen-Sapiens Project celebrates the peaceful demonstrations that are occurring (and have been occurring) throughout the world, most recently (and notably) throughout the nations of the North African coast and the Middle East.

The following are some of my favorite photos of these demonstrations that have been taking place throughout the world. Do you have a favorite photo? Send it to newslinks@scsblog.org, or post it on our Facebook page.

The "Tunisian Revolution" protests led to the ousting of longtime president Ben Alli

Egyptian Christian Protesters surround fellow Muslim protesters during their prayer time in Tahrir Square

Egyptian protesters avoid smoke used by state security elements to disperse their crowds.

A striking image of the size of the crowds of Egyptian protesters that massed in Tahrir Square

With their arms raised, Egyptian protesters demonstrate despite close proximity to state security forces

Security forces are overwhelmed as protesters take over an Egyptian security facility, uncovering many documents of state abuse of power

Protesters at the Pearl Roundabout in Bahrain peacefully protest, calling for an end to the Bahraini monarchy

An assembled protest of nearly 90,000 protesters in Madison, Wisconsin demonstrate against the actions of state governor Scott Walker and the state senate

The current standoff in Wisconsin between Republican Governor Scott Walker and Labor may seem like just another budget battle, in just another state, in just another year. It is not! Wisconsin has become “ground zero” in the battle over what type of country the United States is becoming — socially, culturally, and economically. Make no mistake, the outcome of the Wisconsin showdown will have long-lasting and far-reaching effects.

The stage for this current battle — some may call it class-warfare — was set as far back as 1981, with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan as president. In one of Reagan’s first official acts as president, he fired the striking members of the Air Traffic Controllers’ Union, known as PATCO. By taking this action, Ronald Reagan launched the first salvo in the GOP’s war against Labor. Since then, Republicans have been salivating at the chance to reverse, once and for all, New Deal-era laws passed in favor of Labor.

Let’s be clear: the GOP hates Organized Labor. They detest Labor for ideological reasons, economic reasons, and, perhaps most importantly, on political grounds. Ideologically, economic conservatives and libertarians believe in “economic individualism” at all costs. They believe that, in a perfect world, individual workers would negotiate their own contracts and working conditions with individual employers (even if the employer is a multi-billion dollar corporation). Conservatives and libertarians call this “freedom” and “liberty”.

Economically speaking, conservatives and libertarians, such as the now-infamous billionaire Koch Brothers (the owners of Koch Industries), tend to be rich and powerful people and/or corporations. Since the beginning of Labor’s existence, various studies have shown that unionized workers, in general, make more money and get more benefits as employees than do their non-unionized counterparts. Thus, less collective-bargaining equals lower wages and fewer benefits for employees — and higher profits for corporations.

Perhaps the most important reason why Republicans despise Labor is political: Labor bankrolls Democrats; corporations bankroll Republicans. It’s just that simple. Last year, the US Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, handed down it’s ruling in the case, Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission (also referred to as “Citizens United”) In that ruling, the Court decided that corporations could donate UNLIMITED amounts of money to their favorite candidates and causes, WITHOUT having to disclose these contributions publicly. This ruling was a huge boon to the GOP and to other numerous right-wing causes.

Now, the GOP wants to seal the deal. They want Labor to be crippled financially and, thus, politically. By ending collective-bargaining rights for Labor, the GOP hopes to severely weaken unions and stop the flow of money from Labor to Democratic candidates and progressive causes. The combination of the “Citizens United” case and the crippling of Labor would be absolutely DEVASTATING to Democrats and progressives in this country. That’s the point. That’s what the right-wing wants. Whatever name right-wingers choose to call themselves — the GOP, the Tea Party, libertarians, the Koch Brothers — the goal is the same: POWER!

Wisconsin is just a microcosm for the rest of the nation. Already, Republican governors in several other states are planning to do what Scott Walker is attempting to do in Wisconsin. These governors are paying VERY close attention to what happens in the Badger State. The Republicans in Congress are paying attention as well. If a Republican defeats Barack Obama for the presidency in 2012 and the Republicans control Congress, make no mistake, they will attempt to roll back Labor laws nationwide.

In Washington, the GOP-controlled House has already tried to repeal pro-Labor laws such as the “Davis-Bacon Act”. Republicans didn’t really push hard for this because they know that, given the current political landscape, the effort would go nowhere. That won’t be the case if the GOP captures the presidency and the Senate in 2012.

Many people think this could never happen. Well, it could. And it will, if Democrats and progressives don’t get their act together! Wisconsin is one of the “Blue-ist” of the “Blue States”. In 2008, Obama carried Wisconsin by a 56-42% margin. In 2010, conservatives and Republicans in Wisconsin were mobilized; progressives and Democrats were demoralized. Scott Walker was elected governor, the Republicans gained control of the state legislature, and a liberal-icon, Democrat Russ Feingold, was booted from the US Senate. As a result of this GOP sweep in Wisconsin, we are now witnessing a naked power grab by the GOP — with enormous implications.

Wisconsin matters. That’s the point. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. Hopefully, the events in that state will be a wake-up call to Democrats and progressives nationwide. If it isn’t, they, and the people they represent, are in for a world of hurt!

Graham S. Bengen, Esq. is an Attorney at Law living in Watertown, Massachusetts. He supports a government that does things FOR people, but opposes a government that does things TO people. While he used to be opposed to large unions, he now sees it as a balancing entity for powerful corporations. He believes that the “individual” would have little, if any, labor rights without unions.

