Why is it so important for retired leaders to stay out of politics?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:44:41 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 5:46 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:46:18 -0400

I think they have as much right as anyone to express their beliefs. They are private citizens now.

Response by Sgt Seth Welch made Jul 31 at 2016 5:51 PM

Sgt Seth Welch — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:51:39 -0400

I got to second Sgt Reynolds on this. Retired generals have a unique offering here because at that level, they've dealt with military life, then politics, and now private sector... these folks are a data bank offering so much to bring light to many issues.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 6:02 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:02:45 -0400

I would agree with SGT Private RallyPoint Member & Sgt Seth Welch
That there is no reason especially now since they are civilians to voice their opinion. Regardless if we agree with them or not. They have a very unique perspective from their previous positions.

Response by SFC Richard Giles made Jul 31 at 2016 6:06 PM

SFC Richard Giles — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:06:22 -0400

I think it should be the other way around myself. As a few others have stated, they are more then qualified especially having been in both worlds. I'm just guessing that once you make 1 star it's a lot of politics anyway from there until you retire. Also I think they get to see the good and the bad of politics which puts them in a unique position that very few others get to see until they're actually in political arena.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 6:36 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:36:52 -0400

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.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 6:42 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:42:21 -0400

Well,they should also stay out of ....... Oh I can't think of anything they should br restricted from, including politics. They have earned the right to speak out more than most.

Response by SP5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 6:59 PM

SP5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:59:49 -0400

Retired generasl are "simply" a form of celebrity from a unique (our) environment. They have insights that many of the other outspoken celebrities lack, so I am glad that they do speak out, even if I don't necessarily agree with the position or opinion

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 7:30 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:30:46 -0400

Interesting comments. Greatly appreciate them. I offer up a few different perspectives, first this one: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB [login to see] 1782215

General Malaise

Military officers once steered clear of partisan politics.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 7:33 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:33:52 -0400

And another, here's what our current boss has to say about us (those still in uniform). http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/politics/joseph-dunford-joint-chiefs-chairman-politics/

Joseph Dunford to troops: Stay out of politics

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has drafted a letter to all troops with one message: stay out of politics.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jul 31 at 2016 7:34 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:34:41 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member Gen Dempsey agrees with you too.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 7:41 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:41:23 -0400

And finally this one from our last CJCS on retired Generals. To answer the question posture by some below, I didn't think this up in my own. It is a long held tradition. Some would say that the last time generals were involved this much in politics was in the 1860s. That worked out well right?

Response by SFC Daniel Helms made Jul 31 at 2016 9:53 PM

SFC Daniel Helms — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:53:51 -0400

Sorry Sir,

I wish we had more retired and current military leaders to step into the debate. Our country needs the expertise of our military leaders with the both domestic and international affairs. With the rise of terrorism and global destabilization it would be foolish to have "yes men/ women" advising our "leaders" instead of surrounding them with people with experience. Our future leaders need to be interrupted when they are making stupid comments of other countries or on military matters.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jul 31 at 2016 11:53 PM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 23:53:28 -0400

You "O" folks who have been running things have had to bite your tongue or risk being shown the door. The problem is that at a certain point you theoretically stop being an "O" and become a politician. This is unfortunately a necessary evil. We need our best and brightest running the show (the military) but after a certain point you also serve at the pleasure of the POTUS. What do you do? Keep your pie hole closed and keep your job or retire and tell the world what an asshat the civilians in charge are? My opinion is that unless you are opting for a second career in politics, STFU and move on.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 7:26 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 07:26:13 -0400

While it is my opinion that they should stay out of partisan politics, I do support the fact that they are retired and private citizens and have the right to do what they want in that regard.

When I retire and go against my own opinion then you can call me on it and I will just say "I have evolved" on that subject and move on.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Aug 1 at 2016 8:10 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 08:10:25 -0400

I don't think they should, but here is a reason why they might want to...This is a country fueled by an ever-increasingly powerful and partisan media. We are no longer an educated, balanced public. We are now a public who laps up whatever media garbage we most align our personal beliefs to. There is no truth in that approach. So when a respected military leader starts spouting off about his/her political views, that leader immediately becomes an trophy for whatever side he/she chooses. Then that view somehow now has more validity because Gen so-and-so agreed with it. It shouldn't be that way. Citizens should strive to be more than lemmings blindly following what General so-and-so supported. We have become really lazy thanks to the media I think.

