The 5th Group Flash in Vietnam overlaid multiple bands in the colors of the flag of South Vietnam on the existing Group flash. And the gold and red stripes also acknowledged 1st and 7th Group augmentation in the first years of the mission in country. Although in practice those non-5th Group TDY teams tended to wear their parent Group’s flashes. The primary intent was that the modification of the black with white trim Group flash showed solidarity with our South Vietnamese partners. Of course that was also during a time when we actually made a point of wearing berets in the field. In other words it was a mission specific change to the flash and was clearly meant to apply only to ongoing operations in Vietnam.

Technically the Group flash should have reverted to the pre-war design after the Group’s colors returned to Fort Bragg in 1971. However, after ten years of war, the Vietnam version of the flash WAS the 5th Group flash to members of the Group who had served there. Most had never worn the original flash. They had lost buddies and fought and bled wearing the flash with the gold and red stripes and that was their flash. And there is a strong and abiding desire from those veterans to preserve that heritage. I have always respected that. So at that point the purpose of the stripes changed…forever. It wasn’t about the mission in Vietnam anymore. The stripes had become in essence a “battle streamer” commemorating the Group’s service and sacrifice in that war. That service included 786 honored dead; many times that number wounded; thirty Medals of Honor and hundreds of other medals for valor. A proud record by every measure.

In 1985 the Group leadership decided to do what had not been done in 1971 and return the Group’s flash to the earlier configuration. There was logic to their decision. The stripes had not originally been meant to be a permanent modification. The Group’s area of orientation had changed and the country of South Vietnam no longer existed. And by that time, the majority of the Group’s members had never served in Vietnam. There was also some thought that the Group needed to close that chapter of its history and reinvent its self. Removing the stripes did not mean that the Group also discarded its storied Vietnam history. On the contrary, 5th Group has always held the heroes of that conflict in the highest esteem – but to some it certainly felt that way. So that decision remains divisive and deeply controversial to this day.

I grew up in 5th Group and spent many years there before and during GWOT. I got there after the transition back to the original flash. For me at least, and I’d say for most of us on duty at the time it seemed reasonable to retire the Vietnam flash and reclaim our original version. Frankly it wasn’t a topic of much discussion as I recall. That is not surprising. Just as most SF guys are not gun guys or gear guys, most are not history or heraldry buffs either. They’ll wear whatever flash they are authorized to wear with pride and not give it much additional thought. In that time we had plenty of work to do and there just wasn’t that much angst in the ranks about the change or the symbolism. Now after years and years of contingency operations and war most of the serving veterans today have lost buddies and fought and bled wearing the original black flash. It is indeed “my” 5th Group Flash. The one I went to war with and I suspect many of the current members of the Legion feel the same way. That sentiment is certainly deserving of respect as well.

In 1996 the Group leadership changed the background for the parachute badge worn on the dress uniform. Moving from the generic Special Forces gold and teal oval to a version that represented the Group flash of the Vietnam era; black with white border and the red and gold diagonal stripes (see photo). The intention had been to also change the flash back to the same configuration concurrently. But that was simply a political bridge too far at the time. But not anymore. The current Group leadership seized the opportunity facilitated in no small part because the current Army Chief of Staff, GEN Milley, is a former Team Leader in 5th Group. So last week (22, 23 March), I was one of many guests at the 5th Group Reflashing Ceremony held at Fort Campbell. It was a great ceremony. Joyful rather than solemn. A celebration and a rededication of the Group’s past, present and future in its entirety.

5th Group is still very busy. There is much work to be done so I doubt there will be much time for any angst in the ranks with this new change either. The ODA members that I spoke to in those two days seemed genuinely pleased with this particular transition. And why shouldn’t they be? Returning the Vietnam battle streamer to a position of prominence can only serve to enhance the historic symbolism of the Group flash. Nothing has been taken away from anyone and it disrespects no one. In my opinion it is an awesome privilege to carry all of those colors forward. An opportunity that I never had. A display of mutual and enduring respect for the contributions of all the veterans and current soldiers of the Legion. My congratulations to all the members of 5th Group past and present and best wishes to those who have the honor to still be serving. De Oppresso Liber!

