Do you think a General or Admiral is still considered a servicemember in the eyes of their subordinates?

When I was a junior officer in the 1960s, I had staff jobs (before and after my Vietnam tour) that brought me into contact with many senior officers. A bunch of stuffy old guys, I thought... often difficult to work with. Then I looked up their bios. An Air Force colonel who made my life miserable was an ace bomber pilot in WWII. The admiral had been a legendary destroyer skipper. I wasn't impressed with an elderly captain until I noticed his MOH ribbon. Yes, general and flag officers have to be politicians, especially these days, because it's part of the job. Their ability to navigate the shark-infested waters of Washington assures that the rest of us have the resources we need. It's easy to forget that these guys did not always wear stars: They started out as warriors, and got promoted because they were good at it. Most of the ones I met never forgot where they came from.

Generals and Admirals are considered servicemembers because they are. Even if I don't agree with them on TV they still served. Isn't politics frowned upon anyway from anybody wearing the uniform from the highest 4-star to the lowest buck private?

They are all service members. Some you hold in higher regard than others. General Mattis someone I would follow anywhere. General Wesley Clark, not so much. You can usually tell when they pass away, and the things those who served with them say.

If they're wearing the uniform, then they are a Service Member. My promotion orders have the Secretary of the Army (a civilian) basically appointing me as a SFC. Does that make me any less a Service Member?

As usual, depends on the individual. I've seen one or two ass-kissers make flag rank, but most have been the right guy for the job. One BG in my unit flew 175 combat missions over Nam when he was a captain. I don't think the experience left him when he got confirmed to O-7. Oh, and I had to get confirmed when I made O-5. It was just administrative.
R.L. Farnette LTC (R)

I knew briefly a couple of Generals . They always kept their political opinions silent around me and really did not comment on others except if it affected the Army or the Constitution. All have passed now but I doubt they would have stayed with this and the last couple of Administrations.

I was a Command Sergeant Major for seventeen years. Nine of those were at the nominative or general officer level, seven at the Division or Command Level under Major Generals. All of them had at least one deployment as a general officer to Iraq or Afghanistan. They were indeed Soldiers.

Actually all officers are confirmed by congress (US Constitution Article 2, Section 2).

Yes, they are. I see them as service members even if I don't agree with them.

Love the thought provoking question.... when I was a cadet at USMA my fellow cadet's father was a Full Colonel and he would not get promoted to being a General because he did not play the politics.... yes General Staff sometimes sacrifice their morals, ethics and participles for a promotion....