Smitty, this post goes way past locking the barn after the horse has bolted.  Veterans have been politicized since VVAW, hell, since the Bonus Marchers and the abortive coup attempt of 1935.

Antiwar vets groups were routinely trotted out in the news during the Bush years, and Obama’s cronies have organized several ‘false flag’ ‘veterans’ organizations’ during his reign.

Yes, it’s scary when the military qua military enters politics.  It’s scarier when they only do it on one side.

Liking your book, BTW.

Smitty, did you really think that phrase “and domestic” was added to the oath so it would have the proper number of syllables?

Some common misconceptions:

1.  At least while I was in, people on active duty aren’t that political.   They tend to become more opinionated after they get out of the military.

2. Few on active duty even vote.  I would say maybe 10% or less of the people I served with voted.  Generally, I would be the only one from my state who voted in my battalion because the voting officer would usually make a comment about being the first time anyone from that state had requested a absentee ballot request.

 Admittedly that was “back in the day” before the Internet and to vote one had to go to whoever was designated the “voting officer” and get an absentee ballot request for your state, send it in, and hope you still had the same address when the ballot was actually sent.  I generally found it more effective to go to the registrar’s office when I was home on leave and get one.

I voted in the 1976 and 1980 Presidential elections (but not the primaries) and was the only one of the bunch I hung out with who voted because I took a little good-natured ribbing for doing so (you bucking for a promotion if your guy wins?  getting ahead of the game on the ass-kissing?, etc.).

From my experience, very few active duty military are all that politically active and if 15% of them voted, I would be surprised.  The ones most likely to vote would, in my opinion, be those who were stationed for a long time at one duty station in the US and are married and registered to vote in the local area.  Single military who still claim their home state or who are overseas or aboard ship probably aren’t going to vote that often unless a concerted effort by the commander is made to get them registered, get them absentee ballots, and encourage them to return them.

I would say that military wives are more likely to vote than the service members themselves.  Note that this is a perspective from years ago and things change so they might be different today.

IMHO this has more to do with the Honor of the Corps rather than an overt political message. They feel, and rightly so, that the CIC has simply overstepped the bounds of decency with respect to the basic ethos of the Spec Ops code of silence.

I’d suggest that this might have alot to do with a). military votes not getting counted and b). nobody else caring about a).

 I would go further, back to the Grand Army of the Republic after the Civil War. “Waving the bloody shirt” was a winning tactic for Republican politicians right up to the 1890s.

 The coup attempt of ’35 was not about benefits; it was about overthrowing the US Govt.

Folks seem to be missing something.  None of the members of this PAC are on active duty, they are all “honorably discharged.”  If Ike could be president and Clark could run for President then I think your average veteran who is not on active duty has every right to be politically active.  If you’re on active duty it is a whole different ballgame but these fellows are NOT on active duty.

 Crosspatch, Google up “Military disenfranchisement” and you will find several instances in the last 2-3 elections where the process for allowing military members to vote has been delayed or obstructed, especially when it benefits Democrats. Tactics have included changing deadlines, delaying the delivery of ballots until overseas troops couldn’t possibly return them in time, and refusing to count ballots based on hypertechnicalities.

I am one of the founders of the “Super Pac,” and I can assure you that no line has been crossed or will be crossed regarding the separation of the military from its commander-in-chief.  Special Operations Speaks Out explicitly excludes active-duty personnel from affiliating with it.  

I took the liberty of promoting your comment to a post update, sir.

So is this another astroturf Oathkeepers bunch?

Thank you for posting Captain Bailey’s comment as an update.  Your concern is completely valid, Smitty, but at least in this case, these veterans are not active duty personnel, and as Graydo_mn points out, that leaves them as free as any other citizens to organize and express their opinions.  I have been fortunate enough to have known Captain Bailey for about 25 years, and I know of no more patriotic, Constitution-loving American.  I listen carefully to what he and his fellow veterans have to say because they accepted personal responsibility for the safety of all of us, defending it, if need be, with their lives (h/t Robert Heinlein).  All gave some.  Some gave all.

Never got that deep into it; wrote it off as more conspiracy theory craziness with a 1930s vintage. Also, it’s odd Manchester didn’t mention that in his epic doorstop bio of MacArthur…