Upload logo
Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Posted on Jul 31, 2016
Former Joint Chiefs chairman: Retired generals shouldn't speak at political conventions
7.5K
156
40
33
33
0
Retired Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is arguing that retired general officers should not endorse political candidates.
In a letter to the Washington Post, Dempsey wrote that retired Marine Gen. John Allen and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn crossed the line by speaking at the Democratic and Republican conventions, respectively.
Dempsey took issue with Allen and Flynn being introduced at the political conventions as general officers, not private citizens.
“As generals, they have an obligation to uphold our apolitical traditions,” Dempsey wrote. “They have just made the task of their successors — who continue to serve in uniform and are accountable for our security — more complicated. It was a mistake for them to participate as they did. It was a mistake for our presidential candidates to ask them to do so.”
Both service members and the general public should not have to wonder what senior military leaders’ political motivations are, Dempsey wrote.
“The military is not a political prize,” he wrote. “Politicians should take the advice of senior military leaders but keep them off the stage.”
On ABC’s “This Week,” host George Stephanopoulos asked Allen about Dempsey’s argument.
“Marty Dempsey is one of the greatest soldiers I’ve ever known and a dear friend and I understand completely what he’s saying,” Allen replied. “But I’ve agonized over this decision over and over again."
Allen said he is worried about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s comments about how he might use the U.S. military and he feels Trump has insulted the military by saying it can’t win anymore.
“I decried these comments that put us on a potential track for a civil-military crisis, the likes of which we have never seen in this country,” Allen said. “That was the reason I came off the bench. I don’t intend to stay out there to be politically active. I intend to return to my previous activities.”
However, two retired general officers told Military Times on Sunday that they believe Dempsey is correct.
In 2002, Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who was rumored to be considered a candidate to become the next Marine Corps commandant, requested retirement because he objected to the upcoming Iraq War.
“While military leaders almost always should follow the prescription of 'counsel in private, praise in public,' there are occasionally and rarely instances, where intelligence used to justify conflict is manipulated or judgments on the use of force are so flawed that an experienced military leader must (as we say) speak truth to power,” Newbold told Military Times in September 2014.
But when asked on Sunday about Dempsey’s letter, Newbold replied simply: “I agree with General Dempsey. Strongly.”
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales advised political candidates but never publicly advocated for them, he said.
“I don’t think Marty [Dempsey] had any problem at all with people advising,” Scales told Military Times on Sunday. “I think his problem is a large public display advocacy, particularly for a recently retired general.”
Scales’ father, who retired as an Army colonel, held very traditional views about how the U.S. military should be apolitical. Every election day he would give his children the same speech explaining why he refused to vote as a professional officer.
“He’d said the Army is the only institution that could destroy our democracy in a day,” Scales said. “He said we’re the only Western power that’s never been ruled by the military.”
But over the last 30 years, the longstanding tradition of the military being separate from politics has eroded to the point where it barely exists anymore, Scales said.
Dempsey’s may give pause to retired general officers who want to endorse political candidates, but “the battle over this has just begun,” said Richard Kohn, who teaches military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Kohn has repeatedly said he believes generals and admirals cannot resign if they disagree with an administration and they should not endorse political candidates when they are out of uniform.
He feels a debate is about to begin about where retired general and flag officers’ professional obligation to remain apolitical ends and where their First Amendment free speech rights begin.
“There will be a lot of diversity in the discussion, but remember that the overwhelming majority of retired flags, even at the highest ranks, have refrained from endorsing presidential candidates and particularly appearing a national nominating conventions, perhaps the most partisan institutions in our political system,” Kohn said.
“I’m guessing, based on how few have endorsed to this moment in time, that very few are attracted to either candidate and will want to endorse. More will want to champion their ‘right’ to speak out.”
In a letter to the Washington Post, Dempsey wrote that retired Marine Gen. John Allen and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn crossed the line by speaking at the Democratic and Republican conventions, respectively.
Dempsey took issue with Allen and Flynn being introduced at the political conventions as general officers, not private citizens.
“As generals, they have an obligation to uphold our apolitical traditions,” Dempsey wrote. “They have just made the task of their successors — who continue to serve in uniform and are accountable for our security — more complicated. It was a mistake for them to participate as they did. It was a mistake for our presidential candidates to ask them to do so.”
Both service members and the general public should not have to wonder what senior military leaders’ political motivations are, Dempsey wrote.
“The military is not a political prize,” he wrote. “Politicians should take the advice of senior military leaders but keep them off the stage.”
