Don’t Fall for It: Marine Colonel’s Resignation Letter Was a Move of PR Over Principle

There’s a respected tradition of men who stand publicly in their own name and resign in protest to call public attention to corruption beyond their ability to fix. It takes an especially bold person to take that route when done in the context of being a member of the military. The institution does not like independent thought. Its default position is to consider loyal critique treasonous and exact a price from those who prove true to their oaths over the politics of the moment. Patriots who put their oath above politics often pay a heavy price. That’s why it’s so rare to see dissent expressed from those who serve.

On October 16th, Marine Colonel Doug Krugman attempted to paint himself in the light of a bold warrior standing up for truth by publishing a commentary in The Washington Post titled “I resigned from the military because of Trump.” His thesis was that President Donald Trump is by far the worst commander in chief of his military tenure, making continued service untenable for a man of conscience. But the performance proved one of ambition over bravery.

Before engaging in points of debate, I acknowledge Krugman’s service during the time of the post-9/11 forever-war industry our policymakers have chosen. Like me and so many other Americans, he sacrificed for the nation. For that, I tip my hat, one veteran to another. Nevertheless, this commentary was conveniently timed and worded in a way that ensures the now-retired colonel has nothing to lose. Though Krugman’s service may have been marked by patriotism, the words of protest he submitted to the Post ring more indicative of partisan fidelity. In his own words, the essay reflects his “strengths in strategic communications,” as he noted on LinkedIn. I seek not to question the colonel’s admiration for the Constitution. But his argument, and its timing, offer reasons to doubt his sincerity of principle.

If Krugman’s loyalty were solely to the Constitution and the rule of law, he could have sounded off on 24 years of going to war without a Congressional declaration of one. Perhaps he would have spoken up about the illegality of the COVID mandates, the devastating ripples of which are still widely felt across the veterans’ community. Maybe we would have heard the colonel speak up about the double jeopardy of the military justice system that strips American citizens in uniform of constitutional rights in legal proceedings. A principled military leader seeking to shed light on injustice might have said something about the scourge of unlawful command influence plaguing the ranks, which imposes legal terror on military service members put in the crosshairs to satisfy the political ambitions of certain lawmakers.

The colonel did not cite a single illegal order issued by President Trump in his editorial, nor a single instance of being forced to work in missions that violated his ethical compass. Krugman seems to have written this piece not out of principle, but in an attempt to grab national attention—Vindman-style. His list of reasons for judging Trump an unqualified commander in chief includes allegedly denying sanctuary to Afghans who helped U.S. forces. Yet he willingly continued serving under President Biden, the man who ordered the hasty abandonment of Afghanistan in time to declare the mission complete by the 20th anniversary of 9/11.

Curiously, Krugman had nothing to say about the moral injury military members suffered under rules that prohibited them from interfering with subhuman practices in that land—including child rape—by many among our so-called “partners,” a tragic reality well explained by Lt. Col. Adam D’Ortona. Then-Lt. Col. Stu Scheller was left to face the Pentagon’s institutional wrath alone for speaking out about the lethal consequences for the hastily-ordered, chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that left so many of those who had helped U.S. forces behind.

Predictably, Krugman’s essay also offers a reminder that too many among our military officers are trained to believe that American forces are best used as pawns in overseas missions that lack tangible connection to our own nation’s security. Accordingly, he adheres to the belief that it’s morally wrong to use U.S. military forces to help secure the U.S. homeland from—as the oath states—enemies foreign and domestic.

Then there’s the issue of timing. What risk did Col. Krugman take to castigate the president as unfit for command? The answer is none at all. He wrote this rebuke safely in retirement, admitting having made the decision to conclude his military career several months ago, under a presidential administration that is itself months old. Krugman “gave up” his military career as a full colonel to take a lifelong pension. That is a high rank for most military officers to retire from. Only the smallest percentage are brought into the caste of generals. It is hardly possible to find a safer place from which to conclude one’s military career. Krugman’s military and veterans’ benefits will provide just fine for the rest of his life, not counting what he might earn over the course of a second career.

Unlike this colonel who retires with a comfortable, life-long income, thousands of morally principled among the troops were either kicked out or left voluntarily, because of clearly illegal mandates not so long ago. I know several, leaders like former Air Force Capt. Daniel Knick, Col. Brandi King, Former Army Major Brendan Regan, Former Army Capt. John Frankman, and former Army Lieutenant Mark Bashaw. Some kicked out, some leaving to preserve conscience, they departed military service without the benefit of a pension.

Many among the over 8,000 troops forcibly terminated received negative discharge characterizations written by commanders who not only wanted to end their military careers, but vindictively wanted to make it much more difficult to start over. These patriots departed under harsh conditions because of true conscience. Krugman, in contrast, departed in a state of convenience and made his curtain call into a public relations stunt. Predictably, the Post’s editorial staff was all too eager to offer the stage for such a performance.

The reader should always beware the protest action that costs nothing to the individual involved. Krugman has every right to voice his objections to administration policies. But bravery is found among those who have something to lose, the kind of people whose cost is their lives. Col. Krugman served and is most deserving of the fruits of constitutionalism for it. But turning this officer’s curtain call into an ideological swipe should be recognized for what it is.

There are profiles in courage from patriots whose principles demand sacrifice all around us. But you won’t find them in the editorial pages of The Washington Post.

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.