An army without spies is like a man without ears or eyes.¹

The times they are a-changin’

Imagine that an active duty Soldier begins to sexually abuse his minor daughter while stationed at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Unfortunately, his criminal behavior continues after his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to Germany because his daughter is too fearful to report her father’s sexual abuse to authorities. Indeed, the abuse continues even after the family’s next PCS to Virginia. The Soldier is later assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas, but occasionally visits his family who remains in Virginia, where he continues to sexually abuse his daughter. Thankfully, while the Soldier is assigned to Fort Riley, the victim finally develops the courage to report her father’s sexual abuse that occurred in Texas, Germany, and Virginia to Virginia authorities. Ultimately, the accused Soldier confesses to Virginia authorities that he sexually abused his daughter in Virginia.

We didn’t start the fire. No we didn’t light it, But we tried to fight it!¹

Before his appointment in late June to Acting Under Secretary of the Army, James E. McPherson, then the General Counsel of the Army, sat down with The Army Lawyer to talk about his life and military career. McPherson, a former Judge Advocate General of the Navy who began his military career in the Army as part of the Military Police (MP), previously served as the executive director of the National Association of Attorneys General and as the general counsel of the Department of Defense’s Counterintelligence Field Activity. McPherson is a recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Meritorious Service Medal.

It is painful enough when we lose members of our armed forces when they are sent in harm’s way, but is unfathomable that they should be vulnerable for attack in our own communities.¹

The implementation of the Military Justice Act of 2016 on 1 January 2019 ushered in the most revolutionary changes in military justice practice since the Military Justice Act of 1968 (MJA 1968). As we look forward to the fiftieth anniversary of MJA 1968, which had an effective date of 1 August 1969, it is worthwhile to examine the role and responsibilities of the U.S. Army Trial Judiciary, which effectively came into being with the passage of that Act. While MJA 1968 authorized an independent judiciary, and our judges should and do scrupulously guard their independence, the Army’s Trial Judiciary remains an integral part of The Judge Advocate General’s Corps. Trial judges have a vested interest in, if not shared responsibility for, the training of counsel and outreach to the community for the betterment of our justice system and our Corps.

I have had the good fortune and, more importantly, the honor and privilege, to serve in numerous leadership positions during my Army career. I have learned much by watching and studying leaders—both good and bad—“practicing” leadership. These observations have led me to conclude that there is no right or wrong way to lead; everyone is different and must develop their own leadership style. I would suggest that everyone think about leading early and commit to a leadership philosophy, with a willingness to adjust when appropriate. For a leader of any sized organization, I cannot emphasize enough that leading is a privilege, the opportunity is fleeting, and how you execute your responsibility will impact those you lead personally and professionally far beyond your service with them in that organization.

The American military jealously guards its status as an apolitical institution. This status is enshrined in regulation and tradition dating back to George Washington.1 Some well-intentioned officers take this tradition and Professor Huntington’s model of a modern apolitical Soldier to a logical and self-defeating extreme when they advocate that officers abstain from voting.2 Persuading officers to abstain from voting to maintain professional impartiality is a cure far more insidious than the proposed disease of political partisanship. It misinterprets our oath of office, ignores American history and constitutional framework, and falsely proposes a bright line separating politics from war. American Soldiers’ connection to their country through the exercise of the secret ballot is not a weakness, but a strength. Voting makes officers more effective and, more importantly, better citizens.