We tend to talk about our Republic in terms of our individual rights and all too often ignore or downplay the responsibilities that are the citizen’s rightful burden. A Republic is a participatory form of government. For our system of democracy to work the citizen must cherish his or her obligations to the Constitution as much if not more than their individual freedom. Adlai Stevenson once said: “Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.” For my purposes today I’m going to substitute the word “citizenship” for patriotism. Citizenship is not something that is practiced intermittently but rather it is an enduring responsibility. Citizenship demands that we are prepared to act individually and collectively in accordance with the Constitution. Citizenship is not a passive activity or spectator sport.

How many here have served on a jury? The Founders didn’t advocate juries because it was somehow perceived to be more “fair” to the defendant than trial by a judge. Rather they wanted we the people to participate and take ownership of our judicial system by putting the outcome of serious cases largely in the hands of citizens. Voting is another example. As citizens we are expected not only to show up at the polls occasionally but also to actively seek knowledge of the issues and candidates on the ballot. The Founders believed that in order for the people to be well informed there was a need for several critical enablers. Some are addressed directly in the Constitution, specifically in the 1st Amendment. The right to assemble, the right of free association and freedom of speech are particularly vital to a citizen’s full and unfettered participation in our political process.

To guarantee access to information the Founders also established or supported a number of institutions. Arguably the most important was a public funded school system. In an age where illiteracy was more common than not it was a revolutionary idea. A basic education allowed each individual to read and better reason for him or herself independently. They also moved quickly to establish the US Postal Service to carry the mail. Which was much more vital then since ALL long distance communication in those days was by what we now call snail mail. Also creating Local Libraries to provide free services to even the smallest communities. This was radical thinking in a time when books were expensive, rare and otherwise out of reach for the common man. Finally, as also enshrined in the 1st Amendment, a free press outside the control of politicians was considered absolutely essential to facilitate a well informed electorate.

I pointed out in an earlier piece that the Founders were more comfortable with a small standing or professional Army except in times of actual conflict. The Founders were not pacifists by any means but in their day Kings often raised large armies for suppression of their own populations. But that wasn’t the Founders only rationale. Their expectation was that National Defense as we now call it would be largely borne by the people in the form of mobilized Militias. That would also include the so called Unorganized Militia – basically every able bodied citizen. That by the way is the Constitutional basis for Draft Registration. That is not to say that every citizen is front line fighter material, but every one of us could and should be prepared to be called up to provide some service in time of emergency. WW II being the best and really only example of “full mobilization” of the majority of citizens in our Nation’s history.

Even in situations less dire than war, the Founders envisioned the people being routinely called to volunteer locally and even regionally if required. Not just to deal with external threats but also with natural disasters and internal dangers like criminal gangs. The concept of a sheriff forming a posse is a staple of Western movies. But it is also a real life example of we the people stepping up to assist and reinforce elected or appointed officials in resolving a crisis. And when the local sheriff needed help citizens dropped what they were doing, took up their guns and showed up. Ready to serve, ready to uphold the law and ready to fight if necessary. Not as an angry armed mob, not as vengeance seeking vigilantes but rather as staunch defenders of the rule of law. So when our Nation was formed, citizens expected to shoulder their share of the burden especially when faced with a tough or unpleasant task related to governance.

Since then our Nation has inexorably evolved from an agrarian culture, through industrialization and now into an information-centric society. We are richer, more powerful and have access to more information today than our Founders ever dared imagine possible. So it is not surprising that the relationship of the citizen to the most dangerous traditional duties has also changed over time. Not as the result of some insidious conspiracy or softening of our individual commitment to citizenship. Rather, one of the biggest factors driving this change has been “professionalization”. We have demanded increasingly more professional behavior from our soldiers and policemen specifically. That mandate and countless technological advances resulted in more complex and time consuming training requirements for even entry level candidates to those jobs. Even our Organized Militia elements like the National Guard must spend much more time training and actually performing their missions than ever before.

It hasn’t been possible in a very long time for untrained amateurs to simply “fall in” to these ranks in time of crisis and perform to an acceptable standard. Moreover, in a time of modern communications and transportation assets a sheriff can now get fully trained support from other LE faster than he can assemble an untrained citizen posse. That is not to say that the armed citizen no longer has any role in “providing for the common defense”. But rather accepts the fact that a civilian’s in extremis participation is not as central to our Local, State or National security systems as it once was. I for one believe that professionalization in our security services has been both necessary and positive. And I do not think it represents a threat of any kind to the future of our Republic. However, in my opinion, there is an area where this trend towards “professionalization” has become a serious problem. And that is in politics.

