Scott Brown would need waiver to train in Afghanistan

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R), a member of the National Guard, released a statement today saying he has requested to conduct his annual training in Afghanistan.

"As a Lieutenant Colonel in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, I have service obligations that I fulfill each year," Brown said in the statement. "Following in the tradition of other lawmakers who have completed their military service requirements overseas, this year I have requested to conduct my annual training in Afghanistan. Doing so will help me to better understand our ongoing mission in that country, and provide me first-hand experience for my duties on the Senate Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs committees."

There is some question, however, as to whether that would be allowed for a candidate for office or an elected official generally. It appears he would need a waiver from the Defense Secretary in order to do so, and it's something Sen. Mark Kirk (R), when he was a congressman, ran into.

According to Section 4.2.2 of a Feb. 19, 2009 Defense Department Directive called, “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces”:

4.2.2. A regular member, or a retired regular or Reserve Component member on active duty under a call or order to active duty for more than 270 days, may not be a nominee or candidate for the offices described in subparagraph 4.2.1., except when the Secretary concerned grants permission.

4.2.2.3. Such permission is required regardless of whether evidence of nomination or candidacy for civil office is filed prior to commencing active duty service or whether the member is an incumbent.

4.2.2.4. If a member covered by the prohibition in subparagraph 4.2.2. becomes a nominee or candidate for civil office prior to commencing active duty, then the member must request permission in writing and submit the request to the Secretary concerned before entering active duty. The member must understand that if the Secretary concerned does not grant permission, then the member must immediately decline the nomination or withdraw as a candidate.

And:

4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9.)

4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted under the conditions noted in subparagraph 4.1.1.6.

4.1.2.4. Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.

4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

4.1.2.7. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.

4.1.2.8. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee or candidate during a campaign, on an election day, or after an election day during the process of closing out a campaign.

4.1.2.9. Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for any political cause or candidate.

4.1.2.10. March or ride in a partisan political parade.

4.1.2.11. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on a private vehicle.

4.1.2.12. Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.

4.1.2.13. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by or associated with a partisan political party, cause, or candidate.

4.1.2.14. Sell tickets for or otherwise actively promote partisan political dinners and similar fundraising events.

4.1.2.15. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces, except as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties recognized by the Federal Elections Committee or as otherwise authorized by the Secretary concerned.

4.1.2.16. Make a campaign contribution to, or receive or solicit (on one’s own behalf) a campaign contribution from, any other member of the Armed Forces on active duty. Any contributions not prohibited by this subparagraph remain subject to the gift provisions of sections 2635.301-2635.304 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (Reference (f)). See subparagraph 4.1.2.1. for general prohibitions on partisan fundraising activity.

4.1.3. Commissioned officers shall not use contemptuous words as prohibited by section 888 of Reference (b) or participate in activities proscribed by DoD Directives 5200.2 and 1325.6 (References (g) and (h), respectively).

4.1.4. Subject to any other restrictions in law, a member of the Armed Forces not on active duty may take the actions or participate in the activities permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1., and may take the actions and participate in the activities prohibited in subparagraph 4.1.2, provided the member is not in uniform and does not otherwise act in a manner that could reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.

Discuss this post

It is admirable that he wants to do this. I wonder if he plans on running for President in 2016? I bet he does unless the Teabaggers are successful teabagging him.

  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:14 PM EDT

Not being in much of a partisan mood today, I would like to agree that his intentions seem admirable, but it seems clear that the rulebook was already pretty well stacked against this ever actually happening - something he should have known already, both as a Senator and as a member of the National Guard.

Interesting stuff, though - thanks, Domenico.

  • 6 votes
#1.1 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:20 PM EDT

The timing of this, right after OBL is taken out, seems like it is possibly grandstanding. Brown is constantly speaking of his 30 years in the military. It is true that he has been in the National Guard for over 30 years, but he has never been deployed to a combat zone.

As, per the Boston Globe, he is asking that his 2 weeks of training be in Afghanistan, I wonder if the extra security that will be needed to protect the Senator will hurt the war effort more than any contributions he could make in two weeks.

  • 6 votes
#1.2 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:33 PM EDT

I wonder why we haven't heard anything out of McCain?

Remember the guy who's campaign slogan was: Elect me and then I'll tell you where bin Laden is? lol

  • 10 votes
#1.3 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:34 PM EDT

Scott Brown is requesting a waiver to train in Afghanistan. Perhaps someone should tell him that starting this summer our President is bringing our troops home.

Could this be political grandstanding? Just askin.

  • 12 votes
#1.4 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:44 PM EDT
Reply

good play senator! first a 60 minutes show and now a request for service in a war zone, puting your life in danger and your inability to serve your citizens, which you know will not happen, but makes a great sound bite especially when osma was just killed? sound bites are great colonel?

  • 7 votes
Reply#2 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:22 PM EDT

Refresh my memory. What branch of the Military did Obama belong? This guy has more honor in his little finger than Obama has in his whole body...

