US Navy Criminalizes Nude photo Sharing

Zhandos Bolatbek

The distribution of photographs containing nudity without the subject’s permission will now be considered as a criminal offense in the US Navy and Marine Corps.

The new regulation has been enacted after a scandal erupted when a closed Facebook group, “Marines United”, with about 30,000 members, featured on its page photos with female servicewomen featured nude. About 27 people are thought to have been directly engaged in distribution of these photographic materials featuring nudity. Another group of about 29 Marines face administrative punishment. The Marine Corps, prompted by the scandal, now considers distribution of nude photographs as “cyber-bullying and discriminatory” and the offenders are subject to prosecution under Article 92 of Uniform Code of Military Justice with the possibility of up to 2 years of confinement.

There has been considerable outcry, with Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Ryan Alvis stating: “The Marine Corps is deeply concerned about allegations regarding the derogatory online comments and sharing of salacious photographs in a closed website… This behavior destroys morale, erodes trust, and degrades the individual.” Republican House Representative Adam Smith has called the instance as “degrading, dangerous, and completely unacceptable”. One concern has been that the language prohibiting the circulation of nude photos is legally sufficient since it is hard to prove that images were shared without consent or if the image was taken with consent but not was not intended for the sharing widely.

The distribution of nude photos by military officers evokes civilian problem of “revenge porn” whereby a person circulates nude photographs of his or her ex-partner and distributes them without the person’s consent.

Engaging in these kind of immoral activities by the army personnel would go counter to the Huntington’s idea of professional army. Such disregard and disrespect for the human dignity of fellow servicemen contributes to the erosion of discipline. The move by the Navy to criminalize the act of distributing nude photos without consent will contribute to the oversight of army professionalization.

___________
Reference:

1. Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State the Theory and Politics of Civil- Military Relations.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/05/lawmaker-calls-justice-marines-nude-photo-sharing-scandal.html

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/04/19/navy-acts-criminalize-nude-photo-sharing-sailors-marines.html

Personnel Decisions in Poland and Civilian Control

Over the course of the semester, we've discussed a number of ways that the state can control the military.  One nexus of control that fits under the two main types of control described by Huntington (1957) is the use of personnel policies to control the composition of the officer corps.  While at first blush, the use of promotion and retention policies might seem to be subjective control, having clear standards in place which emphasize loyalty to the state and civilian-led institutions can lead to greater professionalization and the ideal of objective control.

In February, Poland's government got rid of 90 percent of the top officers (Link).  One issue that was raised was that many of the top brass were recruited and trained before the collapse of the communist system and that many of them received their training in the Soviet Union. This could raise some question about the loyalty of the top officers and their institutional ties to the state (Russia) that Poland views as its biggest threat.

From the article:

Last month, General Mieczyslaw Gocul, chief of staff of the Polish armed forces, resigned and was replaced by Lieutenant-General Leszek Surawski. 

Gocul's departure had followed that of General Miroslaw Rozanski, who had shifted chains of command in the army, air force, navy and special forces to improve the general staff's strategic planning. 

The move was said to have infuriated the governing Law and Justice (PiS) party, which has vowed deep reforms of the judiciary, state media and other institutions.

A major shift of military resources and organization without the approval/consent of the civilian government is a major potential problem in terms of civil-military relations. Whether such a shift allows for better planning and execution by the military is a conversation that should be had, but if those decisions were made unilaterally by the military, the response by the government is appropriate.

Military Veterans' High Profile Politics

Dilshat Zhussupova

Link: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/08/06/retired-generals-election-questions/88289162/

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/mattis-questions-defense-secretary-rules-retired

The principled and practical arguments for and against the current case of waiving the rule mandating seven years to pass before retired Marine Corps General James Mattis may lead the US Department of Defense are more clear-cut in comparison to the more nuanced considerations necessary when looking at US veterans’ high profile involvement in politics, to which I would like to direct your attention.

