Letters to the editor
In recent discussions, a provocative issue has emerged regarding the relationship between military orders and political influence, particularly surrounding the National Guard’s role in major cities. Critics argue that some Democratic leaders have resorted to urging military personnel to disobey orders from their superiors, a move that raises concerns about the integrity of military command and discipline. This situation suggests a significant breakdown in traditional legislative negotiation methods, with some politicians appealing directly to service members as a means of undermining President Trump’s policies. The ramifications of such actions could be severe, potentially leading to young National Guard members facing court-martial or dishonorable discharges for refusing lawful orders, all because elected officials failed to engage in meaningful dialogue and governance.
The implications of this approach extend beyond military discipline; they touch on the broader issues of governance and accountability. One commentator, Lee Lessard from Dracut, emphasizes that this tactic not only jeopardizes the careers of service members but also reflects a troubling trend of political leaders abdicating their responsibilities. The potential for confusion among National Guard members about what constitutes a lawful order could disrupt the chain of command and erode trust within military ranks. This situation exemplifies the challenges facing contemporary political discourse, where partisan divides can lead to dangerous precedents in military and civic engagement.
In a separate yet equally pressing matter, concerns regarding Social Security funding have been raised, highlighting the disparity between the benefits received by retired members of Congress and those of average citizens. Paul Quaglia from Billerica points out that while Congress continues to delay action on the Social Security crisis, retirees from Congress enjoy substantial pensions often with minimal service. This inequity underscores the urgent need for constituents to hold their representatives accountable, especially as Social Security faces impending funding challenges. The message is clear: voters must advocate for their interests and demand action from those in power to ensure the sustainability of this essential program. The intersection of these issues reveals a larger narrative about accountability, governance, and the responsibilities of elected officials to their constituents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KahPH6oc12I
Refusing orders
This issue is without a doubt the lowest attack the Democrats have launched yet against President Trump’s policies. Because their party can’t engage and negotiate with President Trump through normal legislative channels regarding use of the National Guard in major cities, they have now stooped to appealing directly to members of our military to disobey orders of their superior officers.
So, how does this play out? One way is that rank and file members of the National Guard could perceive the video as permission to decide on their own what is, or isn’t, a lawful order from their commanders.
This scenario could very well result in gullible young men, or women, being court-martialed and dishonorably discharged from service for refusing to obey an order, because some cowardly senator or representative couldn’t find the wherewithal to do the job they were elected to do.
Lee Lessard
Dracut
Social Security
It would be interesting if retired members of Congress were told their pensions would be cut by 24% the same day Social Security was to be cut. Many of those folks are collecting large pensions that they qualify for at age 62 with only 5 years of service while most Social Security recipients work for years to receive a much lower payout.
I am sure they would be screaming and demand action so this won’t happen, yet Congress continues to kick the can down the road on the Social Security funding crisis. It is time for seniors to wake up and vote out the people in Congress that continue to sit on their hands as Social Security funding heads for the cliff.
Paul Quaglia
Billerica
Ceasefire
Re: the Associated Press article “Israel launches strikes in ceasefire’s latest test” (Boston Herald, Nov. 23): Israel’s strikes were indeed another test of the ceasefire with Hamas, but not quite in the way misleadingly implied by the AP.
Hamas has been constantly violating the terms of the ceasefire, with its failure, more than six weeks after the start of the ceasefire, to return all the hostages it kidnapped Oct. 7, 2023 despite the agreement that it would do so within 72 hours, being one of its smallest, albeit more dramatic, violations.
The only party making Hamas pay any price for its constant violations is Israel, whose enforcement of the terms provides the only hope that that ceasefire will endure and lead to the disarmament of Hamas and destruction of its terror infrastructure. Unless those provisions are enforced, this ceasefire will simply repeat the failures of all previous ceasefires, leading once again to the rearming and strengthening of Hamas and yet another destructive war with its attendant devastation in Gaza.
It’s ironic that Israel, whose citizens were the target of Hamas’
barbaric Oct. 7 slaughter, provides the best hope for the
self-induced misery of the people of Gaza being replaced by normal, peaceful and productive lives.
Alan Stein
Founder, PRIMER-Massachusetts (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting) as well as PRIMER-Israel and president emeritus of PRIMER-Connecticut
Newton, MA and Netanya, Israel
