In two tweets Saturday, President Trump charged Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman with “insubordination,” “leaking information,” and “bad judgment.”
He further charged Vindman with failing to adhere to the chain of command and mischaracterizing the contents of his [Trump’s] “prefect” call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.
These charges are demonstrably false and say far more about Trump and his bad political judgment than they do anything about Vindman. However, because so much about U.S. civil-military relations is poorly understood, even within the U.S. military, it is worth explaining in some detail why these are charges are utterly groundless.
Origins. The charges arose last fall during the impeachment hearings. Tony Morrison, a Trump political appointee and Republican politico from Capitol Hill, had been brought onto the National Security Council (NSC) and served briefly as Vindman’s supervisor. He testified that he had concerns about Vindman’s “judgment.”
But Fiona Hill a professional Russian and foreign policy expert, who was Vindman’s supervisor before Morrison and for a much longer period of time than Morrison, clarified that their concern over Vindman’s “judgment” was specifically a concern about his domestic political judgment, and not a general concern about Vindman’s judgement as a Russian and Ukraine foreign policy professional serving on the National Security Council.
Here’s what Hill told Congress:
[Lieutenant] Colonel Vindman is a highly distinguished [and] decorated military officer. He came over to us from the chairman’s office in the Joint Chiefs of Staff…
I did not feel that he had the political antennae to deal with something that was straying into domestic politics. Not everyone is suited for that. That does not mean in any way that I was questioning his overall judgment. Nor was I questioning in any way his substantive expertise.
He is excellent on issues related to Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, on Russian defense issues. He’d been in charge of the Russian campaign, thinking though at the Chairman’s office and in the Pentagon.
This was a very specific issue: because by June, we saw that things were diverging, and you needed a completely different sensitivity…
Mr. Morrison had come from Capitol Hill. He knew politics inside and out; and we said that Colonel Vindman did not. And we were concerned about how he would manage what was becoming a highly charged and potentially partisan issue, which it had not been before.
In other words, Vindman was doing a superb job, but seemed unwilling to compromise his integrity and his work product to meet the political demands of Trump and Rudy Giuliani, who were determined to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and Burisma.
That’s at least how I interpret this concern over “judgment” in light of the impeachment hearings, Hill’s testimony, and everything we now know. Indeed, during his Congressional testimony Vindman read from his military fitness report signed by Hill:
Alex is a top 1% military officer and the best army officer I have worked with in my 15 years of government service. He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment… He was exemplary during numerous visits…
So much for the concern over Vindman’s “judgment”—which, in any case, is a bureaucratic weasel word designed to deprecate high-achievers who refuse to stay in their bureaucratic box. As the Air Force puts it, “if you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target.”
If Vindman wasn’t causing consternation among bureaucrats and partisan political operatives like Morrison, then he wouldn’t have been doing his job.
‘Leaking.’ As for the charge that Vindman leaked classified information, there has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever put forth to support this smear; and Vindman directly and specifically denied the charge in sworn Congressional testimony, calling it “preposterous… I never did [that and I] never would,” he said.
It is true that Vindman reported to the NSC’s top lawyer that he had concerns about Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman was concerned because, as he explained in his testimony:
It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent…
It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued investigations into the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermining U.S. national security and advancing Russia’ strategic objectives in the region.
As a result of voicing his concern through official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command, Vindman was later subpoenaed by Congress. He did not expect this nor did he seek it, but it happened. And when U.S. military officers are called before Congress, they have a solemn obligation to come forth and tell the truth.
Pace Trump, that is not “leaking”; it is “testifying,” and it is the right and honorable thing to do.
‘Insubordination.’ And there is nothing “insubordinate” about testifying before Congress. U.S. military officers do not take an oath to the Commander-in-Chief. They take an oath to the Constitution of the United States. Their obligation is to the rule of law, not to the dictates or demands of any one man, even the president.
Nor did Vindman mischaracterize Trump’s “perfect” call with Zelensky. Quite the opposite: everything we’ve learned about the call—from the transcript itself and from a myriad of apolitical and nonpartisan witnesses—confirms that it is what Vindman said it was: inappropriate, and that’s putting it mildly.
As Vindman’s attorney, David Pressman, succinctly put it: Trump’s charges “conflict with the clear personnel record and the entirety of the impeachment record of which the President is well aware.”
Unfortunately, facts have never stopped Trump from deliberately lying and smearing those he perceives to be his enemies.
Still, it is important that we all realize: far from exercising “bad judgment,” Vindman instead exercised superior judgment: by sharing his concerns about Trump’s call with his chain of command and testifying truthfully and dispassionately before Congress. And, far from being “insubordinate,” Vindman instead was loyal to the country and the citizenry whom he serves.
Good on him and Godspeed.
Feature photo credit: Barcroft (via Getty Images) and Alamy Live News via the Daily Mail.