Response by SGT David T. made Aug 1 at 2016 8:35 AM

SGT David T. — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 08:35:34 -0400

They earned their right to speak on such matters since they are no longer subject to the Hatch Act.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2016 11:25 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:25:55 -0400

the only time I have an issue with it is if they speak as though they represent what the majority of the military believes, in my experience a GO has no idea what the majority of their Soldier's are thinking or needing day to day let alone what their political stance is. they are only their to further their own agendas and civilian career goals.

Response by SSgt Robert Anderson made Aug 2 at 2016 7:58 AM

SSgt Robert Anderson — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:58:49 -0400

By that logic, and Dempey's, there would be no President Washington, or Eisenhower. The Constitution does not forbid former military of any rank from engaging in politics, and neither does the UCMJ. It is disheartening when a veteran claims to represent veterans with a viewpoint other than our own, but that is their right of free speech, just as it is our right of free speech to disavow them when they do.

Response by CPT Mark Vogl made Aug 2 at 2016 8:29 AM

CPT Mark Vogl — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:29:41 -0400

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.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 9:24 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 09:24:46 -0400

Everyone has an opinion so it doesn't bother me if they are analysts on cable news or appear at a convention stating their views.

Response by SFC John Scanlon made Aug 2 at 2016 9:28 AM

SFC John Scanlon — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 09:28:59 -0400

I am a retired SFC, I freely express my opinion and encourage others to do the same. But I do not use the name line SFC John Scanlon in doing so. I am just John or Mr Scanlon
I thought about what they were doing for days before they were called on it . Just because other retired Generals and a CPT used their rank wrongly doesn't give anyone the right to do future wrongs. I wasn't raised to believe but everybody does it, wrong is wrong

Response by CW3 Susan Burkholder made Aug 2 at 2016 9:50 AM

CW3 Susan Burkholder — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 09:50:55 -0400

I know the text book answer:
1) As an institutional norm, political neutrality is essential to the military's ability to survive in its present form. When retired military officers publicly enter the political fray through endorsements or other forms of involvement, they trigger several concerns that the military as an institution should not take lightly. The prospect of retired officers endorsing competing candidates runs the risk of undermining the confidence that the public has in the military's political neutrality. 2)The military is not a political prize. and 3) As generals, they have an obligation to uphold our a-political traditions

But this is an incredibly unusual campaign with Trump in the mix. It is unprecedented. I hope more retired generals publicly campaign against Trump. Especially after his responses to the Khan family

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 10:12 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:12:08 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member It seems that there is a purge of senior military leadership with each new POTUS. Obama seems to have gotten rid of more GOs/FOs than usual. These are all bright people who aren't going to just stand by quietly in retirement.

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/military-purge-barack-h-obama-says-obey-him-not-the-constitution

Should they be involved, Yes. They have a great deal of knowledge and insight to instill on the candidates.

Military Purge: Barack H. Obama Says Obey Him, Not the Constitution!

bySteve Eichler, TEAPARTY.org We are in the gravest of situations. Our military – once the most powerful in the world – is crumbling. Obama is purging every branch of the US armed forces at an alarming rate. He’s deliberately crippling our military, setting them up for failure and defeat. Through his actions he is rapidly demoralizing our troops en masse, creating a dangerous situation at home and abroad, leaving our troops, our country and we...

Response by MCPO David Mattingly made Aug 2 at 2016 10:24 AM

MCPO David Mattingly — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:24:36 -0400

Here is a historic perspective http://armedforcesjournal.com/the-nonpartisan-military

Armed Forces Journal – The nonpartisan military

In an interview with National Public Radio this spring, Gen. David Petraeus was asked about the prospect of a new president taking office next year who was committed to an expedited withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Petraeus responded with thoughtfulness and propriety, emphasizing civilian control of the military and the proper apolitical role of the armed forces.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 10:31 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:31:10 -0400

I think that they should stay out of politics unless they want to come forward as private citizens but that never works. We've had plenty that should learn to keep their mouths shut. Retired GEN Allen, LTG Flynn and GEN Wesley Clark all over-played their hands...

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 10:49 AM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:49:05 -0400

With all due respect, the officer class hooks each other up when it comes to post-service employment, so they are rather insulated from the ramifications of the policies of candidates they speak for. Post-service employment for enlisteds is a bit more uncertain and when officers speak for "all of us", there may be conflicts they won't be evident to the recipients of the public statements.