  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:56 PM EDT

That would be the Commander in Chief to you. I think your comment after the news of the last 12 hours, seems silly. After all, Bush (W) only had faux military qualifications at best.

  • 7 votes
#2.2 - Mon May 2, 2011 1:14 PM EDT

Greg,

“This guy has more honor in his little finger than Obama has in his whole body...”

You mean the “this guy” that stood on stage and pimped his daughters out?

  • 5 votes
#2.3 - Mon May 2, 2011 1:18 PM EDT

Seattle 123...faux military qualifications? You are an idiot. As a former member of the same Texas ANG unit President Bush served in...his service was not faux or fake or any different than thousands of other members of the National Guard all over the 54 States and Territories.....look it up. did u serve? Did anyone fake documents concerning your service and get a TV news anchor fired over them? Did you catch the key word ...fake?

And as for the CINC comment: Obama never served....ever. Asking the question is neither disrespectful nor insubordinate. I would say it was glossed over by the lamestream press and he got a pass, but he never served and never ran anything, or built a business....more later..

It is interesting though that one assumes a title grants one the ability to do the job. In the real world (versus the political make-believe DC world that assumes we know what we are doing because we studied law or some political science BS in college while consorting with radicals and political activists instead of actually having a real job or running a business or ever serving in the military or getting a real education that allows one to PRODUCE something other than hot air...global warming?!!! the cause at last), Obama would never pass the background check due to his associations. Have you noticed he and his wife have both had to surrender their law licenses....ever checked into why? And you want me to believe he is my CINC. He has the title and the title gets the respect, in his case I hope is for one term. One less than the last adulterous scumbag the democrats had in office. OBTW - I cannot stand the republicans much either...but we are still talking about entrenched politicians. I have hope for this freshman class. Real hope and not the Chicago machine kind of hope. But I digress. g'night!

Remember - outlaw lawyers and politicians and we may have solved the global warming issue!!!!!!!!!!!! Bet my science is as good as their science;) LMAO

    #2.4 - Mon May 2, 2011 10:54 PM EDT
    Reply

    The military is on all our thoughts today, May 2, 2011.

    Here is one more huge this day in history moment:

    This day in history commemorates the Fall of Berlin during World War II. On May 2, 1945, the Soviet Union announces the capture of Berlin and Soviet soldiers hoist their red flag over the Reichstag building.

    Isn't that something. The Fall of Berlin. My #1 target when I traveled to Berlin was to visit the Reichtag building and stand close to where the Russians had hoisted their flag among the ruins of the City.

    WW2 officially ended in Europe on May 8, 1945.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#3 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:26 PM EDT

    I will say what everyone else is thinking ....better late then never scotty boy ...now that its safe to do so !

    • 6 votes
    Reply#4 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:33 PM EDT

    For all you folks that think this is a publicity stunt, try going to a combat zone. Then tell me how safe it is. Tell me you were not afraid. Then I can call you a liar. Those farthest away from danger are always the bravest.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#5 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:43 PM EDT

    Ira, This is two days in a row that I agree with you. If anyone thinks it's safe to be in Afghanistan they didn't watch the caskets of eight servicemen come home this week.

    • 3 votes
    #5.1 - Mon May 2, 2011 1:34 PM EDT

    Senator Brown would be protected as any Senator who goes there is. Don't you remember all the pictures of McCain, Leiberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama etc going there.

    He is going there for 2 weeks. There are plenty of Senators, who in the last two years have totaled as many days in Afghanistan/Pakistan - including many who were real combat vets, who are there because of their senate jobs.

    It actually makes little sense to combine his duty with being in Afghanistan to gain insight for his committees. It is also pretty strange to announce it before he gets approval and the needed waiver - and to do it as the OBL was the story.

      #5.2 - Tue May 3, 2011 8:02 PM EDT
      Reply

      The timing of this after OBL was killed makes this pretty obvious grandstanding.

      If his reason was that he thought that his doing so would benefit the war effort there or would make him more useful on his committees, he could have quietly applied for this waiver and the training in Afghanistan. Then, if they were both approved, then he could announce that he was going to Afghanistan for two weeks.

      There is no way that a US Senator there for two weeks - doing training - would experience much that the MA National Guard members deployed there do. They would have to protect him as a Senator. I can't imagine what an officer in Afghanistan when he learned that Brown would be in his area for 2 weeks.

      • 6 votes
      Reply#6 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:46 PM EDT

      Our Soldiers don't have time to "Babysit" Scout Brown! He has the nerve to interrupt Real Soldiers for his political agenda. It never amazes Americans how far these politicans will go in pursuit of politics. Brown knows the rules and if he doesn't he should not be in the Senate.