Far too many of us are consciously avoiding involvement in public sector activities. We have become comfortable with “hiring it done” by someone else. Oh, we bitch about it all the time. We hate “career politicians” and “the establishment”. We shout at the TV and complain to our spouses (at least I do). But we don’t do much else. We’re mad…but not really motivated. That is why 95% of incumbents get re-elected each and every cycle. That is why many candidates run unopposed – even at the National level. But we the people can choose to do better than that. So ignore the cynics. Don’t skip jury duty. Learn the facts of the issues and the records of the candidates. Support a campaign. Fight against a campaign. If you can’t stand anybody, run for office yourself. Do your duty. Be a real citizen and shoulder 100% of the burden and then some. Take action. Of course Vote. But don’t just cast a ballot, participate in the process! The fact is that we aren’t true Citizens and this isn’t a Republic if we don’t.

Packboards, aka packframes, are an ancient load carrying concept. The Roman Legions utilized a clever variation on the basic idea for centuries. The Legionaries were issued a wooden T-shaped “carrying pole” which they rested on the top of the rectangular plywood and leather shield tied to their backs to carry individual and cohort equipment. By not attaching the gear directly to the shield they protected that critical piece of kit from non-battle damage. And it also allowed them to put the shield into action more quickly when necessary. In this country, Fur Traders, Mountain Men and Prospectors used versions of packboards in the earliest days of our Nation. Usually these were homemade of roughhewn wood in either rectangular or A-Frame shapes. Leather held them together and common cordage secured any load. Local versions of these simple but effective loadbearing implements can still be found in daily use in many parts of the world.

However, even before our country gained independence and through most of the 19th Century packframes were out of favor in most western militaries. It was an era where brightly colored Armies generally moved along roads and fought in set piece battles. Therefore, pack animals and wagons could and did carry much of the bulk sustainment load for an army. At least until the American Civil War and the wide spread introduction of rifled individual weapons. During WW II the US military had two packboards that saw service. The “Yukon Pack Board” which looked like a small window frame of 2”x2” pieces of lumber laced together with a canvas sheet and canvas shoulder straps. However, while it was sturdy it was also heavy at 7 pounds empty and was not popular or in service long. The other was the more prevalent and familiar curved sided plywood and canvas “Packboard, Plywood” which was a mere 4 pounds (see photo). By the end of WW II the plywood version had become the standard and remained so for the next 30 years.

Packboards were unit items and not individual issue. In some cases they were used to carry the barely man-portable radios of the day for artillery forward observers. Combat medical platoons used them to carry supplies necessary to establish aid stations close to the front. Communications soldiers would carry and rapidly deploy spools of telephone line to link front line positions. Engineers would carry demolition supplies and pioneer tools to support their mission. But in WW II the packboards were most widely used by units habitually operating in mountainous terrain where motor transport couldn’t easily move. The mountains of Italy for example where the 10th Mountain Division and the First Special Service Force (FSSF) used packboards extensively to sustain and support themselves in combat.

To be clear, Packboards were never meant to be used tactically in the same way as a rucksack. They were best employed on a fairly linear battlefield with front lines and relatively safer rear areas. You didn’t look for a fight if you had a packboard on your back. It was indeed common practice for soldiers to also strap their individual weapons on to the boards in the mountains so that they would have both hands free to pull themselves up and down the slopes. Packboards were commonly employed to bring up heavier weapons and ammunition resupply after an objective had been secured. Later a detail might go back toward the rear to bring up a few Mermites with hot rations or other sustainment gear from a vehicle drop off point.

Although it is a rule that is consistently violated, the Army has always recommended aggressive load management and the acceptance of risk to keep the fighting load as light as possible. But not when using packboards. In fact, the Army recommended that the individual load should be as heavy as the soldier could carry when a unit utilized packboards. The reason is simple and sound. If you were going to dedicate combat power to the effort it makes sense to get as much as possible moved to the line in as few trips as can be supported. Then those soldiers can more quickly return to their primary duties. A few years later Korea turned out to be precisely the kind of war that packboards were designed for. The fight was largely conventional. The battle lines moved back and forth from rugged ridgeline to ridgeline. The road network was minimal and fixed wing resupply was still restricted to large and relatively flat and open drop zones. And helicopters were not yet available in significant numbers. So the American soldiers in Korea along with their Allies had to hump all of their supplies from the valleys to the ridgetops day in and day out. The modest packboard was a critical piece of gear in those days.