On ABC’s “This Week,” host George Stephanopoulos asked Allen about Dempsey’s argument.
“Marty Dempsey is one of the greatest soldiers I’ve ever known and a dear friend and I understand completely what he’s saying,” Allen replied. “But I’ve agonized over this decision over and over again."
Allen said he is worried about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s comments about how he might use the U.S. military and he feels Trump has insulted the military by saying it can’t win anymore.
“I decried these comments that put us on a potential track for a civil-military crisis, the likes of which we have never seen in this country,” Allen said. “That was the reason I came off the bench. I don’t intend to stay out there to be politically active. I intend to return to my previous activities.”
However, two retired general officers told Military Times on Sunday that they believe Dempsey is correct.
In 2002, Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who was rumored to be considered a candidate to become the next Marine Corps commandant, requested retirement because he objected to the upcoming Iraq War.
“While military leaders almost always should follow the prescription of 'counsel in private, praise in public,' there are occasionally and rarely instances, where intelligence used to justify conflict is manipulated or judgments on the use of force are so flawed that an experienced military leader must (as we say) speak truth to power,” Newbold told Military Times in September 2014.
But when asked on Sunday about Dempsey’s letter, Newbold replied simply: “I agree with General Dempsey. Strongly.”
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales advised political candidates but never publicly advocated for them, he said.
“I don’t think Marty [Dempsey] had any problem at all with people advising,” Scales told Military Times on Sunday. “I think his problem is a large public display advocacy, particularly for a recently retired general.”
Scales’ father, who retired as an Army colonel, held very traditional views about how the U.S. military should be apolitical. Every election day he would give his children the same speech explaining why he refused to vote as a professional officer.
“He’d said the Army is the only institution that could destroy our democracy in a day,” Scales said. “He said we’re the only Western power that’s never been ruled by the military.”
But over the last 30 years, the longstanding tradition of the military being separate from politics has eroded to the point where it barely exists anymore, Scales said.
Dempsey’s may give pause to retired general officers who want to endorse political candidates, but “the battle over this has just begun,” said Richard Kohn, who teaches military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Kohn has repeatedly said he believes generals and admirals cannot resign if they disagree with an administration and they should not endorse political candidates when they are out of uniform.
He feels a debate is about to begin about where retired general and flag officers’ professional obligation to remain apolitical ends and where their First Amendment free speech rights begin.
“There will be a lot of diversity in the discussion, but remember that the overwhelming majority of retired flags, even at the highest ranks, have refrained from endorsing presidential candidates and particularly appearing a national nominating conventions, perhaps the most partisan institutions in our political system,” Kohn said.
“I’m guessing, based on how few have endorsed to this moment in time, that very few are attracted to either candidate and will want to endorse. More will want to champion their ‘right’ to speak out.”
Former Joint Chiefs chairman: Retired generals shouldn't speak at political conventions
Posted from armytimes.com
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
I concur with Retired Army Gen. Martin Dempsey comments SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSLthat retired Marine Gen. John Allen and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn crossed the line by speaking at the Democratic and Republican conventions because they drew attention to their ranks, respectively.
However if they were introduced as individuals with significant knowledge without drawing attention to their military rank I would think that was okay.
Update
Per DoD Directive 1344.10 Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces
4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7. below), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.
Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9. below )
4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.
4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted
under the conditions noted in subparagraph 4.1.1.6.
4.1.2.4. Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan
4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.7. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.
Note 1. Paragraph 4.1.1.7. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee
favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to the limitations under section
441a of title 2, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (d)); section 607 of title 18, U.S.C.
(Reference (e)); and other applicable law.
Note 2 Paragraph 4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.
PO1 John Miller
LTC Stephen C. Capt Seid Waddell CW5 Charlie Poulton CW5 (Join to see) SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT SFC William Farrell SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SSgt (Join to see) SSgt Robert Marx TSgt Joe C. SGT (Join to see) SGT Robert Hawks SGT Robert George SGT John " Mac " McConnell SGT Forrest Stewart SP5 Mark Kuzinski SrA Christopher Wright SPC (Join to see)
However if they were introduced as individuals with significant knowledge without drawing attention to their military rank I would think that was okay.
Update
Per DoD Directive 1344.10 Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces
4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7. below), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.
Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9. below )
4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.
4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted
under the conditions noted in subparagraph 4.1.1.6.
4.1.2.4. Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan
4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.7. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.
Note 1. Paragraph 4.1.1.7. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee
favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to the limitations under section
441a of title 2, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (d)); section 607 of title 18, U.S.C.
(Reference (e)); and other applicable law.
Note 2 Paragraph 4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.
PO1 John Miller
LTC Stephen C. Capt Seid Waddell CW5 Charlie Poulton CW5 (Join to see) SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT SFC William Farrell SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SSgt (Join to see) SSgt Robert Marx TSgt Joe C. SGT (Join to see) SGT Robert Hawks SGT Robert George SGT John " Mac " McConnell SGT Forrest Stewart SP5 Mark Kuzinski SrA Christopher Wright SPC (Join to see)
(13)
Comment
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
LTC Stephen F.
I disagree sir! There is no reason why they shouldn't speak out. Especially now that they are civilians. Whether we agree or not they have a unique perspective from their previous position.
I disagree sir! There is no reason why they shouldn't speak out. Especially now that they are civilians. Whether we agree or not they have a unique perspective from their previous position.
(5)
Reply
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
>1 y
LTC Stephen F. roger that I disagree with the article myself, if you look at the past Presidents Grant, Eisenhower, Jefferson and Washington storied careers that started with the military as profound Generals and statesman. The benefits too me outweigh the cost what they bring to the table. Now being in Uniform is another story and I don't endorse that at all.
(8)
Reply
(0)
COL Korey Jackson
>1 y
The key phrase in DODD 1344.10 is "on active duty."
LTG Flynn and General Allen are retired, not on active duty; hence this DODD is not directly applicable.
Our nation has been blessed to have had, and still has today, political leaders in both parties who are not only veterans, but also retired members of the armed forces or who were currently serving in the National Guard or Reserves.
While I do not disagree with GEN Dempsey's remarks directed at the recent appearances by LTG Flynn and General Allen at national political conventions, and agree with MG Robert Scales, note that General Colin Powell spoke at the 2000 Republican Convention and endorsed then-candidate George W. Bush for the Presidency.
General Powell's participation in the 2000 Republican Convention was different than General Wesley Clark's role in the 2004 Democratic Convention: General Clark was actively campaigning and running for the presidency (and won the Oklahoma primary).
LTG Flynn and General Allen are retired, not on active duty; hence this DODD is not directly applicable.
Our nation has been blessed to have had, and still has today, political leaders in both parties who are not only veterans, but also retired members of the armed forces or who were currently serving in the National Guard or Reserves.
While I do not disagree with GEN Dempsey's remarks directed at the recent appearances by LTG Flynn and General Allen at national political conventions, and agree with MG Robert Scales, note that General Colin Powell spoke at the 2000 Republican Convention and endorsed then-candidate George W. Bush for the Presidency.
General Powell's participation in the 2000 Republican Convention was different than General Wesley Clark's role in the 2004 Democratic Convention: General Clark was actively campaigning and running for the presidency (and won the Oklahoma primary).
(7)
Reply
(0)
Posted >1 y ago
There is no reason why they shouldn't speak out. Especially now that they are civilians. Whether we agree or not they have a unique perspective from their previous position.
(8)
Comment
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
Why not, they earned that distinction of being a general officer. And most should know who the hell they are anyway for the most part.
(2)
Reply
(0)
(3)
Reply
(0)
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
SFC Jerry Crouch, Ed.D. -
After your post I did a little reading and I stand corrected. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
After your post I did a little reading and I stand corrected. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Posted >1 y ago
They are citizens and have a right to participate in the political process openly if they so choose. Most won't participate openly, but as tax paying citizens, if they were physicians, senators, congressmen or others in civil service now retired, they have earned the right, and should not expect a lifetime sentence of silence because of their previous occupation. Like a PhD, or MD, we retire with a rank. Don't call me Mrs Lorraine. Right? I'm retired, but still have some voice. The military does vote, but they must keep their political opinions to themselves until they are no longer under the UCMJ.
(6)
Comment
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
>1 y
Colonel, if I may interject, I agree they have a 100% right to speak on any issue they choose. But I disagree on using the title. I know it has always been different in the Officer Corps, but when one retires, one gives up the necessity of being referred to by their rank. I find it strange nowadays when I am referred to as Master Sergeant. I have not worn the stripes of a Master Sergeant for over 35 years now. I appreciate the respect being shown, but I don't believe it is a necessity.
Also, if one is speaking at a political function, the rank should never be used.
Jut the humble opinion of a tired old soldier.
Also, if one is speaking at a political function, the rank should never be used.
Jut the humble opinion of a tired old soldier.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next