Reported this weekend at The Washington Post, Petty Officer Jones has been charged with “willful failure to exhibit professional conduct” after he passed out in a friend’s room while watching television late at night. He and his friend were both charged, but Jones is fighting the charge, insisting that he did nothing wrong by falling asleep in his friend’s bed.

A likely consequence of this incident is that Jones will be discharged from the Navy, all because Jones’ commander, Captain Thomas W. Bailey, determined ”that two sailors sharing the same rack was unprofessional.” This is the same charge and consequence that would take place if Jones were being charged under the military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The difference is that it is harder theses days to discharge a military member under DADT, and it will soon be impossible once full implementation of the repeal is complete.

There is another significant difference in the Petty Officer Jones case, that prevents this from being a DADT issue: there’s absolutely no evidence that action prohibited by DADT ever took place. Only the suspicions of Jones’ commander, and the trumped-up “violation” invented to charge Jones and his friend.

We can really start seeing how absurd charging Jones is by asking the immediate question: when was the last time somebody was discharged for so-called “unprofessional conduct” when the purported offense was merely sleeping beside a friend?

Now, my research is incomplete, but I’m willing to take a risk and guess that this will be the first time that troops sleeping beside each other is an offense that requires the discharge of a United States Navy sailor. In fact, it is common practice in the military to eat, sleep, and shower in close quarters with members of the same sex. “Comfort zones” tend to dissolve in these environments. The Navy itself uses a practice called “hot racking” in situations of limited berthing, and sailors on opposite watch shifts will be assigned the same bed to share.

So the follow-up question becomes: why is this occurring now to Petty Officer Jones? Why is he being dealt with so harshly for something that occurs on a regular basis? Would two sailors of the opposite sex receive the same reprimand?

Let me offer another explanation for why Jones is being discharged: this is happening to Jones, because somebody in his command believes that two boys don’t belong in the same bed watching Vampire Diaries late at night until they both doze off.  Does that sound a little closer to reality?

But I don’t want to be unfair, so let’s give Jones’ commander a little more grounding justification for charging Jones, just to offer a little balance. In fact, let’s pander to every nutty homophobe’s grandest suspicions, even though under current regulation the private lives of Petty Officer Jones and his friend are their business, and are in fact protected by law. Let’s just bite the bullet. Let’s say it was Jones and his friend, in the barracks room, with the revolver. Let’s say they were up to more than just watching television while they laid in bed wearing only their jockeys.

If this were the case, then shouldn’t these two men be charged under existing DADT regulation? Well, again, there is that funny thing about evidence (statements, acts, or marriage) being necessary to discharge. That evidence doesn’t exist, and is in fact unobtainable. So what happens? We know that Jones and his friend were engaged in activity prohibited by DADT, but we can’t prove it.

Well, it turns out that we don’t have to. Not when we switch to a charge of “unprofessional conduct,” anyway. The punishment for this charge wouldn’t normally be as severe as a discharge…unless we luck out, and the person we charge with unprofessional conduct fights the charge and requests a court-martial. If that happens, then we can throw everything at the guy and get him run out of the Navy.

So you see, DADT is no longer necessary to discharge troops, even if they are only suspected of being gay with no solid evidence to prove it. After this shift towards “unprofessionalism,” a witch hunt may begin using that highly subjective term.

[For an outstanding and highly detailed analysis of modern military use of the term "professionalism," see Ch. 3 of Martin L. Cook's book, The Moral Warrior (SUNY Press) an excellent study of military ethics.]

This shift becomes a way of subverting the recent repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We would be naive to think that there aren’t leaders and commanders out there right now who wish to do nothing less. The first of these is now whoever is really behind pursuing these charges against Petty Officer Jones.  This shift is now a tool. Under the subjective “professionalism” criteria, or even under the archaic sodomy article (art. 125) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the sanction against gay troops that existed under DADT continues in a new form.

But there is one thing that can prevent this subjectivity into being cemented into a new anti-gay workaround of DADT repeal. The thing that can prevent this is proper legal protections for troops, in the form of equal opportunity (EO) and prevention of sexual harassment (POSH) protections. This involves regulating action within the military directed against people because of their sexual orientation. A major flaw of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (and the slow-rolling implementation of the act), is that there is no publicized plan – NO PLAN – to encode EO and POSH protections for gay troops into the regulation.

So what does the post-repeal future look like for gay troops? No different than it did before. Gay troops will continue to be bullied and harassed, and their harassers will be emboldened by a lack of regulatory sanction against their attacks. Gay troops may even continue to be discharged for so-called “unprofessional” activity.

It may even get worse for gay troops once repeal is implemented and they have an opportunity to cease hiding, and reveal who they are. It is possible that once it is known that a soldier is gay, they may be specifically disregarded for promotion-track positions, given rotten duties and assignments, and be likewise targeted by bigoted supervisors. If this becomes the case, our gay troops may find it easier to just continue living their lives in secret, and never reveal themselves. Gay troops may even wind up leaving the military in an era where every American is being implored upon to do their part and serve.

Perhaps the worst tragedy would be that most of America would probably be fooled into believing that DADT had been repealed (and equality achieved), when in reality nothing has changed at all – or has even gotten worse.

[Image Source: Header image does not depict Petty Officer Jones. Image depicts two sailors in close proximity for sleeping berthing; a standard practice called "hot racking"]