Packboards didn’t get as much use in the Pacific as they had in Europe in WW II. In part that was because the thin plywood didn’t last long in high humidity tropical environments. The same was true in the jungles of Vietnam. But there were other reasons that packboard use declined during that war. The nonlinear guerrilla nature of the conflict and the fact that units routinely operated from fixed firebases made Korean War style packboard sustainment unnecessary and less tactically sound. The Firebases provided pre-established logistical and fire support without the need for the troops to carry the additional heavy weapons and materiel. Pinpoint helicopter resupply also meant that emergency supplies could be delivered directly to where they were needed to troops operating in the field. The widespread issue of rucksacks to troops in the theater took care of the remaining load carriage requirements. All of which allowed units to satellite out from bases with a relatively lighter combat load.

I had some experience with USGI plywood packboards like the one in the picture during the time I was a Pathfinder in Germany, 1976-78. As I recall we had six of them (2 per 4-man Team). They were used to carry the radios, marker panels, lights and other items necessary to set up and control helicopter landing zones and occasionally a drop zone. Our packboards would weigh in at probably 75-80lbs for a three day peacetime mission. Even back then batteries made up most of that weight. The packboards actually weren’t that uncomfortable to wear. And since we could take turns carrying them the system worked pretty well. The packboards had a good strength to load ratio, but were susceptible to damage if rough handled. The corners on all of ours were chipped and repaired with 100 mile an hour tape. A poorly executed “rucksack flop” could and often did break them. So taking them off was best done with a buddy’s assistance.

There were three basic and essential accessories that were supplied and utilized as part of the packboard system. Issue cordage, which in non-Airborne Units was usually the same small diameter hemp rope used for shelter halves. 550 Cord was not an item that was authorized for most Army units in those days (or readily available for individual purchase as it is now). But in Airborne Units, at least by the 1970s, 550 Cord was typically used because it was stronger and held up better to moisture and hard use. I remember we had to go down to the 7th Corps Rigger Company (there were no Riggers at Division level in Germany) to wheedle them out of a spool every now and then. Although we probably used it more for boot laces and other extraneous purposes than we ever did for the packboards. If issue cordage wasn’t available, then any rope that you had could do in a pinch. The packboard had 4 hooks on each side to facilitate lacing a load to the frame.

The second accessory was the Strap, Quick Release. The closed loop cotton webbing strap was approximately 50 inches long with a simple buckle and clamp attaching mechanism. The straps were issued three to a packboard and were intended to be used in conjunction with the third common accessory, the Packboard Attachment. Nowadays almost always referred to as a Cargo Shelf. The attachment(s) or shelf actually supported the weight of the load while the strap stabilized the load by cinching it tight to the packboard. The aluminum shelves were also issued three to each Packboard. In my admittedly limited experience, all the straps, cordage and the attachments were habitually carried with the packboard to allow for quick reconfiguration if you were backhauling something different than what you hauled up the first time. My research tells me this was the typical SOP for units using the boards routinely for sustainment.

Although not a standard item when the Plywood Packboard was in active service, there is another packframe accessory that is now used extensively by hunters in the U.S. that is certainly worth mentioning That is the nylon fabric / webbing “beavertail” attachment. Beavertails like Mystery Ranch’s “Load Sling” or the Kifaru “Cargo Panel” are tailored to fit those manufacturers’ proprietary packframes. But, because of their modular nature they can also be readily adapted to other frames. The Gregory SPEAR detachable Compression Panel is the only beavertail that the U.S. Military has issued with a full sized rucksack to date. (And as I have mentioned before, I am not in favor of these panels in that application since they are additive to a rucksack that is already carrying a full internal load.) The beavertail basically does what the separate straps or cordage did, i.e. cinch the load tight to the packframe effectively. A Beavertail attachment can also serve to reduce but not eliminate the need for a separate cargo support shelf.

