美国退休陆军准将：应根除军队中亲特朗普官兵
国会山发生的暴力袭击引发了人们的疑问：如果在不久之后的权力交接过程中出现任何暴力事件，美国军队会扮演什么样的角色？总统唐纳德•特朗普在应对暴力事件中并未部署现役军队；在华盛顿特区市长穆里尔•鲍泽的请求下，副总统迈克•彭斯部署了国民警卫队。然而，特朗普据称上月在椭圆办公室举行了会议，讨论使用军队来推翻大选结果的可能性。这次会议的参会人员包括特朗普前任国防安全顾问、已退休陆军中将迈克•富林恩，他此前曾经在电视上说，特朗普“可能会动用军事力量”，而且他可能会将军队部署于那些“存在争议”的州，基本上也就是重新进行选举。在国会山骚乱发生三天前，所有10位在世的前国防部部长都通过《华盛顿邮报》（Washington Post）的专栏发出警告，反对“使用军事力量来解决选举争议”。
为了洞悉未来可能的事态进展，《财富》杂志采访了已经退休的陆军准将托马斯•科尔迪茨，他曾经在西点军校（West Point）和耶鲁管理学院（Yale School of Management）教授领导力课程，如今在莱斯大学（Rice University）负责运营多尔新领导研究所（Doerr Institute for New Leaders）。以下为对话节选内容。
在你看来，特朗普如今与军队之间是什么样的关系？
我更担心的一个问题是，长期以来，特朗普在军队中有不少效忠者。军队中的官兵完全有权持保守或极端保守的态度。然而，特朗普在军队中的部分拥趸认为1月6日骚乱是件好事，这些人应该被尽快清除出军队。然而，在特朗普亲信离开白宫之前，这一点发生的可能性不大，但我们有必要这样做。这里涉及的并非只是几十个人，而可能是横跨整个国防部的数千人。其中很多人已经表达了口头支持，或通过社交媒体发布了相关内容。然而，这是一起叛乱事件，属于叛国罪。最重要的是，无论以什么理由，军队里都不应该存在认为叛乱是好事或正当事件的潜伏者和官兵，国防部门领导层有义务确保这一点。
对于类似于国会山的骚乱，军队准则是怎么要求的？
军队受《警卫团法案》（Posse Comitatus Act）管辖，不能被用于在美国领土镇压美国民众，不能用于执法目的。这也是为什么参谋长联席会议主席马克•迈利在公共声明中明确指出，军队不会参与任何类型的选举执法活动，以及听命于特朗普或其他任何人。
在权力交接过程中，无论谁在当时成为美国总统，军队长官有义务保持其职业中立性。他们曾经宣誓支持和捍卫宪法，而不是总统。在艾森豪威尔时代，人们甚至认为军官都不应该投票。直到最近，军官们确实才开始以个人身份发表政治言论，而且参与投票。然而，在执行任务时保持政治中立性和独立性依然是其职责，其中包括不发布其下属可能在社交媒体或公共场所看到的声明。对军官来说，表明自己的喜好几乎相当于下达命令。
你在服役时是否投过票？
我在整个职业生涯都一直在投票，几乎每次都是投的缺席选举人票。我怀疑我的士兵根本不知道我是否投过票，或者我持有什么样的政治观点。所有现役军官都不能自由表达自己的个人信念，并指望为我们工作的人不会受到其影响。这些便是军队官兵在应对政治事件时应该把握的尺度。
军官可以持有自由派观点，保守派观点等等。然而，当前的这种局势已经近乎膜拜。叛乱已经形成气候，这是本土恐怖主义。在国会山爬窗户进入大楼而遭到击毙的女士是一名有着12年空军服役经历的退伍军人，我相信她的这种忠诚并非是在一夜之间形成的。因此这一点真的很重要。（财富中文网）
译者：冯丰
审校：夏林
国会山发生的暴力袭击引发了人们的疑问：如果在不久之后的权力交接过程中出现任何暴力事件，美国军队会扮演什么样的角色？总统唐纳德•特朗普在应对暴力事件中并未部署现役军队；在华盛顿特区市长穆里尔•鲍泽的请求下，副总统迈克•彭斯部署了国民警卫队。然而，特朗普据称上月在椭圆办公室举行了会议，讨论使用军队来推翻大选结果的可能性。这次会议的参会人员包括特朗普前任国防安全顾问、已退休陆军中将迈克•富林恩，他此前曾经在电视上说，特朗普“可能会动用军事力量”，而且他可能会将军队部署于那些“存在争议”的州，基本上也就是重新进行选举。在国会山骚乱发生三天前，所有10位在世的前国防部部长都通过《华盛顿邮报》（Washington Post）的专栏发出警告，反对“使用军事力量来解决选举争议”。
为了洞悉未来可能的事态进展，《财富》杂志采访了已经退休的陆军准将托马斯•科尔迪茨，他曾经在西点军校（West Point）和耶鲁管理学院（Yale School of Management）教授领导力课程，如今在莱斯大学（Rice University）负责运营多尔新领导研究所（Doerr Institute for New Leaders）。以下为对话节选内容。
在你看来，特朗普如今与军队之间是什么样的关系？
我更担心的一个问题是，长期以来，特朗普在军队中有不少效忠者。军队中的官兵完全有权持保守或极端保守的态度。然而，特朗普在军队中的部分拥趸认为1月6日骚乱是件好事，这些人应该被尽快清除出军队。然而，在特朗普亲信离开白宫之前，这一点发生的可能性不大，但我们有必要这样做。这里涉及的并非只是几十个人，而可能是横跨整个国防部的数千人。其中很多人已经表达了口头支持，或通过社交媒体发布了相关内容。然而，这是一起叛乱事件，属于叛国罪。最重要的是，无论以什么理由，军队里都不应该存在认为叛乱是好事或正当事件的潜伏者和官兵，国防部门领导层有义务确保这一点。
对于类似于国会山的骚乱，军队准则是怎么要求的？
军队受《警卫团法案》（Posse Comitatus Act）管辖，不能被用于在美国领土镇压美国民众，不能用于执法目的。这也是为什么参谋长联席会议主席马克•迈利在公共声明中明确指出，军队不会参与任何类型的选举执法活动，以及听命于特朗普或其他任何人。
在权力交接过程中，无论谁在当时成为美国总统，军队长官有义务保持其职业中立性。他们曾经宣誓支持和捍卫宪法，而不是总统。在艾森豪威尔时代，人们甚至认为军官都不应该投票。直到最近，军官们确实才开始以个人身份发表政治言论，而且参与投票。然而，在执行任务时保持政治中立性和独立性依然是其职责，其中包括不发布其下属可能在社交媒体或公共场所看到的声明。对军官来说，表明自己的喜好几乎相当于下达命令。
你在服役时是否投过票？
我在整个职业生涯都一直在投票，几乎每次都是投的缺席选举人票。我怀疑我的士兵根本不知道我是否投过票，或者我持有什么样的政治观点。所有现役军官都不能自由表达自己的个人信念，并指望为我们工作的人不会受到其影响。这些便是军队官兵在应对政治事件时应该把握的尺度。
军官可以持有自由派观点，保守派观点等等。然而，当前的这种局势已经近乎膜拜。叛乱已经形成气候，这是本土恐怖主义。在国会山爬窗户进入大楼而遭到击毙的女士是一名有着12年空军服役经历的退伍军人，我相信她的这种忠诚并非是在一夜之间形成的。因此这一点真的很重要。（财富中文网）
译者：冯丰
审校：夏林
The violent attack on the Capitol raises the question of the U.S. military’s potential role in any other transition-related violence that might occur in coming days. President Trump did not deploy active-duty troops in response to the riot; the National Guard was deployed at the request of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser by Vice President Mike Pence. But Trump reportedly held an Oval Office meeting last month to discuss possibly using the military to overturn the election. That meeting included his former national security adviser, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who had previously said on TV that Trump “could take military capabilities, and he could place them in those [disputed] states and basically rerun an election.” Three days before the Capitol riot, all 10 living former defense secretaries warned in a Washington Post op-ed against “efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes.”
