Lt Col Christopher T. Stein of the U.S. Air Force writes:
This is a defining moment for the military and the JAG Corps.
The secretary has thrown open the door for bold reform, and now it is up to us to walk through it. That means cutting the layers of bureaucratic micromanagement, eliminating unnecessary compliance tasks, returning nonlegal functions to their proper career fields, and rightsizing the force.
It means a refocusing on the law: Let the JAGs be lawyers again, anchored by constitutional principles, not adrift with shifting political winds. Our job is not to perpetuate the mistakes of the past but to ensure the military is ready to meet the challenges of the future. We can either cling to outdated structures or seize this opportunity to build a stronger, more effective legal force that is uncompromising in integrity and fearless in execution.
Comments are invited. Given the current volatile political situation, the usual rule against anonymous comments is hereby waived. Comments will, however, continue to be moderated.
Although I have taken a very opposite position, I would welcome some debate on the topic and some support for the position that the JAG Corps needs reform. But the lack of support and details in this article make it hard to take it seriously or to really engage with it from either a practical or academic perspective.
ReplyDeleteIn my career advising command, I on a number of occasions saw legal opinions "tailored" depending on the commander and how politically charged the topic was. In my opinion, the advice led to situations where legal advisors acquiesced to commanders demanding that we "find a way to yes" instead of telling it straight.
ReplyDeleteI accept it is easy to throw that out into a comments section where I am unable to back it up with examples without breaching privilege. But I support as a general principle that legal advisors should be "uncompromising in their integrity and fearless in execution".
I view it as a symptom of the requirements to advance. Individuals are selected for promotion based almost exclusively on the opinion of their superiors. There is no scope for command considering the opinions of their peers; assessment of their learned friends in the wider profession as to their legal acumen; or, dare I say it, their subordinates as to their leadership qualities. We need to incentivise the qualities we want and discourage the qualities we don't want.