Professional ethics, for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this post, extend into retirement and apply to retired officers.

Retired General Officers recognize this continuing professional obligation, and it is unlikely that they "speak out" without reason or proper consideration for the ethics of the act.

The issue is that retired Generals perceive an ethical dilemma: the professional imperative to avoid politicizing the military conflicts with and the obligation to serve the greater good of their service. Retired Generals have a responsibility to resolve that dilemma responsibly. If retirees perceive that the best military advice of the active duty military leadership is being ignored, their resulting concern for the good of the service is likely to outweigh their obligation to stay out of the fray.

In that light, retired Generals may have a professional obligation to speak out!

Actually, "certainly have the constitutional right to do so" may not be so.

I believe at least some JAGs might have the opinion that retired offiers are legally serving on the reserve roster.  They are still subject to UCMJ and may be recalled to active duty.  The issue is really about the political will to do so.

Great article by Martin Cook from a recent Parameters:

www.carlisle.army.mil/.../cook.htm

The issue of educating the public and our public officials is much more important to the overall issue of civil military relations.  The bottom line is that there is a lack of understanding between civilian authorities and military leadership.  Generally speaking, they do not comprehend how we conduct business and we have a difficult time fathoming all of the criteria they apply to decision making.

This issue of a lack of common operational understanding leads to the overall discussion of a crisis in civil military relations.  I would contend that there is no such crisis what so ever.  There is no brewing coup amongst the officer corps writ large.  There is just a lack of dialog, or mixed messages when there is dialog, between civilians and the military.

The best way to build the relationship between the civilians and the military is to educate both groups on how the other works.  By getting more military leadership out into civilian educational institutions we will expand general interaction between the military and civilians.  Introducing some type of cultural exchange program, if you will, or expanding fellowships and internships in civilian agencies would also expand a general understanding of each group.  By interacting more with each other, we will build the relationships necessary to reduce the frictions that some outsiders (namely intellectual pundits) perceive there to be.

By building these relationships, opening up lines of communications, and enhancing the knowledge each group has of the other, we will turn this crisis into an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the civilian authority and military leadership.

It seems that the specific point of contention was retired generals voicing negative comments through the media.  I absolutely agree that, with their elevated status, generals should not make negative comments through the media.  With that said, I do believe their should be honesty and candor in answering questions.  There is no doubt that some media "professionals" will ask leading questions that bait an interviewee into a delicate situation.  These questions will not stop as long as there are advertisers paying large amounts to the viewers/readers.  I do not believe there is such a thing as an unbiased news organization.

     What about generals as "military analyts"?   Again - a grey area.  I totally agree with the point made of educating the public.  A general citing historical relevance to current events will educate although it could also immediately introduce bias. (i.e. compare anything to Vietnam).    

Since everyone is going down the straight and narrow answer, I will take the path least traveled and probably unpopular. Retired Generals while having an elevated status of their opion has more weight than say a retired MAJ, they still have the right to express their opion. They are not any longer on active duty and should freely express their opions.

The view that they should not express thier opions is asuming that the American public and other military professionals can't decipher bloviating from a good point. I believe that is not only okay but they should express their opions when the time is right or even if it is not, let the people decide wheater or not their opion has  any merit.

I agree with what Ryan previously posted. I will also argue that some forum of educating the public is needed in order to establish the trust that Dr. Cohn also mentioned.

I attended Columbia University as part of the Eisenhower Leader Development Program and sat in classes with the rest of the Columbia students on campus in Manhattan, NY. This was an eye opening experience for all involved and helped break some stereotypes we had of each other. I was amazed at how ignorant the civilian public at large seemed to be about many military issues as well as the perception many had of our Soldiers, particularly female Soldiers.

Depending on one's point of view, either unfortunately or fortunately in order to educate the masses at universities and other institutions of learning, we would have to break through the perception that we were there simply to recruit. This may not be as large of a challenge compared to 40 years ago.  

Speaking particularly in regards to the Generals, like anything else we have our good and bad examples. Some have spoken better than others. Today's electronic media and flash headlines make it easy for some things to be taken out of context.

If anything I would like to see some form of communication from the "grey beards," in particular the ones from the Vietnam era and have them compare what our society, both military and civilian, is undergoing now compared to what they experienced.  

Though many will say that these Retired Generals are "undermining" our current forces or administrations, these men have valid and proven experience that can be beneficial to those in the current fight and to the administrations.  Others will say that these men are performing a dis-service by speaking out against the strategies that are being used by those currently serving.  If we say that they should not do it since they are LTG's or Generals, then is it okay for MG's to do it, such as when MG John R.S. Baptiste did it after serving in OIF II as MND-N CG and said that he was pushing for a surge in mid 2004-2005 and was told to "sit down and row".  Or should no one that has served as a Soldier, Airmen, Sailor or Marine be allowed to speak ill of our political administration, because all of them could be called back at anytime, as recent history has shown.  

