Posted on 09/08/2004 2:36:26 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
Merrill "Tony" McPeak doesn't like George W. Bush. But it's more than that. McPeak has contempt for the president, which he freely expresses. Speaking from his home in Oregon, the John Kerry partisan describes Bush in terms usually employed by the likes of MoveOn.org. "Not even his best friends would accuse this president of having ideas," McPeak says. Mild stuff in the age of Michael Moore. Except that McPeak's first name is General.
The former Air Force chief of staff is not the only general describing the president in such vivid terms. On behalf of the Kerry campaign, an entire phalanx of generals--McPeak, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili, former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe Wesley Clark, Army Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, and a parade of eight others that the Kerry campaign set loose at the martial-themed Democratic convention in July--has taken to the airwaves in what a Kerry press release trumpets as an "unprecedented display of support from the military establishment." They've been touting Kerry's war record, and the president's lack of one, ever since.
This week, the Bush team responded in kind, boasting of 100 admirals and generals who have endorsed the president. And, though the Democratic convention had to make do with an address by the mild-mannered Shalikashvili, Republicans gathered in New York were treated to the folksy Texas wisdom of Army General Tommy Franks, fresh from invading Afghanistan and Iraq and barely out of uniform. Like Kerry's generals, Bush's generals--who include former Air Force Chief of Staff Ronald Fogelman, former Marine Corps Commandant P.X. Kelley, and Medal of Honor recipient Army General Pat Brady--won't confine themselves to touting the martial prowess of their chosen candidate. They'll also tear his opponent to pieces.
Thus begins a quadrennial ritual, in which the two campaigns vie to squeeze as many generals as possible onto their convention podiums and into our TV sets. And this year, the competition is fiercer than ever. "It really tells you something about John Kerry," says one of his aides, "that so many high-ranking officers would line up behind him." Not so, says Brady. "There are a miniscule number of general officers supporting Kerry," he says, "and I've talked to three times that number who support Bush." During a presidential contest in which both sides have embraced militarism as a campaign theme, such statements may not seem particularly notable. Over the long term, however, showcasing generals in the political arena harms both the services and the civilians who must control them.
Until a decade ago, the practice of senior officers endorsing politicians was virtually unheard of. True, from Ulysses S. Grant to Dwight Eisenhower, the United States boasts a long tradition of generals endorsing themselves. But, when a general runs for president, he openly presents himself as a partisan. Absent is any pretense of neutrality and, hence, any room to create the impression that, because a retired officer endorses candidate X, that candidate enjoys the unanimous support of the military establishment. In fact, in his 1957 book The Soldier and the State, Samuel P. Huntington estimated that, in the period following the rise of a professional officer class during the Civil War, not one in 500 officers even cast a ballot. Nearly a century later, General George C. Marshall refused to vote while on active duty, making no secret of his rigid neutrality. Rather, the principle of subordination to civilian control and nonpartisanship at the heart of American military professionalism encouraged retired officers to follow the lead of General Omar Bradley, who opted to "hold my tongue and keep my name out of the papers." This nonpartisan ethos began to erode after Vietnam, with the advent of the all-volunteer--and, because of self-selection, increasingly conservative--force, which embraced, and was embraced by, a GOP that billed itself as the defender of the military.
This mutual admiration intensified during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies, but the clearest evidence that partisanship had infected even the most senior generals came, oddly enough, in the form of a Democratic endorsement. In 1992, Bill Clinton persuaded former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Crowe to support him publicly during the height of the controversy over whether Clinton had avoided the Vietnam draft. (Crowe was rewarded with an ambassadorship to Great Britain.) Picking up where Clinton left off, Bush rolled out the endorsement of no less than 27 flag-rank officers in 2000, prompting an Al Gore aide to remark to The New York Times, "This is the kind of thing you see in the Third World--all these generals lining up behind politicians." Today, by contrast, neither Bush nor Kerry share Gore's compunctions. While Bush has continued collecting generals, Kerry, too, has been wooing them for over a year--in green rooms, dinners at his Georgetown mansion, and phone calls from the candidate and his national security adviser, Rand Beers. Nor did Kerry's quest end with the Democratic convention; he continues to solicit endorsements from the brass culled from lists of officers put together by his own generals.
For their part, many generals say that, while they would prefer to remain nonpartisan, today the stakes are too great to remain silent. In fact, retired generals in both the Bush and Kerry camps agree on two points. First, that active-duty officers have no right to engage in partisan political activity; and second, that they themselves have every right to do so. Even Christman, a former superintendent of West Point, sees no harm in offering his endorsement to Kerry. "There's a clear red line between officers on active duty and retired officers," Christman says. "But, after retirement, there is no reason we cannot participate in the political process." Echoing this assessment, Brady says, "The idea that a retired general officer loses his citizenship is insane."
