On June 3, for the National Review Online, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, U.S. Army, retired, wrote an article entitled, “Why Team Obama was blindsided by the Bergdahl backlash.” 

I commend this article to all who wish to find out why the military is so upset with the commander-in-chief and his incompetent staff. The crux of the problem is that neither the president or his close advisors have ever served in the military and therefore haven’t a clue how military members think. They appear to believe the troops are akin to mindless robots without feelings or emotions who blindly do what they are told to do.

Unfortunately, the “top brass,” in my opinion, add to this erroneous thinking by being “yes men” for their political masters. Dissenters to the president and his cronies are summarily relieved, like Gen. McCrystal, the former commander in Afghanistan, and forced into retirement. Recent polls have shown that the American public, as a whole, have a great deal of trust in our military, certainly far more so than the president and members of Congress. 

I, as a former military member, have a serious problem with the top military leaders of today who I feel have a huge loyalty problem. They have forgotten that loyalty is a two-way street — it not only goes up the chain of command but down the chain as well. Simply stated, the “top brass” should be just as loyal to Private Jones as they are to the president of the United States. Let’s face it, the generals or admirals don’t fight the wars, the soldiers and sailors do, and their needs and welfare should be paramount.

A good example of this lack of loyalty to the troops is the current reduction in force (RIF) that is taking place now without a protest by the top military leadership. This government had no compulsions about sending the troops in harm’s way with three or more deployments and now when they return, many find a pink slip waiting. They are being told their service is no longer required, and yes, by the way, they will be called back up in a national emergency if they haven’t completed the required seven-year military obligation they incurred upon enlistment. 

This is a real blow to those who planned to make a career in the military. We established the all-volunteer military with the idea we would have most members opting to be careerists. The military no longer uses the term recruiting stations but refers to them as career centers. How can you expect the troops to believe they can have a career while they watch as thousands are cut from their ranks and they are uncertain about their own future. The doubt and uncertainty will have a devastating impact on troop morale and retention. 

It is truly a shame that our government will take the savings generated by the RIF from the defense budget and use it to pay for increases in the food-stamp program, welfare rolls and the care of illegal aliens.

During my time in the military, generals would fall on their proverbial swords before being a party to political decisions that adversely impacted or created a hardship on the troops. Today there are proposals to reduce military pay and benefits which the troops vigorously oppose and the top military leadership does not object to. I vividly recall that Gen. James Gavin of World War II fame, who was destined to be the Army chief of staff, resigned in protest to the planned RIF after the war in Korea. Could you imagine what Gen. Patton would have said when told his men in combat could not have beer or alcoholic beverages because they were fighting in a Muslim country? But our current crop of military leaders not only approved of the policy; they severely punished those who violated it.

Look at the insane rules of engagement placed on the combat units in Afghanistan. Scores of lawyers now review military operations to determine if the rules of engagement were violated or if human rights violations occurred. The troops in the field and fighting the battles worry that no one is covering their backs or cares about their safety or welfare. They see their leaders as enforcing politically correct rules that hamper their ability to do their job and jeopardize their personal safety. I fear that the trust that the troops have in their higher leadership is severely eroded. As a result, the troops feel they must adopt a CYA attitude to survive.

All military personnel must take an oath that requires them to swear to support, uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Officers are expected to subscribe to a code which stresses one’s obligation to duty, honor and country. It is my observation that most senior military leaders believe their ultimate duty is to obey the orders of and cater to the whims of their political masters. They conveniently forget that they have a duty to uphold the rights of their subordinates and look out for their welfare. Failure to carry out these responsibilities constitutes a serious breach of trust and honor. Above all else, a leader’s obligation to the country and its Constitution is supreme. I fear that in most instances the officer’s code becomes subordinate to the desire for career enhancement, promotion, and power.

After seeing the deserter Bergdahl’s parents getting VIP treatment at the White House Rose Garden and listening to the National Security Agency advisor Susan Rice extol this deserter’s laudable and honorable service, any respect the troops had for the commander-in-chief went out the window. There is no stronger bond on the face of the Earth than that which exists in the combat units of the military. They realize if they are to survive in battle it is essential to place their trust and faith in their comrades. So when someone violates that trust by deserting his or her post in combat, they are forever hated, loathed and shunned. In the soldier’s eyes there is no greater sin than letting your buddies down and jeopardizing their safety. During World War II, desertion in the face of the enemy was a death penalty offense, as it remains today.

The administration claims it doesn’t know if Bergdahl is guilty and has appointed a two-star general to conduct an investigation that is normally carried out by a lieutenant. The troops who served in his unit are certain of his guilt, as he neatly folded his clothing and piled up his equipment, left his weapon and a note that in effect said he could no longer support the war or his country. As Col. Peters pointed out in his article, “the administration is treating this affair like Bergdahl merely skipped school.” The president and his incompetent aides are clueless about how their words and actions played out to the troops, and the effect it had on troop morale and esprit de corps.

You can bet the troops have already figured out that the entire Bergdahl affair will be “whitewashed” by saying he was a victim of severe mental stress as evidenced by his discharge from the Coast Guard for psychological disorders. They will further claim he was already punished by enduring five years of brutal captivity. The upshot is that he will be discharged under honorable conditions and therefore be eligible for the same benefits as those who stayed and honorably fulfilled their duty. I wonder if those who were killed or wounded while searching for Bergdahl would think his punishment was just?

Heller, of Lakeside, is a retired U.S. Army colonel, who served in the infantry.