And when was the last time you ever saw an enlisted man be the go-to by a cable news channel? It's almost always an officer and they don't all speak for me.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 10:53 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:53:50 -0400

The operative word is retired. At that point, they have every right, privilege, and, if they so determine it to be, the duty to express their opinions on any matter they choose. In fact, if they possess direct information which contradicts the campaign statements of a political candidate, I would truly hope they felt honor-bound to set the record straight.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 10:58 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:58:49 -0400

The military has always been apolitical. We serve to support and defend the constitution of the United States, not for a political party. As members of the military, we must maintain the public trust. If a senior officer (who, as a retiree is still "in the military" so to speak) endorses one party over another, he could alienate that public trust. In particular, as these senior officers espouse their views it targets that fact that they have strong political opinions and therefore as a representative sample of the military, must be bias for or against their commander in chief. Of course it is not prohibited for a retiree to express their opinions, but at that level, I think the potential for harm ,against a military under constant scrutiny, demands some restraint.

Personally, I think that the majority of these talking heads are bucking for cushy civilian jobs.

Response by LTC Robert McKenna made Aug 2 at 2016 11:02 AM

LTC Robert McKenna — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:02:46 -0400

Prior to Admiral Crowe (and a few others) endorsement to then Governor Clinton in 1992, it was just something that wasn't done, unless the individual himself was running for public office.

While retired officers are private citizens, I think it is just a bad idea in general. Especially so, when the retired officers in question are very recently retired (less than 5 years or so).

If I was running for President, had one or more GO's publicly campaign for my opponent and then I subsequently won, I believe it would be more than reasonable for me to ask for the retirements of all the officers that those officers had senior rated recently (especially all those who were current GO's). The reasoning here, is that I can't trust the professional judgement of the GOs who campaign against me, and by extension any officer that they recommended for advancement.

This scenario is the main reasons why military officers have stayed out of politics since the end of the Civil War, because this stuff used to happen.

Response by Col John Verling made Aug 2 at 2016 11:09 AM

Col John Verling — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:09:04 -0400

All certainly have the right to express an opinion but doing so with one's rank is problematic. It is problematic in the tradition of an apolitical military. The only time I use my rank when commenting on a political subject is when the person I am replying to uses their rank.

Response by Col John Verling made Aug 2 at 2016 11:10 AM

Col John Verling — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:10:45 -0400

Using one's rank when commenting on political subjects is problematic. It is problematic because of the tradition of an apolitical military. The only time I use my rank when commenting on a political subject is when replying to or commenting on a subject and the author uses his/her rank.

Response by SGM Jeff Howard made Aug 2 at 2016 11:25 AM

SGM Jeff Howard — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:25:18 -0400

I am Retired and active in local and State politics. I served 26 yrs for the Right to Free Speech. Because of my former profession I should be silenced?

Response by PO3 Jeremy Herrera made Aug 2 at 2016 11:25 AM

PO3 Jeremy Herrera — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:25:31 -0400

Why shouldn't they be allowed to have their constitutional rights like all other private citizens? Sure, while in the services they need to be respectful of the chain of command. But once out and retired why shouldn't they be able to express their views? Fact is that we as vets have something that most civilians don't know in general, we have seen other countries, being in harms way, know what it is to be uncertain of just how the Commander in Chief's opinions / political view will affect the troops lives. My preach at church even expresses how he sees that the vets have a different view of the world than the rest of his flock.

Another thing is, just think if the retired generals of the past felt the same way? If they all thought it was a bad idea for them to get involved in the political world and express their views... We wouldn't have had a great number of presidents. Washington, Ike, Grant, either Bushes, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and the list goes on and on.

Response by SSgt John U Miller Sr. made Aug 2 at 2016 11:50 AM

SSgt John U Miller Sr. — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:50:01 -0400

Do they give up their Freedom of Speech because they wore the boots at one time?
I think not.
That is like asking if a church has a right to side with a Candidate without losing lost their Tax Free Status?
Absolutely Not!
The Democrats have been doing it for years and have never lost their Tax Free Status;
Yet if a Conservative Church wishes to express their favor for a Candidate they are threatened with Loss of Tax Free Status!

