The Rescinding of COVID Vaccine Mandate for the Armed Forces Members
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
American Military University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
410
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by SuperHumanLobster3874
Page 1
The Rescinding of COVID Vaccine Mandate for the Armed Forces Members
Scott Lloyd American Military/Public University
BUSN 410
: Critical Thinking in Business Decisions
Professor
Linda M Council
December 20, 2023
Page 2
The CNN article discusses the official rescission of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for U.S. Armed Forces personnel, enacted by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin following the passage of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The mandate's removal was a victory for Republicans who argued it hampered recruitment, while the Pentagon and White House opposed it, fearing its impact on deployment and readiness. Austin's memo clarified that other vaccine requirements remain in place and commanders can consider vaccination status for deployment decisions. Troops facing separation for refusing the vaccine will receive general discharges but can petition for record corrections.
Three main premises are being inferred throughout the CNN article. (1) The Legal Mandate, (2) A Political Division, and (3) Operational Readiness. 1.
The Legal Mandate
: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) directed the rescission of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for Armed Forces personnel, leaving no
room for the Department of Defense (DOD) to continue the requirement. This is presented as the primary driving force behind the decision.
2.
Political Division:
Republicans strongly opposed the mandate, arguing it negatively impacted recruitment. In contrast, the Pentagon and White House supported the mandate for its potential benefits in maintaining its members’ health and readiness.
3.
Operational Readiness:
Commanding Officers and Commanders need the ability to consider vaccination status when making deployment and operational decisions. This acknowledges the potential logistical and health implications of deployment in relation to unvaccinated personnel.
Page 3
Some of the evidence presented directly was clear, credible, and direct to the point. However, some evidence was inferred or indirectly supported with little or no evidence. The direct evidence cited or referenced the NDAA’s contents and the Secretary of Defense Austin's memo. 1.
National Defense Authorization Act
: The article cites the National Defense Authorization Act as the legal mandate forcing the rescission of the vaccine mandate. This is a credible source as it's an official government document. Jim Garamone, from DOD News wrote, “
One of the more contentious items in the act is requiring the defense secretary to rescind the mandate that members of the armed forces be vaccinated against COVID-19.” 2.
The Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s Memo: from January 10
th
, 2023, the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act requirement(s) and future policies. In the memo, the Defense Secretary wrote, “Section 525 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2023 requires me to rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19” (Britzky, 2023). The indirect evidence mentioned but only slightly supported is as follows: 1.
Republican Arguments
: The article mentions Republicans' opposition to the mandate, citing concerns about recruitment. However, the specific details or data supporting these claims are lacking. This makes them less credible and requires external verification. What should have been added is an article from the Marine Corps Times. The article stated the following, “
There’s still myths
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Page 4
and misbeliefs about the backstory behind it,” General David Berger said during a panel discussion hosted by the Reagan National Defense Forum on public confidence in, and recruitment for, the military. “And it’s still having an impact in certain areas of the country on recruiting.”
2.
Pentagon and White House positions: The editorial states the Pentagon and White House supported the mandate due to its potential impact on health and readiness, but again, specific evidence or data is not provided. This weakens the credibility of these claims without further investigation. Meghann Myers from the Military Times
wrote, “Officials
warned that repealing it would affect military readiness
, potentially putting service members at risk of serious illness. DoD officials believe the shots worked: Not a single service member has died of COVID-19 since early 2022
when more than 98% of the active-duty force had been at least partially vaccinated.
The weakness of this article is the counterarguments. The underlying counterargument appears to be support for the COVID-19 vaccine, with the White House calling the removal of the vaccine requirements a “mistake,” however President Biden signed the bill anyway. There was no evidence to support the effectiveness of the vaccine in the article. The additional counterargument with no support was military readiness. According to the article, one further concern was, “what
kind of impact it would have on the military’s ability to deploy or rotate
through host nations, some of which have their own vaccine requirements” (Britzky, 2023). None of these counterarguments were supported by any evidence throughout the article.