      • 5 votes
      Reply#7 - Mon May 2, 2011 12:51 PM EDT

      June,FL

      Have you ever served? I doubt you know what real soldiers think...Oh, I get it he's a Republican,so he don't get the same respect...It looks like too me, you think reservist aren't REAL soldiers... I might point out most who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan were reservist..

      • 4 votes
      #7.1 - Mon May 2, 2011 1:02 PM EDT

      June...

      He's a Lt. Colonel in the National Guard, he didn't join the army yeaterday, it takes years to rise in rank. Nobody is going to babysit him. He's not a Senator going on a sight seeing tour. He has a job (called MOS) like everyone else and he will do that. Your comments show a complete lack of knowledge as to how the military operates and June, yes, he is a REAL soldier.

      • 1 vote
      #7.2 - Mon May 2, 2011 3:10 PM EDT

      As a National Guardsman with 1000 hours of combat helicopter time and 2 tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I had no "babysitter" while I was overseas. I took command of advanced helicopters, engaged in firefights to save troops in contact, flew as a line pilot and served as a staff officer at division HQ, using my expereince to manage the flow on the battlefield. The rest of my National Guard brothers and sisters served admirably and deserve the same recognition as any combat soldier. National Guard Lt. Colonel Sen. Brown will not have his hand held while overseas. He will be performing his duty and serving a purpose, much more than this writer seems to be doing.

      • 1 vote
      #7.3 - Mon May 2, 2011 7:38 PM EDT
      Reply

      you have to give this man credit !!! he is not a "chicken-hawk" like so many others !!! give him the waiver and let him prove himself on the battle field not surrounded by a phalanx of personal body guards !!!

        Reply#8 - Mon May 2, 2011 1:02 PM EDT

        Why did he release a statement saying this? Why not just do it without any publicity?

        • 7 votes
        Reply#9 - Mon May 2, 2011 1:29 PM EDT

        Exactly Steeler ....! spot on ! I guess his X rated pics are no longer of interest to anyone !

        • 6 votes
        Reply#10 - Mon May 2, 2011 1:34 PM EDT

        I don't quite get his motivation for doing this. What if he steps on a land mine and gets killed? Do they have another election?

        • 3 votes
        Reply#11 - Mon May 2, 2011 1:38 PM EDT

        Let him go and serve his country. At least it's an opportunity for him to broaden his experience. Maybe he'll see for himself how bad the VA is milked for disability benefits from military retirees without injuries sustained in a combat environment.

          Reply#12 - Mon May 2, 2011 2:46 PM EDT

          While I rarely agree with Mr. Brown's views, I admire his courage in wishing to complete his training in theater. I do wonder though if his learning experience will be worth the risk incurred to fellow vets trying to protect him, an elected representative, if he is allowed to go.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#13 - Mon May 2, 2011 3:11 PM EDT

          Funny how someone with little or no military experience will scour the regs until they find what they think is a way to discredit someone. But I understand, for those who have not had the desire nor the inclination to willfully serve their own nation, that this must look like he is doing something unlawful. Generally, the National Guard JAG office (to which Sen Brown belongs) of the State files the appropriate paperwork for the citizen soldier to remain in the Guard and also be an elected official. Maybe the writer should drop his pen and go sign up for the military and live inside the regulations as I have done for 28 years. Then he could actually live what he tries to write about. Honor, integrity and love of country.

            Reply#14 - Mon May 2, 2011 7:27 PM EDT

            I look at Senator Brown from this point: As a Senator from the USA, in theater, there would be too much emphasis on protecting him just like England's prince's were protected. There would be privileges and perks that could and may interfere with daily operations. And, God forbid, should anything happen to him, how would America forgive itself? He should be commended for wanting to be with the troops, but at this time, he must be kept safe.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#15 - Mon May 2, 2011 11:57 PM EDT

            who cares..go.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#16 - Tue May 3, 2011 1:04 PM EDT

            Is there really any GOP member of congress that has any actual military time or service outside of POLITCAL appointees in the National guard or reserves. These political organizations /appointees are and have always been a way for politicians to try to obtain another Government check or accumulate time to get a check for longer service. As a 22yr actual military retiree i have seen these sissies grovel around the golf course and base clubs under the guise of serving their country. Most all of them are officers that involve attorney general type jobs or camera photo ops. Whata disgrace to call them military service. Even Palin assigned her son to the national guard that she controlled so mommas baby would not get into a dangerous spot .

              Reply#17 - Tue May 3, 2011 10:53 PM EDT

              The story is factually inaccurate. Read the rule that is quoted. A waiver from the Secretary is only required for active duty of more than 270 days. Brown will be on AD for two weeks. He will be subject to other limitations on political activities (i.e., no fundraising while on AD, etc.).

              Sen Lindsay Graham came to Iraq on his annual tour. I can say that he was treated more like a Senator than a Colonel. But he wore the uniform and everybody called him Colonel Graham.

                Reply#18 - Wed May 4, 2011 1:28 AM EDT
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.