Response by Lt Col Robert Canfield made Aug 2 at 2016 12:01 PM

Lt Col Robert Canfield — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:01:21 -0400

I was very surprised by General Dempsey's recent remarks about Generals Flynn and Allen. If Flynn and Alan were on active duty, then absolutely, they should be apolitical & not endorse political candidates. Active duty personnel have a responsibility to support the Constitution and the current Commander in Chief. HOWEVER, Flynn and Allen are both retired. They have done their bit for King and Country. They have more than earned the right to speak out and endorse whomever they please. If history had followed Dempsey's line of thinking, we would never have had a President by the name of Dwight D Eisenhower.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 12:10 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:10:44 -0400

I have to agree with the majority of my fellow veterans and currently serving troops. Lets ask this a different way. What DISQUALIFIES them in any endeavor be it politics or otherwise?

Response by MCPO Tom Miller made Aug 2 at 2016 12:52 PM

MCPO Tom Miller — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:52:01 -0400

Politics now seems to be the driving force in leadership selections! The old values of take care of your troops and they will take care of you has been replaced by a PC driven self serving group of leaders from the lowest enlisted ranks to the top flag ranks! Training with highest standards based on all aspects of quality without PC guidelines was impurities depleted and we built a top level and capable fighting force! Great support with equipment and patriotic competence was the goal of every man or woman in uniform! Today our leadership is divided to a PC standard driven by ineptness of self serving yes men hand picked by politics rather than proven competence of accomplishment and respect of caring for the proficiency of those in battle! Social engineering has become paramount rather than battle ready well trained men and women well equipped to win! Yes, we need to expose all and any thing that has down graded our abilities to protect our country for any lack of judgement created by PC leadership or indifference of readiness! When 60% of our air capabilities has become mute because of ineffective preparation is acceptable, we have a serious problem! Whose to blame, look everywhere! A legislature with no oversight, an executive branch without concern except for PC social engineering and a citizenry who has been unaware! Absolutely it's a different set of patriotism with values not seen before and our great experienced Flag Officers need to express failures to protect our country and men and women in uniform!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 12:59 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:59:04 -0400

Well look at how many retired generals have ran for office. How many of them have been the president. Also why not they are retired and don't speak for the military anymore they speak from themselves. As long as they are not still active I don't see why it matters.

Response by SFC John Fourquet made Aug 2 at 2016 12:59 PM

SFC John Fourquet — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:59:58 -0400

Retirees regardless of rank are not forbidden by law from expressing support for a political candidate. I prefer they stay out of politics, but they have the same rights as any citizen to express their support for a candidate they like.

Response by SFC David Davenport made Aug 2 at 2016 1:19 PM

SFC David Davenport — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:19:55 -0400

As long as they are expressing their opinions and beliefs as an individual I have no problem with any retiree sharing their thoughts. I become very cautious when people want to express their opinions based on rank they held while in service. If the topic is their experience and area of expertise then great. On the other hand none of us, in theory, are expert politicians while serving in the military. Based on our service experience what makes any service member qualified to say any candidate is the best?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 1:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:35:01 -0400

I spent 27 years in the military unable to express my opinions. Once I retired those restrictions went away when I became a civilian again. I and these other retirees no longer come under the UCMJ and are covered by one document - The Constitution. They have rights under the 1st Amendment and they should express them as they see fit.

Response by CW4 Angel C. made Aug 2 at 2016 1:50 PM

CW4 Angel C. — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:50:50 -0400

Good point. And I think depends on your retirement rank. But mostly because one can be called back to Active Duty.

Response by Cpl John Webb made Aug 2 at 2016 2:04 PM

Cpl John Webb — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:04:32 -0400

Maybe I've been out too long but I don't see any reason why we can't participate in democracy (now that we're out :))? I think it's a good idea that the people hear from those who are willing to give all in order to preserve it. It's why I did what I did so to speak. The problem with politics is that it's full of politicians who are completely disconnected with the people and especially military service. To paraphrase our 2nd General Order to be always vigilant on point and to report everything, why do you think it's a bad idea for us to not report and give opinion on current events?

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2016 2:04 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:04:45 -0400

Once retired, they are private citizens and have the freedom to run for office or publicly support individuals parties pursuing office. While in uniform, they must remain silent.