The importance of not mixing politics with official duties is taken as seriously today as it was in the most serious of professionalization efforts of military science in the nineteenth century, with senior military leaders faithfully upholding the expert and limited nature of the military profession (Huntington 1957, 70). One could not have specialized competence within this profession whilst wielding that competence outside it, namely in politics, which would only serve to undermine military officers’ professionalism and professional values (1957, 71). However, the prohibition of not mixing politics with official duties does not extend to veterans and, with a look at the 2016 political campaigns, it is important to consider the consequent effects on civil-military relations, if any.

Recent examples of veterans’ high profile roles in politics include Michael Flynn, a retired Army Lieutenant General and former Defense Intelligence Agency director, participating in the Republican Convention as a featured speaker and John Allen, a retired Marine Corps General, supporting Hillary Clinton on the final night of the Democratic National Convention with an equally passionate speech.

There may be two ways of looking at these developments. According to Martin Dempsey, retired Army General and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, there is wisdom in seeking advice of senior military leaders like Flynn and Allen yet keeping them off the stage, for it sets a harmful perception that military leaders may be susceptible to following politics rather than the professional practice of following the chain of command in their decision making.

According to Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, the general public does not mind but, in fact, appreciates the continued engagement of veterans in public service due to their invaluable expertise, a sentiment stretching back the country’s first president and retired Continental Army General, George Washington. Veterans having adopted a strong political position in their retirement period appears to be the exception to the general observation of apolitical veterans, so it appears to be a matter of not whether veterans can engage in politics or not, but as to where the line that should not be crossed lies.

A course of action to ensure that lines are not ultimately crossed may be informed by Huntington’s emphasis on the expert and limited nature of the military profession. After all, if a professional requirement to not mix politics with official duties is faithfully upheld by the military institution, it seems likely that, by their retirement, such behavior would be sufficiently internalized by individuals so that they would refrain from taking the path of Flynn and Allen to the extreme.

Insight into General Mattis From Huntington (1957)

Today in class we talked about the first four chapters of Huntington's (1957) classic: The Soldier and the State.  In the third chapter, Huntington outlines the professional military ethic, or what he calls the "military mind."

One quote from this description of the outlook of military men on the world stood out to me in particular: "The military ethic...places unusual value upon the ordered, purposive study of history.  History is valuable to the military man only when it is used to develop principles which may be capable of future application" (Huntington 1957, 64).

I was checking up on an old friend who had messaged me on Facebook earlier.  He had a link to an article about General Mattis, the Trump nominee for Secretary of Defense.  The article is about an email that he sent during his tour in Iraq in 2003 about the value of reading, and the fact that the email has recently "gone viral."

I read the story and the email and was struck by how much, nearly 60 years since Huntington began describing the profession of military officers, Mattis played to type. After outlining the books he's read before and during various deployments, Mattis has this to say about war and the obligations of officers to the profession (emphasis mine):

We have been fighting on this planet for 5000 years and we should take advantage of their experience. “Winging it” and filling body bags as we sort out what works reminds us of the moral dictates and the cost of incompetence in our profession. As commanders and staff officers, we are coaches and sentries for our units: how can we coach anything if we don’t know a hell of a lot more than just the TTPs? What happens when you’re on a dynamic battlefield and things are changing faster than higher HQ can stay abreast? Do you not adapt because you cannot conceptualize faster than the enemy’s adaptation? 

I started the class out last week with a blog article about the potential dangers of trump nominating generals who are still relatively "fresh" out of the military to key civilian posts. It will be interesting to see if Mattis can be successful in a "political" role when he has been very professional as a soldier.  Huntington gives much more credence to the political role - it is wider, more ambiguous, and more difficult than the narrowly applied application of violence to carry out the political goals of the state.

Reading Huntington and then Mattis, I can agree with him on one point: there is nothing new under the sun.
__________________
Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.