The Art of Military Dissent

I’m often asked about my decision to criticize the organization in which I’ve spent most of my career, the United States military.  As an eighteen-year Air Force veteran with four combat tours, I can tell you a little about military culture and how dissenters are treated – as pariahs.  Ironic considering that the U.S. Air Force was started by a dissenter, General Billy Mitchell, who sacrificed his career to stand up for his beliefs.  An accomplished World War I fighter pilot, Mitchell is now recognized as the father of the Air Force and one of the leading pioneers of airpower.

In 1925, Mitchell criticized senior leaders of the Army and Navy for the neglect of the Air Service which resulted in the crash of the dirigible Shenandoah that killed fourteen crew members and, in a separate incident, the crash of three seaplanes in the Pacific.  The Navy had organized the flights as publicity stunts to counter Mitchell’s successful demonstration of airpower after having sunk several Navy ships using torpedoes, which Navy leaders had argued was impossible.  Mitchell’s response to the crashes:

Those accidents are the result of the incompetency, the criminal negligence, and the almost treasonable administration of our national defense by the Navy and War Departments.

He was accused of insubordination and court-martialed for his statements.  After being demoted from General to Colonel, Mitchell retired and continued to advocate for airpower until his death in 1936.  He was later honored posthumously with the Congressional Medal of Honor.  Five years after his death, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing Second World War proved all of Mitchell’s theories correct – airpower proved to be a decisive weapon of war.

Over two years ago, Mitchell’s remarks came to mind when I decided to speak out and criticize the decision by senior military leaders to use torture and abuse as methods of interrogation.  As I learned in Iraq, the authorized and encouraged use of torture and abuse against Muslim detainees since 9/11 had significantly aided Al Qaida’s recruitment of foreign fighters and led to the deaths of American soldiers, as well as Iraqi civilians.  Not to mention the fact that it disregarded a long held military tradition of prohibiting the torture of prisoners going all the way back to General George Washington and the Revolutionary War.  Military leaders had an obligation to dissent when handed the unlawful authority to use enhanced interrogation methods against prisoners.  They failed to do so, thereby forcing subordinate officers to choose between obeying or violating Geneva Conventions, U.S. and international law, and military regulations.  Realizing the risks, especially under an Administration that routinely limited Whistleblower protections, few dissented.

Guidance to military officers during their initial training includes instructions on dissent.  One of the key conditions required for dissent is the consideration of the difference between an unlawful order versus a difference of opinion or an alternate method of accomplishing a task.  The unlawfulness of enhanced interrogation techniques is clear, despite the so-called Torture Memos which attempted to cover-up unlawful interrogations that had already taken place and to justify the use of torture.  The military’s own Law of Armed Conflict training, required to be completed by military members annually, instructs soldiers to follow Geneva Conventions and treat detainees humanely, regardless of status.  These instructions are repeated in military regulations with warnings that failing to do so will result in advantages for the enemy.  The regulations also remind soldiers that they can be subject to punishment under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice if they fail to obey or to report violations.  It was with these thoughts in mind that I objected to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in Iraq and why I decided to speak out after I returned.

I support the call for an independent commission to investigate the authorized and encouraged use of torture and abuse against detainees.  That investigation should also examine the protections given to military members who face retaliation for having dissented, objecting to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.  Unfortunately in the case of Billy Mitchell, dissent took a decade and a half to be heard.  We cannot afford to wait that long.