Response by Lt Col Barry Esham made Aug 2 at 2016 2:27 PM

Lt Col Barry Esham — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:27:24 -0400

There is nothing wrong about being involved in politics. After all, we have had generals become presidents throughout our history, from Washington to Eisenhower. And we have retired military members serving in Congress (we need more). But they all should use sound judgment and reflect the professionalism that is expected of their military rank. They certainly should refrain from outrageous actions or leading inappropriate chants, such as LtGen Flynn did at the RNC. I don't say that because I'm a Democrat (I'm an Independent), but the scene just appeared to be an inappropriate disply of "mud level" politics. Of course, it did fit in with the overall way that Trump conducts himself in both his personal life and his new political involvement. God help us!

Response by CPO David Sharp made Aug 2 at 2016 3:20 PM

CPO David Sharp — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:20:45 -0400

Do not allow politicians to "co-opt" the Military with their spin B.S. Personal ideas/ideals are better left to the ballot box. Allowing yourself subject to these kind of people only reduces our integrity and Honor.

Response by 1SG Joe Messier made Aug 2 at 2016 3:27 PM

1SG Joe Messier — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:27:24 -0400

Sir
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion a retired General's perspective is exactly what is needed. In it's purest form the General's view is unique because they were subservient to the same elected official, a trusted advisor. An advocate for the soldier and veteran..................Who the hell am I trying to fool! You know as well as I do it's self serving, motivated by money, political gain or future contracts. But, it is their right, they are just capitalizing on an opportunity.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Aug 2 at 2016 3:55 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:55:09 -0400

I prefer to hear others opinions, even if they are stupid or wrong, It helps me make decisions and encourages me to be involved.

Response by CPL Richard Brower made Aug 2 at 2016 4:08 PM

CPL Richard Brower — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 16:08:53 -0400

I disagree with the premise of your question. Once retired, I'd like our military veterans to be more engaged with forging the course of the nation through political discourse.

On a related note; I'd like to see Generals being aligned more to the mission and men than the Commander-in-Chief/politicians. I want the first General that receives an order to go to war to determine how. I want their plans to be debated but ultimately approved prior to mass deployment.

We don't want the private /Lieutenant asking why or how we go to war but someone needs to and a General should have the experience to best accomplish the job. Our founders wrote the constitution to task congress with this job but congress is broken and hasn't declared war on a country since WWII.

So, if Congress refuses to do it, I want our Generals (like Gen Shinseki did under Bush II) to call BS on the wars & war planning that puts our privates/lieutenants lives & mission at greater risk. The General may get sacked but they've already secured their retirement and the politician knows that sacking a General puts the politician at risk & responsible for the action.

Response by SSG Ray Elliott made Aug 2 at 2016 4:40 PM

SSG Ray Elliott — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 16:40:50 -0400

We all have a right to support candidates of our choosing, but it is inappropriate to do so in uniform, or to infer that our personal views in anyway represent any thing other than our own personal preference.

Response by MSG Micheal P Floyd Jr made Aug 2 at 2016 4:45 PM

MSG Micheal P Floyd Jr — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 16:45:02 -0400

Sir, Officers are members of the Political Elite - which they get their Marching Orders from the Civilian Sector. Enlisted obtain Guidance and Leadership from the Officer Ranks, and thus are not a part of the Political Elite. What politicians love most are Retired Officers, those who know just as much as themselves, or may know more. Officers are the pivotal Endorsement Magnet, General Powell, and others, as an example. Officers are the Golden Boy for those seeking Political Might, thus they are symbols politicians wear across their chest and symbols don't speak. Be careful Sir, with what you seek, for what the political might won't share with you is simple - "What is the FIRST RULE in dealing with the Devil?" The answer is precise... "DON'T!"

Response by SSG Christopher McDowell made Aug 2 at 2016 5:03 PM

SSG Christopher McDowell — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 17:03:08 -0400

We swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, in taking our oaths we suspended some of our rights to accomplish this mission. We also know and understand that whether actively serving or retired our actions are reflective not only of ourselves but of the military as well. Once you retire you should be able to voice your opinion as long as you ensure that the general public understand that it is just your opinion and not the opinion of the Military; and as long as your words and actions do nothing to discredit the service. I personally feel rank should be left out as it is easier for people to misconstrue your role as a private citizen or representative of the Military. What is wrong with saying " I am a Veteran with x number of years and this is my personal opinion."? By all means exercise your rights, you've earned them. You fought for them, you wrote a blank check to ensure everyone has those rights, just make sure there is a clear line in the sand that those are your views and your views alone. If our founding fathers meant for us not to exercise our rights because we are military We would never have had such Presidents as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Aug 2 at 2016 6:15 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 18:15:47 -0400