I have a few examples of packframes and accessories on display in the group photo for demonstration purposes. Bottom left are two ALICE frames configured with two of the ALICE shelves each. One with two ammo cans and one with a “mission load” for my amateur lumberjack activities. Top left are two longer Canadian Military packframes I mated with U.S. MOLLE surplus suspensions. I’m referring to these as “Black Devil Packframes” in honor of the FSSF and the fact that these are also a U.S. / Canadian hybrid. One with cases of MREs secured with straps. The other has a soft load in a waterproof bag enclosed by the Kifaru Cargo Panel. Bottom right is a DEI 1606 frame with the smaller Gregory Compression Panel and a 40 mm can. Top right I also have a DEI 1603 frame set up in a manner similar to how the old school packboard would have been rigged with a cordage load. I have used orange 550 for better visibility. The 1603 is almost dimensionally identical to the Plywood Packboard including the curved sides. I short loaded the frame so that I could also illustrate how the cordage was usually carried wrapped around the top of the packboard when not in use. In the middle, from left to right, is the original issue Packboard Attachment. In the center is the cargo shelf that was developed for the tubular framed Lightweight Rucksack used in Vietnam. It seems to have been used mostly to carry radios rather than general supplies in country. And on the right is the even more effective ALICE Cargo Support Shelf. Note: all three of these shelves will work with the ALICE packframe.

In the course of putting this article together I have been reminded that the old plywood packboard system served a specific tactical purpose that is quite different from a general issue rucksack. That is why the ALICE system included straps and shelves to fill the packboard / packframe requirement. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, ALICE as issued performs poorly in that role. First the good news. The ALICE shelf is outstanding. Lightweight yet strong with multiple strap and cord lashing options. And it is simple to attach and detach yet is secure when mounted to the ALICE frame. The straps that come with ALICE are something of an improvement over the straps that came with the plywood packboards in that they are nylon instead of cotton webbing. But the buckle is finicky to put on and take off and is difficult to get secured tight enough on hard items. But the frame itself is the biggest shortcoming. Surface area matters when you are tasked to carry outsized and odd shaped loads. Because of its tubular and open nature and smaller overall size the ALICE frame doesn’t provide much area to work with. The smooth tubes don’t have any hooks, cleats or much in the way of built in attachment points to hold straps or cordage in place on the frame itself. Which is vital to stabilizing the load. The result is that the load gets shaken loose very easily if you use the issue straps alone. The result is that most people who ever used ALICE as a packframe lost confidence in their equipment and the concept itself. The DEI 1603 frame on the other hand has everything that ALICE doesn’t and would make an excellent packboard (the Canadian frame is even better IMO). Yet the MOLLE system only comes with Lashing Straps.

A number of manufacturers including DEI do make PALs panels or sleeves for their packframes, and even for the venerable ALICE frame. Intended primarily to support carrying breaching / rescue kit tools or “assault loads” of some kind and not for traditional packboard duties. None that I have seen even come with accessory cargo shelves. In fact, there is no modern cargo shelf available for the common modular packframes most widely used by the U.S. Military and available as surplus to civilians. The DEI 1603 and 1606 packframes. As I mentioned earlier, the shelf is actually meant to support the weight of the load rather than the tiedown device. It also serves to “lock” the load onto the packframe and prevent drooping or sagging. The cargo shelf should not be considered an optional item when carrying heavy and hard edged objects like weapon systems and metal ammo cans – or the newer technological items like robots and tactical drones.

Is a military packboard concept still relevant today? I’d say yes. There is still a lot of rugged terrain in this world we may have to someday seize and hold against determined and capable enemies. Whether we want to or not. I can certainly envision scenarios where U.S. and Allied forces could be required to face serious hybrid threats. A renewal of large scale hostilities on the Korean peninsula for example. That would likely be a semi-linear, quasi-conventional war of maneuver. Including robust enemy anti-air capabilities that would make direct aircraft resupply to the front lines too risky. In a fight like that, man packing bulk supplies and equipment may again become a necessity. Packframe systems including cargo shelves would be the right tool for that kind of job. At least commanders should have that option readily available in my professional opinion. With that in mind I contacted DEI just after Christmas and asked if they would be willing to prototype a polymer cargo shelf. Modeled after the excellent ALICE Cargo Support Shelf and designed to clip onto their packframes in the same fashion. To date I have not heard from them. I’ll keep trying. If DEI remains uninterested I will see if I can’t find someone else.

LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (RET) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments.

