Recent open letter from 55 retired generals and flag officers rebuke Trump; say that his comments about groping women would make the problem of sexual harassment in the military even more difficult to solve.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/dozens-of-retired-military-brass-decry-donald-trump-1476784982
As valid as their criticisms and assessment are, I wish more retired generals would follow former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Dempsey’s lead and not be so public (both in their speech and in using their rank) in their criticisms of candidates for federal political office, particularly the highest one.
By using their former position and retired rank, particularly as direct surrogates and advocates for a candidate as Gen Allen and LTG Flynn have done, it drags the military itself into the political process and away from the officially neutral role it has more or less cultivated in the last 30 years (despite service members themselves being largely conservative and Republican-leaning). Presidents will be wondering which military leaders and advisors they can fully trust, wondering if any move or discussion they disagree with will cause them to retire shortly and begin campaigning for any rival in their re-election or successor campaign.
Disagree. Generals should absolutely stay neutral while they are active duty. After they leave office they are private citizens and are free to say what they want, their previous rank makes them more qualified to talk about the candidates policies on the military, it would be a loss to the democratic process to not have the benefit of that experience in the discussion of the strengths of the candidates.
When they’re talking about issues that directly impact the military, they absolutely have far more expertise (and should be regarded as such) than pretty much anyone else, especially in this example. Upper echelons are very much concerned with military morale, and anything that bears on it is within their purview. Harassment has been a thing for many years; it was part and parcel of regulations promulgated to every member of the Navy when I served in the '80’s.
Aside from that, command personnel have just as much right to speak out on other issues as any private citizen once they’ve retired.
Loved the ‘misogynist-in-chief’ thing, by the way.
Annnnd another likely lawsuit. Trump is going to be busy. As luck would have it, the presidency would be a distraction he doesn’t have time for.
And then he’ll discover that politicians aren’t covered by libel laws in quite the same way. I’d love to see him throw wads of cash at it (and then the judge’s reaction), though.
I do not get these arguments. No one should be forced to be neutral. Everyone has the right to vote and the freedom of speech to tell people about it. Social probation is not a tool to disenfranchise.
Soldiers aren’t automatons. They.are people who volunteered to take a job. It’s disgraceful how much they are silenced already. Our military is defending our rights and thus should have our rights.
If the military is worried that some people think some of their (former) employees are being seen as speaking for them, they have the freedom of speech to say otherwise.
I agree. They have the right to, but healthy democratic norms are a lot about not doing stuff you have the right to. Exhibit A in another context is Trump and how he comports himself (in the campaign, not even considering past misconduct).
I don’t like the recent political competitions about which presidential candidate can get the longest list of retired flag officers supporting them and condemning the other. And I think this can be differentiated easily from retired flag officers commenting on military issues.
Also IMO the success Republicans had for a long time painting the Democrats as anti-military, which had an element of truth to it in the Vietnam era, has resulted in a situation where neither side will criticize general officers either in specific or in general. By convention now everything has to be civilian leadership’s fault. And it is ultimately civilian leaderships responsibility to have an effective military. But one reason we keep losing wars might indeed be shortcomings in the senior officer corps, something we could never correct if the convention is always blame failure in strategy, operations and tactics 100% on the civilian leadership. Not criticizing the uniformed military (though of course we have a right to do that too, none of this is a matter of rights), has become an unhealthy norm IMO.
For current members of the military, there’s an inherent conflict of interest in voicing political beliefs publicly, especially when it comes to the choice of a potential commander-in-chief. The Founding Fathers intended for the federal military to be controlled by civilian authority. Attempting to sway the selection of that civilian authority crosses the line for a serviceman.
Just to note that while Trump loves to trot out having “200 retired admirals and generals” in his camp, that is only about 3% of the total number of retired flag officers, and about 300 less than endorsed Mitt Romney.
Heh. Trump is to flag officers as 9/11 truth is to engineers.
Do those of you who say retired officers shouldn’t speak about their political opinions also believe that scientists shouldn’t speak about science?
The thread title reminds me of Kids in the Hall. “30 Helens agree: Donald Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about on national defence!”
Free and open thought among soldiers is, like it or not, not always conducive to an effective military.
Out of service, like these retired generals, they should voice their opinion.
What complete bullshit. The military has a sexual harassment problem, and these guys want to blame it on someone else. If you have concerns about how Trump will handle military affairs (no pun intended), I’m all ears. You guys are the experts. On this? I don’t need you to tell me Trump is a slime ball.
Military officers/politics, scientists/ science: the asymmetry of your analogy hints at the answer. I think retired flag officers should comment on military matters, and scientists comment on science. I see a negative in either of them commenting on partisan politics using their authority as flag officers or scientists respectively. Of course that doesn’t include people of any profession who want to actually become politicians. And though it should go without saying, it’s not a question of legal rights.
I think the combined norm we’ve developed now of on one hand ‘don’t criticize our military it’s the best in the world period, and any problem is 100% civilian leadership’s fault’ and on the other these competitive lists of retired flag officers supporting particular candidates, is a negative one. That’s all.
And this comes from your extensive inside knowledge from having served in the military? Yeah, I thought not.
Yep, the military has issues dealing with sexual harassment, as does the majority of the rest of society. Trump being president would exacerbate those issues. Try actually reading the article before shooting off your mouth.