But the issue isn't sanity; it's propriety. To begin with, the line distinguishing retired generals from active-duty generals isn't so clear, and the campaigns have done their best to blur it. As Richard Kohn, the nation's preeminent scholar of civil-military relations, puts it, "Those in the know understand that four-stars never really 'retire' but, like princes of the church, embody the core culture, and, because of their experience and diversity, collectively represent the military community as authoritatively as the active-duty leadership." Whether shuttling back and forth to the Pentagon offices of their protégés, consulting for the Pentagon, or sitting on the boards of military contractors, in name and influence, they remain generals for life. Yet, the retired generals insist it is self-evident that they speak for themselves, not the establishment that made them. Thus, in response to an op-ed earlier this month in which military historian Eliot Cohen criticized the retired generals, Shalikashvili wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal objecting that officers "have spoken as individuals, rather than for the military institution." But, if so, why did the Kerry campaign bill Shalikashvili's endorsement as evidence of "unprecedented support from the military establishment?" And why did Shalikashvili open his speech to the Democratic convention with the caveat, "I do not stand here as a political figure. Rather, I stand here as an old soldier"? Retired Marine Corps General Bernard Trainor, who directed Harvard's National Security Program, sees through these explanations. "If these guys didn't have the name 'General,'" he says, "what value would they have? They're being exploited for their titles, and it politicizes the military."
The harm, indeed, accrues mostly to the military establishment on whose behalf the generals pretend to speak. When generals take to the hustings, politicians respond by treating the military as if it were an interest group like the afl-cio or the naacp--a constituency to be coddled, as Republicans have done since the Reagan era, or ignored and treated with suspicion, the response of many Democratic legislators during the same period. The practice also exacts a price in public confidence. "The military, along with the Supreme Court, is the most respected public institution because it is viewed as nonpartisan," says Duke University's Christopher Gelpi, co-author of the new book Choosing Your Battles: Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force. "When the public views the military as a special interest out for pork, as it certainly has done before, it distrusts the military like any other lobbyist."
Nor is the problem solved when both parties compete for the affections of generals. If the pattern of senior officers retiring and endorsing candidates becomes the norm, it won't be long before generals find themselves promoted on the basis of political affiliation rather than expertise. What president, after all, would want advice from an officer who, a year from now, might be denouncing him on the Today show? (The Clinton team didn't; in at least one instance, it asked a candidate for promotion what party he belonged to.) Politicization, then, creates the danger that presidents will end up with yes-men rather than military professionals, a phenomenon whose downsides became famously apparent when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor surrendered his critical faculties during the run-up to the war in Vietnam.
The politicization also may have a longer-term pernicious effect. There is a reason--beyond the Constitution--that political neutrality and military professionalism go hand in hand: As the nonpartisan ethos of the Armed Forces weakens, so, too, can traditional measures of military effectiveness. "Politicization erodes the cohesion, morale, and professional dedication of the officer corps," says Kohn, who points to a hemorrhage of officers during the Clinton era as evidence of what follows when the military adopts partisan views and expectations. And it has: According to a survey taken by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies before the 2000 election, 64 percent of officers identify with the Republican Party, twice the percentage who did two decades before, and only 8 percent list themselves as Democrats. Given recent history, this may stand to reason. But, now more than ever, the Armed Forces need to be able to retain officers, maintain morale, and operate effectively, regardless of the party in the White House.
Alas, having called the generals out of retirement, the politicians may find they won't easily go back to the barracks. By inviting senior officers into the political arena, Kerry and Bush have sent a message that it is legitimate for the officer corps to take sides on politically charged issues. It is a message that needs no encouragement. Asked about the propriety of retired flag officers endorsing political candidates, Christman rightly notes that it has been over two centuries since the threat of a coup hung over the republic. But the danger isn't as dramatic as a coup; it is that the military may gain undue influence over decisions that, properly understood, remain the exclusive property of civilians. During the '90s, the Armed Services swelled with such contempt for their civilian superiors that service chiefs had to admonish subordinates to behave themselves in front of the commander-in-chief; at the top, the same chiefs publicly opposed White House policy on issues ranging from gays in the military to U.S. intervention in Bosnia. Asking generals to vet our presidential candidates simply encourages more of the same.
The campaigns, filled as they are with p.r. specialists and Ivy League interns who view military officers as anthropological totems, do not understand the implications of their own actions. But do the generals? In Boston for the Democratic convention, Wesley Clark insisted that former military officers "have an obligation at this time in our nation's history to speak up and be heard." No, they don't.
Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at TNR.
EXCEPTION: When they are for democraps, then it is OK
As a retired Air Force CMSgt...I have only one thing to say in response to their hostility toward the Commander-In-Chief..."it's OK to support a candidiate, but shame on you for your public disrespect of the sitting President!"
Any Officer who disrespects his SENIORS is guilty of violation of Art 88: Comtempt of Officials.
Why are they NOT being punished you ask?
O...Officer
P...Protection
S...Society
As Col Hackworth so eloquently noted, MOST Army officers above the rank of LtCol are nothing more than PERFUMED PRINCES and, unfortunately, that nasty specter is taking hold in the Marine Corps, albeit in it's infantcy.
I began to see a growing number of junior officers in the Corps, in 2002, that were not worth a cup of warm spit and could not lead a platoon of thirsty Marines to FREE BEER.