It is a slippery slope we slide down if we limit the free speech of those that have honorably and bravely served our country when called upon.  On a final note, sometimes people have got to be told that the baby is ugly, and who else to point it out then those that have "been in the ring".

A flag officer in any United States military services has the constitutional right to speak his or her mind; however those comments can hurt those that are still serving United States Military. Officers in the military must ask themselves will these comments help or taint my ability lead the future forces in the United States. This time in America now require us to put our personal feeling that we have toward any individual that has power over us to aside and learn to deal with them in more positive way. Leadership is about teamwork and understanding it. These comments tend to further divide the civil and military relationship that can hinder progress and meaningful communication that we needs to move forward in the 21st Century. This country is going to tremendous economic crisis whereas those leaders lost their ethical conscious and put their own personal interest first. We as leaders must look at the big picture see how what we do in the presence will affect those in the future. This country military are in two wars and those who are continue to serve needs your loyalty and trust to respect those that are over you and refrain from making public comments that will hurt morale and progress throughout the military.  

First, let me say that Dr. Cohen seems to contradict himself. According to his argument, you should (as a 3 or 4 star) voice your opinion, but still follow the orders as giving at the end of the day. But when you retire, you have no voice anymore and that it is unethical to speak until a new adminstration comes in.  A few points on why I have a problem with this:

Point 1: You are in fact required to submit your concern and voice your opinion. We are required to do this on ethical and moral principles in my opinion...regardless of rank. If you do not, I think you risk failure as a military professional.

Point 2: What if you are giving an order that is in fact UNETHICAL? Do we continue to be 'Yes' men and violate our own integrity simply because we have been trained to do so (and should in fact according to Dr. Cohen)? If you do always say yes, than what is the point? Is that not failed leadership? Are you not violating your principles to please anothers opinion? Is that ETHICAL? Is that MORAL? I suspect that I am not alone in my thought process here.

Point 3: Retired generals should, in my opinion, be able to comment on certain aspects of military operations as long as they don't contradict what the active leaders desire and want (nor the administration). The problem comes in from media bias in which they seek to gain a contradictory opinion from someone who is retired to support their agenda (spoken party affiliation). In this case, they should follow Dr. Cohen's recommendation and not speak out. I have no problem with retirees supporting what the active component is attempting to accomplish. If they want to contradict that, they should have not retired (or have been forced to retire). Goes back to that old saying "praise in public, condemn in private".

It is unfortunate that this event was so lopsided.  It would have been nice, if the intro portion would have only taken 30-45 minutes, allowing for 75-90 for question and answer.  I think that there were some significant issues brought up by the panel that we could not explore.  Specifically, from Dr. Kohn the idea that there is not going to be a budget fight between the DoD and the Executive in the near future and the idea that the U.S. military is not trained or equipped to conduct border security or police operations along the Mexican border.  I would argue that we have been doing these type of operations overseas for the last 15 years starting with Bosnia.

Any percieved crisis in civil-military relations is due to the finite number of Americans who have actually served in the United States armed forces.  Implementing exchange programs or other efforts to educate civilian leadership about the military consitute half measures that do not fundamentally address the issue at hand.  With less than 1% of the nation serving in the military, it is not surprising that the gap between the military and our civilian leadership continues to grow.  

My opinion is that retirees have the same constitutional rights as any of us still wearing the uniform.  

Although case law is limited in this regard, retirees should not be considered civilians in the same sense as civilians who have never served in the military; while they enjoy certain privileges and bear many responsibilities, they remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Among the relevant privileges they enjoy is that they are exempt from requirements associated with "prior review" of manuscripts or speeches (see AR 360-1, paragraph 6-6d: "[m]anuscripts or speeches by retired personnel or members of the Reserve components not on active duty are not subject to review and clearance.")

The UCMJ, however, would restrict their speech rights in the same manner it imposes limits on the speech rights of uniformed personnel.  Perhaps the most significant is Art. 88, which forbids officers from using contemptuous speech against public officials.  

Any proposed UCMJ prosecution of retired personnel raises significant policy concerns.  AR 27-10, paragraph 5-2b encapsulates DA policy in this regard, as it states that "[r]etirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations of the UCMJ that occurred while they were on active duty or, while in a retired status. DA policy provides that retired Soldiers subject to the UCMJ will not be tried for any offense by any courts-martial unless extraordinary circumstances

are present."

Previous comments on the subject of retired officers speaking out against political figures focused on education, legality, and professional obligations.  I agree that these points have merit and would like to include two additional points: Accountability and Balance.  When offering opinions in retirement, officers must remain factual, professional, and relevant.

Initially, I viewed retired officers speaking out against political figures as a violation of our military culture.  Of course while on active duty it is not permitted, but the assumption was one should maintain that muzzle in retirement.  However, reading about the citizen-soldier made me think about the bigger picture and the valuable opinions and experiences of retired officers.  These great leaders must have the ability to publically challenge political figures for the expressed purpose of saving lives and winning wars.  What greater voice than an expert who no longer has to “Sit down and row” (Post from MAJ Jack Keen)

Left unchallenged, political figures will not be held publically accountable for mistakes or policies that endanger Soldiers or the mission.  We should find it professionally repulsive that our role as citizen-soldiers in retirement is restricted for the benefit of politicians who wish to avoid negative press or in extreme cases the exposure of incompetence.  The deterrence alone would result in a more integrated approach to military plans and policy.

The American people expect a checks and balances approach to the Government and this issue is no different. If not a retired officer, then who will be the expert that provides the balance of facts to an issue that will be recorded in history, studied, and influence the decisions of the future.

All good comments particularly about the role of retired generals and whether they should or should not speak out.  I have mixed feelings on the subject since they do have a great deal of influence and their views, depending on the subject or situation, can help or hurt those who are currently in senior leadership positions and are the ones making the decisions and dealing with the consequences.  On a different subject, another point I thought was interesting was made by Dr. Schadlow.  She mentioned that she thought civilians should be involved in all levels of military planning since the objectives of the military operation being planned were to meet a political end and these plans influence force structure.  Civilian military leadership and Congress are directly involved in and responsible for both these areas.  I see her point of view but I do not believe the military needs civilians involved in this capacity.  Based on her limited explanation it seems like the civilians would be there to report on versus particpate as a relavnat member of the team.

Should retired General officers speak up?  YES!  I believe that they are invaluable members of our society who maintain high credibility with the civilian populace and are responsible for providing their feedback.  If they have something to say, they have earned the right to speak their minds and to have a voice.  Anything else (matters of national security, of course, are off limits to everyone) borders on Big Brother.

I believe we lose sight of our constitutionality when we attempt to stifle anyones right to speak their peace.  These gentlemen are not involved with current operations, they are citizens.  Citizens of a democracy.

I remember when General Grange "retired" in 1999.  The critique he made (after retirement) of the USR process was significant, honest, and (I believe) improved our operations prior to the GWOT.  He had valuable input and the fortitude to stand against convention and speak his mind.

General or Private, we are human beings and perfection is not a requirement.  doing our best is.  We are all citizens of the (by God) United States of America.  Never forget that.

Disappointed that we didn't examine two historical examples of imbalance in military-civilian relations: World War II Germany and Japan.  In Germany, you had the professional military almost completely subservient to the civilian political leadership because they took an oaths to Hitler.  Apparently, they felt that those oaths were enough to absolve them of any responsibility to do what was morally right.  Not only am I referring to the Holocaust, but also the numerous strategic and operational blunders that contradicted senior military advisers' advice.  Hitler was probably the Allies best weapon in Germany's defeat.  

In the case of Japan, the military so dominated the leadership of the country that despite suffering to two atomic bomb attacks it took the Emperor's intervention to gain Japan's surrender.

In the matter of senior retired officers voicing their opinions-I personally welcome them.  They know more than most regarding the issues, both poltical and military. If they have an issue with a policy that is sending our young men and women into harms way, especially if they think the policy is illegal or immoral or otherwise causing unnecessary causalties, I expect them to speak.  Is Dr Cohen saying let our people get killed in the name of loyalty to misguided leadership or for the sake of peaceful civil military relations?

My last thought is that it is your DUTY to disobey or protest if you are given an unlawful order.  Are you a Sam Damon or a Courtney Massengale?

I have a couple of comments on yesterday’s Civil/Mil panel.  First I’d have to agree that the relationship between the civilian military powers that be and the officers in the military is built on trust.  But that is like any relationship and should be common sense, trust is key in anything you do.   When the civilian government asks the military to execute a mission, we in the military owe them an honest answer about what it will take to accomplish the mission and at what cost to the force.  The military is in turn owed an honest mission from the civilian government that includes any limitations that the government wants to place on the mission.  What should then take place is a give and take where both sides air their concerns and finally a consolidated product emerges that the military goes forth and executes.  After arguing a point we don’t like and which the civilian government is unwilling to budge on there has to come a time where we in the military salute the flag and move out and draw fire.  It is what we would expect our junior officers to do if we gave them an order they didn’t like and we should show the same respect to the civilian government.

