Napoleon stated that every French private carried a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. But American soldiers have always carried in their backpacks the U.S. Constitution they are sworn to "uphold and protect."  For while some of their liberties may have been curtailed under the conditions of military service, most remain fully exercisable -- and none so vigorously as freedom of speech.

American soldiers since the revolution have horrified authoritarian military commanders by loudly questioning their orders and the reasons for them, writing to their congressional representatives and the president of the United States, as well as mom and dad, their significant others, and the local newspaper, if things didn't make sense to them.

So at first the letters coming out of the 503rd Airborne's 2nd Battalion to local newspapers seemed like normal enough phenomena. The 503rd had been working hard to improve life in the Kirkuk area of northern Iraq, and there had been a lot of complaints that all the news media seemed to want to cover were the latest casualty reports in classic "If it bleeds, it leads" fashion.

So what could be more natural for a Beckley, W.Va., newspaper editor than to pick up a particularly well-written letter from a hometown soldier named Nick Deaconson explaining all that his unit was doing to try to rebuild Kirkuk for the Iraqis and print it. His dad was so proud of his son's work he congratulated him on it. There was only one problem. Deaconson hadn't written it or even seen the letter. "What letter?" he asked his dad.

And the mystery deepened. 

A reporter found the same letter published in at least 11 hometown papers under different names -- all from the 503rd. Some soldiers had seen the letter sent out over their names. Some had not. Many agreed with its sentiments, but that is not really the point. 

The real issue is a major abuse of command influence. Where did these hundreds of letters come from? Public affairs Sgt. Todd Oliver at the 503rd host 173rd Airborne Brigade said he was told a soldier wrote the letter but he "doesn't know who." Another soldier stated that his platoon sergeant had distributed the form letters and asked for the names of their hometown newspapers and men willing to sign it.

Platoon sergeants of airborne units in combat situations have no end of time-consuming duties. But one of them is not distributing form letters for hundreds of soldiers to sign lobbying newspapers back in the United States for better public relations for the Army. Someone ordered that platoon sergeant to do that. That someone turns out to have been the 2nd battalion commander of the 503rd Airborne, Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo. His explanation to his superiors was: "The letter was purely an effort made by soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry to afford our soldiers an opportunity to let their respective hometowns know what they are accomplishing here in Kirkuk," which is "purely" a blatant lie. The effort was totally Caraccilo's, whose soldiers were dragooned into being stooges for his private PR campaign by his direct orders.

 The military has no plans to discipline Caraccilo because in its view his intentions were "honorable."

American troops just fought and defeated a politicized Iraqi army, which, according to a study currently under way at the Army War College, was demoralized and ineffective partly because the opinions and judgments of its troops had been turned into an echo chamber for their leaders. 

It is always a temptation for American military leaders to test the line of command authority "for a good cause." Pressuring their units to participate "voluntarily 100 percent" in a blood or charity drive is one of the more familiar ones every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine knows all too well. But the fake letter campaign crosses the line. This is the equivalent of debiting soldiers' pay without their knowledge or consent for some "good cause" -- in the sole opinion of their commander. 

Caraccilo's conspiracy to hide his personal lobbying campaign behind his soldiers' names may be understandable, but it is certainly not "honorable." In fact it is indictable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. To Caraccilo on the front lines in Kirkuk, American media coverage may look like a dirge of failure while he feels he is seeing remarkable successes. It is only human to want to get a better hearing. 

Which is precisely what individual soldiers, including Caraccilo, can elect to do on their own initiative by their letters, phone calls and write-in votes. A good leader can encourage his men to express their own opinions. But commanders have no right to steal the rights and responsibilities of their troops. To do so threatens the very basis of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and protect. In our system of government power is vested in the individual. God help us when elite Army airborne units start to have "opinions." History has been down that road too many times. 

To protect the troops of the 503rd and remind commanders everywhere of the gravity of this kind of offense against their own oath of office and the troops they command, the Defense Department should take action to punish Caraccilo, speedily and publicly.

 Their commander in chief, the president of the United States, after all, has sworn "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" at his inauguration.  If our defense establishment is going to be allowed to forget its oath of office, we  have far more serious problems than the grandiose delusions of an "unapologetic" Lt. Col. Caraccilo.

Thomas H. Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future, a New York-based public policy institute, former president of  (New York) Times Books and Oregon Magazine's Berlin bureau chief.

© 2003 Thomas Lipscomb