Next: Cargo Pockets.

In 2012 an old friend of mine, then a 2-Star, asked me if I could do a quick turn on a speech about the Oath of Office for an upcoming ROTC Graduation. This is what I came up with. I acknowledge that I liberally cribbed – without permission – most of the historical background from a well-researched article that Lt Col Kenneth Keskel, USAF did for the Air & Space Power Journal – Winter 2002. Since I did not profit from this speech in any way I can only hope that he would not be offended by this plagiarism. However, any grammatical mistakes or other errors are my responsibility. TLB

START: Thank you so much for inviting me to join you today. For those of you about to be commissioned, this moment in your life marks a significant accomplishment…and the beginning of a great adventure. For the last four years you have worked hard to earn the opportunity to lead. And as you take the Oath of Office in front of your classmates and families, I want you to reflect on the implications of the vow you are making. It is of significant importance to your future. I have been asked to speak briefly about what the Oath means to me and what it should mean to you.

You might not know that the specific wording of all government oaths – including those related to the military – is dictated by Congress but most haven’t been changed much since the 1880s. Moreover, the oath sworn by a commissioned officer is the same oath sworn by each newly elected member of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United State. But the “oath of office” that an officer takes is purposely and significantly different than the oath enlisted soldiers take. Some of you may have been previously enlisted but might not realize that there is a difference. If you haven’t looked at the two side by side you probably should.

As a legal matter, the offering and acceptance of a commission fall under a set of rules that are different from the rules governing enlistment contracts. This is one of the key reasons why officers are held to a different set of standards from enlisted soldiers – not necessarily “higher” standards, but different. Still, the oath represents more than a simple legal document or ceremonial formality; rather, it provides overarching guidance and a standard of moral and professional conduct. The Army’s core Values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage are explicitly and implicitly contained within the simple language of the Oath. The Oath represents a credo of immutable Principles that an officer LIVES every day in everything they do. I’m going to break it down now in a little more detail.

I, ________, Do Solemnly Swear (or Affirm). The oath begins with an option to swear or affirm. Recognizing that some individuals might object to “swearing” to a Supreme Being or that someone might not believe in a Supreme Being, Congress wisely provided the option to affirm. In fact, Article 2 of the Constitution itself provides the same option for the President to swear or affirm when taking his oath of office. In any case, the oath signifies a public statement of personal commitment. Officers must take personal responsibility for their own actions, the orders they issue and – to a great extent – any actions their subordinates take or fail to take.

That I Will Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States… To understand the opening pledge, one should have some knowledge of the content of the Constitution. If you haven’t already, I recommend that you take the time to read and study the document you will be swearing to support and defend. The oath deliberately requires officers to pledge loyalty to the Constitution – not the president, not the country, not the flag, and not a particular military service. Yet, at the same time, the Constitution embodies the office of president, the country, the flag, the military, and much more. It is the bedrock of our way of life, our system of government and the rule of laws by which citizens agree to be governed.

Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. This phrase was added in 1862 as a direct result of the Civil War – specifically in response to the issue of U.S. Army officers joining the Confederacy. That is, there were military officers who had previously sworn allegiance to the United States who were now in open rebellion against it. Today, post-Civil War laws referred to as “Posse Comitatus” sharply limit the Military’s ability to act in a domestic capacity or against US Citizens – and rightly so. However, the oath does demand that we remain ever vigilant to any threat that may develop from other nation-states, trans-nationals or non-state actors and prepare ourselves and our units to respond appropriately or provide support when directed to act.

That I Will Bear True Faith and Allegiance to the Same. This phrase epitomizes the idea of Selfless Service. Being ready, willing and able to put the welfare of the nation – and by clear extension – the Army and your subordinates before your own. In serving as an Army Officer, you are prepared to do your duty loyally without thought of personal recognition or gain. Bearing your “true faith” not just within the military structure but in support of the larger system of democratic government embodied in the Constitution. That is also why serving officers must always strive to be apolitical…and far removed in thought and deed from partisan politics…or even the appearance of partisanship.

