Does joining the United States Armed Services necessitate a willingness to fight in an American war?

November 9, 3:32 PMDC Government Business ExaminerDonna Quesinberry

Previous Next

7 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Government Business Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Armed Forces logos.

The recent rampage suffered on United States military and civilian personnel at Fort Hood by the handiworks of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a soon to be former United States Army Psychiatrist, is such an atrocity that it has left many Americans reeling with the aftereffects of post-trauma stress. Mr. Hasan apparently didn’t want to go to war to serve the nation as a member of the armed forces that he willingly joined and accepted training from. Nidal’s personal political alignment and rhetoric certainly was not popular among his coworkers; however, recognizing the tender situation when addressing Islamists or Muslims within the United States who feel threatened by conversations that disavow their philosophical beliefs, most of Mr. Hasan’s coworkers kept silent about his extremist viewpoints.

And, his viewpoints, while not ordinate, are voiced more and more frequently by varied individuals who join the United States military and maintain privatized agendas or political alignments that don’t readily coincide with the scheme for American military. Many are asking – why then are these individuals allowed to enlist?  The, “I joined the military for training, education, and benefits – but I don’t believe in – nor intend to fight a war” repertoire is alarming to most Americans. Should our armed services suffer enrollees who hope to rake in benefits of service without a willingness to serve our country? Military enrollment is “voluntary” and that should demarcate a level of culpability. After all – there’s no big surprise at the end of the tunnel – the military do the following according to the Department of Defense (DoD):

The Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for providing the military forces needed to protect the security of the United States. Along with various agencies, the armed services comprises the Army, Navy, Marine Corps (the expeditionary arm of the Navy), and Air Force, consisting of about 1.4 million men and women on active duty. They are supplemented by the 1.2 million members of the Reserve and National Guard. In addition, about 700,000 civilian employees in the Defense Department make it America's largest employer. Under the President, who is the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense exercises authority, direction, and control over the department.

To protect the security of the United States

Of course, the Ft. Hood tragedy is beyond reprehension – we have had to suffer an internalized attack by the hands of an individual that we trained to be aiding the service member – who now appears to be an insurgent operating as a friendly to our great nation. Still the question remains,  when enrolling in the United States military should the soldier be allowed to question the concept of soldiering? Why should anyone join the military if they are adverse to war?

New investigations are calling into question these very issues, apparently Major Nidal Malik Hasan should never have been allowed into the United States military – he didn’t believe in our mission and didn’t want to fight in an American war. Regardless of citizenship – the fact that he did not support the military would necessitate a non-acceptance factor in the recruitment of such an individual. Perhaps future enlistment practices will work to ensure the oath that is sworn when accepting duty in the United States Armed Services is understood and truthfully stated. Apparently, Mr. Hasan knowingly lied when he swore an oath affirming loyalty to the Armed Forces mission. The following oath doesn't waiver in its meaning or declarations - there is no room for confusion in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Oath of Service: 

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Guide Note: There has been some controversy about whether the phrase "So help me God" is mandatory. I have seen officers allow enlistees to omit these words, if they choose, according to their religious preference and beliefs. While federal law does not appear to make any part of the oath optional (see Title 10, Section 502 of the United States Code), military regulations often do. For example, the Army enlistment regulation (see Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 6-18) makes the portion "So help me God" optional.

History of the Oath of Enlistment

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men of the Continental Army.

The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read:

I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.

The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read:

I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

The 1789 enlistment oath was changed in 1960 by amendment to Title 10, with the amendment (and current wording) becoming effective in 1962.

Final thought

The business of government largely is comprised of following the rules and laws that government represents. Had Mr. Hasan recognized that principle prior to taking an oath he clearly didn't intend to represent - or if advocates had called attention to the reality that his political interests weren't aligned with said oath or the business of government employment - we would have not had to suffer this travesty at his hand. Court martialing Ms. Hasan will be a courtesy at best.

The Government Business Examiner welcomes questions, ideas and interviews or event announcements  through the comments section below, or by emailing Donna Quesinberry.

Subscribe:

The Government Business Examiner has a subscription link located in the toolbar at the onset of this article  you can also access it here: subscribe to the Government Business Examiner column.

Born on this day in history:

On this day in 1938, in an event that would foreshadow the Holocaust, German Nazis launch a campaign of terror against Jewish people and their homes and businesses in Germany and Austria.

Join the Government Business Examiner on any of the following: