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

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 The old values of take care of your troops and they will take care of you has been replaced by a PC driven self serving group of leaders from the lowest enlisted ranks to the top flag ranks!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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

LTC (Join to see) 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.

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

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.