That I Take This Obligation Freely, without Any Mental Reservation or Purpose of Evasion. This is the first phrase that clearly differentiates the soldier’s Oath of Enlistment and an Officer’s Oath of Office. Soldiers state: “that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice”; officers do not. Why is that? Officers are certainly required to obey orders from the chain of command and are subject to the UCMJ. However, this phrase acknowledges that unlike enlisted soldiers, even junior officers are required to routinely formulate and give orders – often on their own recognizance. Therefore, Officers are expected – and must be prepared – to judge their decisions against their own principles and convictions. More senior officers, bound by the exact same oath, often are required and entrusted to act strategically within broad guidance and without direct oversight.

It is a true blessing that the United States has never required its officers to obey orders “without question” or blindly but in fact demands an Officer act in accordance with his or her conscience. But with that latitude of action comes both responsibility and accountability for one’s decisions. In other words, it requires your integrity. An Oath means nothing to someone without integrity. Integrity is a learned trait and involves doing what’s right, legally and morally…always. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. Maintaining your personal integrity is implicit in the oath and must guide officers when they face conflicts of interest and hard choices.

And That I Will Well and Faithfully Discharge the Duties of the Office on Which I Am about to Enter. This clause is also unique to the Officer’s oath and epitomizes the Army’s core values of “duty” and “honor”. Officers are expected to be diligent and proactive; performing our duties to the best of our abilities, mastering our specialties while we are junior officers and then gaining depth and breadth in the science and art of war as we advance in rank. The vitality, progress and safety of the nation depends upon our doing so. In part, Army Values describe “Duty” as “fulfilling your obligations”. But doing your duty means more than simply carrying out your assigned tasks. Duty for an Officer means preparing yourself and your organization to be able to accomplish your mission as part of a larger team. And you must understand how your tactical success or failure fits into the larger operational and strategic context. As an Officer you maintain and enhance your professional reputation and “fulfill your obligation” with honor by living your Oath and the Army Values.

So Help Me God. The United States Constitution, (Article VI, section 3) provides “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. As with the option to “swear or affirm” at the beginning of the Oath, concerns over personal religious convictions and the separation of church and state sometimes clouds this final phrase. Nevertheless, as Officers, our actions always have important moral implications, even for those who don’t believe in the religious concept of a Supreme Being. And even atheists have a clear moral obligation from a societal perspective. Of note, the Constitution does not include the phrase so help me God in the President’s Oath. George Washington added those words when he took the first oath. So help me God became part of the officer oath in 1862, but the enlisted oath did not add these words until 1962.

The Congressional Record of 1962 described the intent this way: The words, “So help me God,” are not a part of the obligation assumed upon taking the oath. They constitute rather an assertion of sincerity to undertake the duties of military service in good faith and with the aid of the highest power recognized by the enlistee. It is directed solely to his or her personal conception of the almighty, whatever that may be or whatever it may not be. There is no effort to impose on the enlistee any established religious conception, or even to require his acknowledgement of any religious conception.” But please understand this; whether you swear or affirm…or ask for the assistance of a Supreme Being or not, by taking the oath you will have dedicated your life to the concept of selfless service and always choosing the “hard right over the easy wrong”.

Conclusion: If you watch current events you know that, unfortunately, not everyone – no matter how senior or how experienced – lives up to the ideals in the Oath all the time. I’m not going to make any excuses for that. It is unacceptable. But while we must all strive to live by the ideals of the oath every day…sometimes we (or senior leaders) fail to fully achieve that ideal. It might happen to you at some point in your career. It is a reminder that we are human…and fallible…none of us are perfect. But that doesn’t tarnish or lessen the importance of always striving toward the ideal. Taking the Oath dedicates each of us to a career (at least for the length of your service obligation) of SERVICE to the country and especially to our SOLDIERS. But also explicitly and ultimately to the National ideal as described in the Constitution. The Military defends the people and the physical boundaries of the country…to ensure the survival of that ideal above all else.

Living the Oath successfully requires unwavering commitment and Personal Courage. Personal courage means always standing up for and acting upon the things that you know are honorable. Your personal commitment to this ideal will be tested daily as you perform your duties as an officer. Hopefully I have provided you some things to think about during these last few minutes – or at least reminded you of things you have already been taught. Not just about the words in the Oath but the larger concept of obligation, duty and service. But if you are anything like I was when I was first commissioned, I suspect it will be some years before you truly UNDERSTAND what an incredible burden…and awesome privilege it is to serve as an Officer in the United States Army. May you lead honorably and well. Congratulations and Good Luck! END

LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (RET) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments.