Jan 6 Committee Hearings

“… assault of the capital …  by individuals that were told by senior leaders they were doing the right thing … Jan 6 should never happen again ….”

Post from Charles D. Luckey (LTG, USA, Ret)

  • Team: Been a little over a week since the January 6th Committee finished up its first tranche of hearings. Already plenty of probative evidence to assess and reasonable inferences to draw from it; every indication that there is more forthcoming. Good time to reflect on our Constitutional Oath within the context of what happened and why, and to embrace the steps we need to take to ensure it never happens again. Our global competitors/adversaries are counting on us to be consumed with apathy, cynicism and toxic partisanship, and they’ll continue to do their best to sow the seeds of discord. We need to work together to disappoint them. Keep pounding…W/r, Chief

Regarding the “hearings” where the jury, in this case, is intended to be the public, wasn’t this a one-sided process? In a typical “trial,” BOTH sides of the argument are presented, witnesses are cross-examined and challenged, and an impartial “judge” ensures the rules of evidence are followed. The “jury” can then assess all sides of the respective issues and derive a decision.

Regarding retired military officers providing commentary on political matters, the question of “Does it do more good than harm?” comes to mind. What has been the history and doctrine on the issue? This topic was discussed in an article in the Army War College’s Parameters, Spring 2022, “Civil-Military Relations” Guidelines in Politically Charged Societies” by Patrick Paterson.

The elements of national power include   Diplomatic (political), Informational, Military, and Economic. Senior military leaders are expected to be the authority (based on education and experience) on “military” matters. Commentary outside their respective areas of expertise can lead to undermining the respect and confidence citizens should have in the military profession. A recent illustration is the criticisms of Gen Milley’s commentary provided in a resignation letter provided in the Western Journal “Gen. Mark Milley’s Insanely Arrogant 4-Paragraph Resignation Letter to Trump Is Released.

In comparison to the process applied in support of the “Hearings,” the military decision-making process (MDMP) reinforces the need for a balanced and comprehensive methodology which includes the following: Identification of intent and decision criteria followed by an analysis of all the facts, assumption and constraints. Theories are developed as to the best courses of action (decisions). Strengths and weaknesses are identified and debated (wargamed). A decision is then made and consequences are studied through after-action reviews. The process requires the input from every functional area that has to either support or execute the decision. A balanced and objective AAR on the “Hearings” may help reinforce why there is such divisiveness and polarization in the country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s