Page 5
The article's author attempts to appear to be neutral to a certain point… While the writer strives for objectivity, a slight, implicit leaning towards the Pentagon and White House's perspective on the mandate's benefits for health and readiness is deduced. Ultimately, while hints
of a possible alignment with the Pentagon and White House's stance can be detected, conclusive evidence of the writer's specific interest is lacking. The language the author uses is formal and avoids inflammatory or opinionated language, typical of journalistic writing aiming for neutrality. Technical terms are clearly explained, proposing the writer wants to be accessible to a
broad audience without
favoring a specific group. The lack of language discussing a deeper exploration of arguments, particularly those against the mandate's removal, could be interpreted as a subtle lean towards the official Pentagon and White House position. The article referenced does contain some weaknesses in knowledge, evidence, and thinking in my opinion.
Knowledge
: The “Impact on Recruitment” …There is no concrete evidence presented to support the claim that the mandate hindered recruitment, while Pentagon officials argue they have no evidence to support this. The article could benefit from mentioning studies or statistics on recruitment trends before and after the mandate to provide a more objective picture. Moreover, the concern about “Deployment Readiness” … While the article mentions commanders' ability to consider vaccination status for deployment, it lacks details on how this might impact readiness or logistical challenges in countries with
vaccine requirements. Further elaboration on existing policies and potential adjustments would be helpful.
Page 6
Evidence
: The “
Pentagon's concerns” …The article mentions the Pentagon's concerns about the mandate's removal but lacks specific data or examples to illustrate the potential risks to health or readiness. Providing concrete evidence would strengthen the credibility of their argument. Additionally, the “
White House opposition” …While the White House's disagreement is mentioned, the article doesn't delve into their specific reasoning beyond deeming it a "mistake." Exploring their specific concerns and potential consequences of the removal would offer a more balanced perspective.
Thinking
: reading the article, we associate the mandate's removal with a potential recruitment boost for Republicans, but this could be a generalization. Other factors might have influenced recruitment trends, and the article lacks an analysis of potential contributing factors. The article primarily focuses on the Republican argument and the official stance, with less emphasis on counterarguments or potential downsides of the removal. Including perspectives from public health experts or individuals opposed to the decision would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.
The author of the article uses several types of appeals for his/her audience and commits several “potential” fallacies throughout the editorial. The following appeals were noted:
Logic and Reason: The article outlines the legal requirement for the mandate's removal from the NDAA, presenting a clear cause-and-effect chain justifying the decision.
Authority: References to Secretary Austin's memo and official Defense Department statements lend credibility to the presented information.
Neutrality: For the most part, the article maintains a formal tone and avoids strong emotional language, aiming for objectivity in presenting differing viewpoints.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Page 7
Consequence: Mentioning potential implications of the removal on deployment and readiness, subtly urging consideration of potential downsides.
The writer avoided so-called obvious fallacies. However, some subtle hints of potential fallacies like false dilemmas and generalizations are present. The potential fallacies are as follows:
False Dilemma: The article suggests a two-fold choice between Republican victory and Pentagon/White House concerns.
Hasty Generalization: Assigning potential future recruitment success solely to the mandate's removal could be an oversimplification.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Linking the mandate's removal to potential future problems in deployment or readiness might require further clarification to avoid assuming a connection without sufficient evidence.
Overall, the editorial provides a basic understanding of the situation and presents
key facts from different perspectives. However, its lack of in-depth analysis, limited evidence, and oversimplification of complex issues make it moderately persuasive. To fully grasp the effects of the mandate's removal, I had to research additional sources that offered more evidence-
based analysis and diverse viewpoints.
Page 8
References
Britzky, H. (2023, January 11).
Pentagon officially rescinds COVID-19 vaccine requirement for troops |
CNN Politics
. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/military-covid-vaccine-
rescinded/index.html
Garamone, J. (2022, December 23).
Biden Signs National Defense Authorization Act Into Law
. U.S. Department of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3252968/
biden-signs-national-defense-authorization-act-into-law/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20testament
%20to
Loewenson, I. (2022, December 5).
COVID-19 vaccine mandate is affecting recruitment, top Marine says
. Marine Corps Times. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2022/12/05/covid-19-vaccine-
mandate-is-affecting-recruitment-top-marine-says/
Myers, M. (2023, March 27).
The fallout of the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate
. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/27/the-fallout-of-the-militarys-
covid-19-vaccine-mandate/
Press, A. (2023, January 10).
Pentagon drops Covid-19 vaccine mandate for troops
. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/10/pentagon-drops-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-for-
troops-00077364