Sp4 Byron Skinner…When an officer retires from the military he/she become just another citizen…with the education and career accomplishments of many retired officers politics is a natural…That said though I don't think retired officers who get involved in politics such as Lt. General Mike Flynn who is Trumps military/national affairs advisor, who made a trip to Moscow, Russia to attend a Banquet, yet right…Lt. General Flynn for former director of the DNI who was fired after one year of a two year assignment for lack of competence, should not have made a personal visit to Russia while an advisor or a future advisor to a political campaign. Discretion is something that it seems is not taught to ranking military officers.

Response by SGT Eliyahu Rooff made Aug 2 at 2016 8:01 PM

SGT Eliyahu Rooff — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 20:01:52 -0400

With all due respect, I believe that every former serviceman, from Private to General, from Seaman to Admiral, has both a right and a duty to participate in the political process that keeps the country going. This includes speaking out in private and in public when they feel it is necessary and appropriate. We have training and experiences, expertise and knowledge that civilians don't have and that ought to be taken into account when electing the people whose policies will affect the military.

You certainly wouldn't argue that a former Private or Lieutenant shouldn't speak in support of a candidate. At what rank would you draw the line, and why should someone with far greater expertise sit tacit while the rest of us run our yaps freely?

Response by MSG Don Burt made Aug 2 at 2016 8:24 PM

MSG Don Burt — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 20:24:23 -0400

Who in the hell said that???
This administration has done a fine job at cutting the "knowledgeable brass" with the experience needed to do the job the right way. There are too many Limp wristed, Politically Correct, Liberals
that are killing the services...just what the admin. wants and is doing!

Response by SSgt Clare May made Aug 2 at 2016 11:28 PM

SSgt Clare May — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 23:28:48 -0400

Unless the retiree is going for the ultimate gold, i.e. the office of Presidency, they should take the higher ground and abscond. But... a double standard begins and the suppression of free speech is now being forced upon American citizens... So, You cannot support suppressing opinions of even retired Generals without infringing upon their civil right of free speech.

What about the 4 star getting demoted to a 3 ...or 2... or even a single star just before retirement? What about those forced to retire against their wishes?

Lets face it, active Generals are no way in heck going to speak out against any presidential candidate, let alone the sitting Commander in Chief without negative consequences to their career. Speaking out as an active military general subjected to the UCMJ insures that you want to get demoted, reprimanded or sent to the worst shat-hole so far away from the politics that you just know latrine duty is on your morning duty roster for things to do for pissing off the pope.
.
After the fiasco in Bengahzi, I find it almost...ALMOST... amazing why any General, retied that is, who would support Killery. Yet, I can see where their own fear... now that they do not have the protection of the UCMJ, and getting tossed into the real world of corrupt politics... why they fear a leader who may get us involved in a larger scale war. That is a stretch, but without seeing where that general will be, after the election... i say its hard to bribe a general... but then again... lol... human nature will bite, can bite...anyone in the arse...

We cannot go down that slippery slope and prohibit retirees from applying their constitutional right to speak.

Response by 1LT Rich Voss made Aug 3 at 2016 12:42 AM

1LT Rich Voss — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:42:17 -0400

I'm an old guy, but my highest permanent rank, after being drafted, was 1LT via OCS So, I guess that would make me "rank wise" a junior folk. Since one of my favorite Presidents, during my lifetime, was Ike, I beg to differ. And I have been in Officers Clubs at various functions hearing bickering amongst the General ranks about a whole host of topics. Why should they "know better", aren't they allowed the same freedom of speech as the rest of us once they return to civilian life ? Would they bring harm to the Democracy or shame to their former branch ? I would heartily support Colin Powell running against the two existing candidates. So, there's my two cents, Colonel.

Response by LCpl Arthur Granville made Aug 3 at 2016 1:15 AM

LCpl Arthur Granville — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 01:15:10 -0400

Patton

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Aug 3 at 2016 2:28 AM

LTC Jesse Edwards — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 02:28:04 -0400

It's okay for retired leaders to get involved in politics. The issue is keeping your integrity. Eisenhower didn't stay out of politics. Washington either.

