Posted on Jul 31, 2016
LTC Strategy And Policy Advisor
14.5K
184
104
9
9
0
With the recent bold public statements by retired generals in support of political candidates, I think it is good to discuss why this is a bad idea. They should know better. But I'm interested in why more junior folks think it is wrong, or perhaps why they think it's ok.
Posted in these groups: 6262122778 997339a086 z PoliticsElection 2016 button Election 2016Ethics logo Ethics
Avatar feed
Responses: 70
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
I'm very curious to hear why you think it's a bad idea sir? History is full of retired GOs in politics, they understand the DIME better from living it that most of the career politicians and aren't we often complaining that there aren't more military people in political positions? This is point in our history where we have the fewest military people in congress and the senate. I think they have a lot to offer and even when I disagree with their point of view, it's easier for me to respect it because they've served.
LCpl Motor Vehicle Operator
LCpl (Join to see)
>1 y
lol actually it does make sense. How about from this perspective, using ones rank in the military establishes a credibil9ity factor ( "street cred" as they say now) He/She is NOT "Joe schumck" off the street with just an opinion. Generals and Colonels have "Heads of Business" or Leaders in their field as their contemporaries and are well qualified to speak on various topics. It's like a person with a 3.0 and college degree in lets say English applying for a job in Marketing. The person may not be as qualified as a marketing major but it does show the person has the discipline and grades to be considered as opposed to someone who with only a High school diploma may be a riskier candidate. The English grad has more "street cred" than a High School grad when it comes time to consider if the marketing grad can't be found.
Unfortunately actors and actresses like Eve Longoria or a Sean Penn are propped up on the same soapbox as if they had the same credibility. History has shown actors and generals are NOT contemporaries.
(4)
Reply
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
>1 y
Col John Verling - Well sports personalities and actors discuss military and people seldom question their intentions or credibility. Politicians discuss military intervention when they just shouldn't. Why limit ourselves?
Col John Verling
Col John Verling
>1 y
Speak by all means. Just use ones rank appropriately.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
LTC Kevin B.
>1 y
Rank just confers a level of accomplishment within the military, which helps establish some level of credibility. And, normally people are introduced (or referred to) as a former officer, which is not the same as the officer using it for a bully pulpit (which I haven't seen any do...other than Allen West). If the rank of senior leaders shouldn't be used as a means to establish their credibility, then former CEOs shouldn't use that accomplishment either. Neither should Governors, Senators, Representatives, etc. After all, those are all just terms that show they have some form of standing to try to legitimize their opinions. I don't see any problem with it. In fact, I'd like to see more officers involved politically, either supporting candidates or actually running for office. Although they may be political opposites, I'd prefer to see many more politicians like Tammy Duckworth and Tom Cotton and far fewer politicians like Ted Cruz and Alan Grayson.
(4)
Reply
(0)
SGT English/Language Arts Teacher
17
17
0
I think they have as much right as anyone to express their beliefs. They are private citizens now.
(17)
Comment
(0)
TSgt Craig Crews
TSgt Craig Crews
>1 y
I see no problem with them expressing their opinion. They are retired now.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj John Bell
>1 y
I would prefer if they only express their opinion if it agrees with mine:).
(10)
Reply
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
>1 y
Maj John Bell - (JOKE ALERT) personally, I really like pols, stats and sound bites that confirm my bias. It's just easier that way.
Maj John Bell
Maj John Bell
>1 y
Perhaps we should form our own ticket. You be POTUS. I like my naps.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Mark Vogl
9
9
0
I am not junior, served 1977 to 1986, and I think the exact opposite of you. Citizenship is not a box where you make a check mark. I served, I am done. America needs an engaged citizenry, and professional soldiers offer a view and experience found nowhere else in the society. So, you and I disagree. On a personal note, my service ..my decision to be an officer revolved around a belief in America as a nation doing God's Will. If that nation, as it is now, is not doing God's Will, rejecting the Providential view of life...I would not serve, and would not recommend anyone to serve. To serve a state blindly is what the Germans did, and so many others.
(9)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close