For insight into what might lie ahead, Fortune spoke with Thomas Kolditz, a retired Army brigadier general who has taught leadership at West Point and the Yale School of Management, and who now runs the Doerr Institute for New Leaders at Rice University. To follow are edited excerpts.
What are your thoughts now about the relationship between Trump and the military?
One of my bigger concerns is that there has long been a strong Trump following in the military. People in the military have every right to be conservative or extremely conservative. But Trump’s supporters in the military who think that what happened [on Jan. 6] was a good thing need to be managed out of the military as soon as possible. That probably won’t happen until the Trump loyalists are out, but that needs to be done. We’re not talking about half a dozen people. We’re probably talking about thousands across the Department of Defense. Many of them will have already run their mouth, put things on social media. But this was an insurgency, a crime against the state. And it’s a duty obligation of the defense leadership to make sure that there are no, essentially, sleeper cells, people in the military who, for whatever reason, think an insurgency is a good idea or justifiable.
What is military doctrine with regard to situations like the Capitol riot?
The military is governed by the Posse Comitatus Act. The military can’t be used against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. It can’t be used for law enforcement purposes. That’s why [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Mark Milley has made clear public statements that the military would not be participating in any kind of election enforcement activities or otherwise be used by Trump or anyone else.
In the context of transition, military officers have an obligation to remain professionally impartial to whoever happens to be President at the time. They swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, not the President. In Eisenhower’s day, it was felt to be wrong for a military officer to even vote. It’s only recently that military officers do make political statements in their private capacities. They do vote. But it’s their responsibility to remain politically unbiased and independent in the way they execute their duties. That includes not making statements that their subordinates might see on social media or otherwise publicly. For an officer, stating a preference is almost giving an order.
Did you vote when you were in the Army?
I voted pretty much my whole career, almost every time by absentee ballot. I doubt if any of my soldiers ever had any idea who I voted for or what my political views were. None of us, when on active duty, have the liberty to express our own personal beliefs and then expect people working for us to be immune to that. Those are the dynamics of how military people have to approach political activity.
Military officers can have liberal viewpoints, conservative viewpoints, and so forth. But what we have now is a near cult. The insurgency has taken shape, and it’s domestic terrorism. The woman who was shot climbing through the window at the Capitol was a 12-year Air Force veteran, and I’m sure she did not come upon her allegiance overnight. So it’s really important.