Response by Maj Ken Brown made Aug 3 at 2016 8:13 AM

Maj Ken Brown — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 08:13:47 -0400

I guess I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that generals who have dealt with career politicians are unqualified for politics. I will make an exception for some generals who believe that diatribes on the national stage are appropriate behaviour. That being the case, I always consider the source and look up any such general's background. I believe generals with Combat Action Ribbons, awards for valour, and a succession of successful combat assignments.

Response by SMSgt John Clifford made Aug 3 at 2016 12:13 PM

SMSgt John Clifford — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:13:05 -0400

The key word here Lt.Col is Retired. As such we retain our title (rank) and we are no longer restricted in voicing our politics.

Response by CW3 Susan Burkholder made Aug 3 at 2016 12:39 PM

CW3 Susan Burkholder — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:39:23 -0400

I think most responders have missed the point. There is a key difference is just merely expressing your opinions or running for office (as a retired military) and publicly endorsing a candidate with official Republican or Democratic backing. Using or attaching your rank to your opinions defeats the purpose of keeping the military neutral. I think LTC Corbari is attempting a different discussion: should high ranking military (retired or not) remain neutral in political campaigns? Should they speak at party conventions?

Response by CPO Michelle Jones made Aug 4 at 2016 4:30 PM

CPO Michelle Jones — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:30:29 -0400

Retired military are citizens, free to engage in the political process. We were a part of fighting to protect the right to free speech. We know what sacrifices military personnel make. It would be a disservice not to add our voice to public discourse on politics.

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Aug 4 at 2016 5:47 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:47:49 -0400

Why shouldn't they? They are civilians now. look at them the same way you look a the Hollywood types.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Aug 5 at 2016 11:09 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 11:09:20 -0400

I can fully understand while on duty it's a conflict of interest and against UCMJ to get involved in politics. We (on duty) are not here to do that.
After one retires, it's a whole different deal. In someways I feel it is good that some former military leaders speak up and voice their opinions.

Response by SFC John Trujillo made Aug 7 at 2016 2:51 PM

SFC John Trujillo — Sun, 07 Aug 2016 14:51:41 -0400

It is only a bad idea if you consider the spineless careerists who pander to who they think might win the election, instead of living up to their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Response by Cpl Leland Hank made Aug 10 at 2016 3:39 PM

Cpl Leland Hank — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:39:59 -0400

George Washington, Ulysses s Grant, Eisenhower, Theodore Rosevelt, John f Kennedy all had political opinions and talked about their politics and were president when did this notion of military personell staying out of politics come about? I remember being told some mularky about it being unprofessional when I was in. Maybe it was just meant while you are active duty to stay out of politics that way it doesnt seem like there is a conflict between active personell and the administration.

Response by SSG Dale London made Aug 21 at 2016 10:42 PM

SSG Dale London — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:42:51 -0400

I don't think that retired leaders should stay out of politics at all. How many great (and/or otherwise) US Presidents started out in uniform? Let me name just a few: JFK, Eisenhower, Bush Sr and Jr, U.S. Grant, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln... the list could go on -- and it could become endless if we included leaders from other countries or folks lower on the political food-chain.
The simple fact of the matter is that service in the higher echelons of military provide invaluable experience of the political world. This experience can translate into an ability to get things done that career politicians might never think of or be able to implement. Furthermore, the skills and personal characteristics necessary for someone to rise in the ranks of the military are incredibly useful in political office, where you have to cooperate, lead and follow as appropriate, whether you like you co-workers or not. This is something that most civilians have at least some trouble with.
While it is absolutely verboten for actively serving leaders to be "political" in any official sense, once you hang up your hat, the board is clear. Go for it!

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Aug 30 at 2016 6:49 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:49:45 -0400

Sp4 Byron Skinner…I see nothing wrong with RETIRED military going into politics. Its a natural. I do see a problem of politics in the ranks and offices trying to influence how their troopers vote each unfortunately ha happened in recent years since the military got the right to vote…I do have a problem for RETIRED military going to work for corporations that bid on government contracts and procure single source work for the Federal Government, often doing business with a former subordinate who they mentored.

Response by SPC Ann T. made Oct 12 at 2016 1:42 PM

SPC Ann T. — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:42:54 -0400

I actually am in favor of retired and honorably discharged prior service persons serving in politics. Their perspectives are generally wider than many civilians, and they don't fear a confrontation in order to maintain their principles most of the time. Standing up is something military folk are used to doing.