Military Times editorial: America can't afford to silence retired generals

Retired Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has jumped into the roiling waters of the 2016 presidential election campaign, admonishing other military brass not to publicly involve themselves in politics.

In a letter to the Washington Post, he cited campaign appearances by retired Gen. John Allen, a Hillary Clinton supporter, and retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who backs Donald Trump.

Dempsey said that as generals, they “have an obligation to uphold apolitical traditions.” Their taking a public political position, he argues, makes it difficult for their successors in uniform who must be focused without fear or favor on national security.

“The American people should not wonder where their military leaders draw the line between military advice and political preference,” Dempsey wrote. “And our nation’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines should not wonder about the political leanings and motivations of their leaders.”
Taken to the extreme, however, Dempsey’s position would have precluded Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower from running for president, as it would have the numerous other presidents who served in uniform.

This is an area that certainly can cause conflicting concerns for men and women who have served their entire careers sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States while not entitled the to its full guarantees, those afforded to all other citizens. The military defends the First Amendment but while in uniform cannot fully exercise the rights of free speech. And that’s deemed necessary given the unique requirements of military service.

Of course, those still wearing the uniform must refrain from engaging in any partisan politics, like participating in rallies or political fundraising, and when publicly expressing their political views must make clear these views don’t represent the Defense Department.
It’s a different matter for veterans, however, and Dempsey did not draw a clear distinction between currently serving versus retired military leaders when it comes to taking part in political activities. And that’s where his argument drifts off course.

Former service members certainly should refrain from using their influence to proselytize on political views when working in any official capacity with currently serving military members. Otherwise, there is no good reason why military veterans should not exercise their rights to free speech, in politics or anything else. Dempsey said Flynn and Allen should not have been introduced as generals but as “John and Mike.”
But the former generals were brought to the campaigns because of the value and insights of their expertise gained through long experience. They and other former military leaders bring to the discussion deep understanding in issues of national security strategy, military operations and international relations.

The voting public benefits from their contributions to the debate, especially in a day when fewer and fewer politicians have a military background. Those who have served can help their fellow citizens weigh which candidate is best for the job.

Earlier this week, Military Times posted a commentary by retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Walter Gaskin, who is supporting Clinton. The Trump campaign has been invited to submit a similar column.

We trust the readers to weigh the merits of Gaskin’s arguments, or those of anyone else, and come to their own conclusions on the candidates.