The damage of the Klintoon years, on the military heirarchy, is still being measured.
I agree with the article. Being in the military and the officer corps I believe we need to be neutral. Once you reach the rank of general, even if you are retired, you still represent the military and should take the advice of Marshall and remain neutral.
If you listen carefully to the ad with McPeak, he identifies himself as a fighter pilot who flew cpmbat missions, and then as "head of the Air Force during the Gulf War"..Implees that he ran the air war in Desert Storm. I'm sure that would come as a surprise to Chuck Hoerner..A service CoS has NO operational authority in a theater command..
First I salute you for your service to our country. I also want to add, that your statement was the best I have read regarding senior military members speaking out.
I agree as well. I was saying in the 90's, after Klintoon took over, that the JCS and other high officers sold us out to Klintoon, just to keep their jobs. NO WAY I would have acknowledged his anti-military policies and sucked it up. I would have retired and THEN spoke out AGAINST those policies affecting the military. They had theirs so screw the rest of us.
No faster way to LOSE votes from USAF veterans than to say, "Merrill McPeak says I'm his man!"
I know I'm going to get flamed for this(and it's only my second post!) but I think the army should have done what the Marines did when they wanted to integrate basic training for all the services. The story goes that most of the high ranking generals in the Marines threatened to resign if forced to integrate. So Clinton backed down, but the Army just went along to get along.
When I say integrate I mean integrate the sexes not integration like race. Truman was right about that one.
These rogue Generals are traitors. They should be De-Generalized. knowwhatimean?
This always disturbs me a bit. I'm not American - I'm Australian and I served in the Royal Australian Navy for over twenty years. I've been very interested in politics since I was about 12 - but during my service, I deliberately made a decision to not join a political party, and not to get involved in any party political matter. I didn't completely eschew politics - it was never an issue for me, but I certainly would have spoken out on political issues if they had related to my duties - but I really decided to stay out of specific partisan politics. In fact, quite a few friends assumed I was a lefty because they were open about their conservative beliefs and assumed the reason I was quiet was because I agreed with them.
My naval career is over now - and I have become more politically active - but I only made Commander. If I'd gone any further - if I'd made Captain, and certainly if I'd achieved flag rank, there's no way on Earth, I'd have felt able to get involved in part politics even after my service. Once you get to that level, your service never really ends. It's always relevant, and so if you make party political comments, you involve the service.
I get very disturbed when I see senior officers making partisan comment (and it has happened here in Australia recently as well). I am entirely in favour of retired senior officers making political comment on occasion - but in as far as they possibly can, they should do it in a neutral fashion - anyone who's managed to reach a General or Admiral rank (or in Australia's case, Air Marshall rank) should be smart enough to frame their comments without specifically endorsing a candidate.
The best example is that of Ike. During his early years as a Lt. he "attached" himself to General Fox Connor, from there on doors were opened even though General MacArthur held him in low esteem.
How did MacArthur make it?? His Momma did that.
The higher you go, the more political it gets. Any general promoted during Clinton's dark era had to be politically aboard the Clinton express. The Clintons had no use for true warriors. They were a threat to them.
I once read a piece that theorized that things started going downhill after WWII.
The premise was, that up until that point, General Officers (be they generals, admirals or whatever) were NOT the subject of adoration. The glory, what there was of it, was given to the common soldier (a la, Alvin York).
The generals on the other hand were professionals. It was their job, basically, to prosecute a war, and then fade back to West Point or Annapolis when the fighting was over.
The writer suggested the the popularity of some of the Army/Navy higher ups led to the politization (?) of the services.
For a change the upper echelon officers were lionized, they were POPULAR. And when the politicians suggested dumb changes to military practices, well, they didn't want to become UNpopular.
The author wrote that the generals could have nixed the changes. Some of them would have been canned, and some would have lost promotion opportunities, but the Army/Navy/Marines would have soldiered on.
But as it was, they were in a 'celebrity' position, and didn't want to lose their popularity with the media/politicos.
Take it for what you will. I was not able to serve (4F), but the proposition makes sense, logically. Whether it is THE reason for the politization of the military, or A reason, or part of a glorious mosaic of reasons, it certainly makes sense that this is at least a factor.
imho
You are right. I was pulled aside a few years back by an AF Maj who told me, "Gunny, if there is ONE THING that the Corps does right, it's loyalty. You bastards follow your leaders like nobody's business."
And THANK GOD for it.
All that co-ed basic training did for the Army was up their pregnancy rate and drop rate for female trainees. Not to mention turning out substandard soldiers due to LOWERING the standards in a PC environment.
I am a retired Captain, USN. I like to write editorials in our local rag when there is an issue that interests me, generally on bad guys trying to get away with things. I am identified as a local resident who keeps bees. I never use my military title since I would never want to harm the uniform and what it stands for. Even at church, until I was asked to wear my uniform in a salute to all who served, most did not know I was once in the Navy.
When I joined up we were told to keep our politics to ourselves. That seems to have changed about the time Clinton took over. His appointees were political hacks or PC. That seems to have carried over into civilian life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.