Posted on 09/08/2004 2:36:26 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
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.