With that said my second point is that I don’t believe retired officers should criticize a sitting government or president for their actions.  As an active army officer we know that we cannot criticize our commander-in-chief.  When he makes a decision, we salute the flagpole and move out.  One of my favorite sayings when asked if I support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is “I’m a soldier, I don’t make the policy, I just execute it.”  That’s not a copout that’s just how I feel, in private with my wife and a close circle of family and peers I might address the question differently.  If I don’t like the way a current president does things I voice my displeasure when I vote.  Now to retired officers, they are still officers, they have just moved to retired status and they still draw government benefits, so the same rules that apply to an active officer should apply to them, no public criticism of the current administration.  If a retired officer wants to criticize a current administration publicly then he can resign his commission instead of retiring.  Oh wait that means giving up that retirement pay and the other benefits didn’t think about that did they.

What Dr. Cohen was really getting at—if I recall correctly—is a conflict of interest issue. By “conflict of interest” I am referring simply to the precept that Retired Generals Officers would find it extremely difficult—if not impossible—to professionally represent the interests of both the military and political processes.

Having presented this “conflict of interest” as a “professional responsibility”, rather than a statutory requirement, Dr. Cohen’s resolution of the matter leaves the door open for interpretation. Particularly in light of the fact that no retired General Officer (that I am aware of) has ever been called back into active service to be prosecuted under the UCMJ for taking a stance inapposite of an Administration’s policy or decision to use military forces.

Whether or not Dr. Cohen’s assessment of the looming “Crisis in Civil-Military Relations” is accurate, there are paradigms of professional responsibility that Retired General Officers should consider if they are in a military interest versus political process interest conflict. While I am not advocating the codification of Retired General Officer professional responsibilities (like the legal and medical professions), I am suggesting that before engaging in the political process, Generals should ask themselves the question central to resolution of all conflict of interest paradigms: “Will the actions taken cause harm to those represented?”

What Dr. Cohen was really getting at—if I recall correctly—is a conflict of interest issue. By “conflict of interest” I am referring simply to the precept that Retired Generals Officers would find it extremely difficult—if not impossible—to professionally represent the interests of both the military and political processes.

Having presented this “conflict of interest” as a “professional responsibility”, rather than a statutory requirement, Dr. Cohen’s resolution of the matter leaves the door open for interpretation. Particularly in light of the fact that no retired General Officer (that I am aware of) has ever been called back into active service to be prosecuted under the UCMJ for taking a stance inapposite of an Administration’s policy or decision to use military forces.

Whether or not Dr. Cohen’s assessment of the looming “Crisis in Civil-Military Relations” is accurate, there are paradigms of professional responsibility that Retired General Officers should consider if they are in a military interest versus political process interest conflict. While I am not advocating the codification of Retired General Officer professional responsibilities (like the legal and medical professions), I am suggesting that before engaging in the political process, Generals should ask themselves the question central to resolution of all conflict of interest paradigms: “Will the actions taken cause harm to those represented?”

The discussion about General Officers is interesting, but to me the issue will continue to cycle as many times as social behavioral issues do.  The take away for me, was what is relevant to us now?

Essentially, all of the panel members placed great importance on the issue of Civil-Military relations.  Does this issue only reside at the General Officer level?  If so, then why target us (CGSC class junior field grade officers) since only a small percentage of the students will become General Officers?  

The simple answer is the issue does not only reside at highest levels, but is relevant to all levels.  The panel members mentioned several times the word “Trust”.  This “Trust” is obviously not generated immediately, but must be fostered over time, and also answers why target future Army leaders.  A logical beginning is the emphasis on STRATCOM to enhance the military exposure to the U.S. citizens.  

What is missing from this discussion, and in my opinion more useful for future improvement, are ideas about mechanisms to generating this trust.  

Is STRATCOM enough, or are there other ways to improve the relationship? This could focus our efforts as junior field grade officers to be able to foster the civil-military relationships.  

Some potential avenues:  contacts from civilian education (former teachers, friends), local community contacts (made through churches, PTAs, professional societies), or even business contacts (contractors, suppliers, vendors)…etc.  

Could an informal program of interaction of military leaders with local politicians be instituted, similar to the Congressional fellowship program?  

Does the civilian leadership partake in similar targeted discussions, and if not how could it be accomplished?  

I’d welcome comments on this line of thinking.

Ref LTC Rodriguez’ posting, retired regular officers not only “enjoy certain privileges and bear many responsibilities,” they are still members of the Army (and hence, the executive branch) by law.

* Title 10 U.S. Code, § 3062(c)(1) states “The Army consists of the Regular Army, the Army National Guard of the United States, the Army National Guard while in the service of the United States and the Army Reserve…”

* Title 10 U.S. Code, § 3075(a) states “The Regular Army is the component of the Army that consists of persons whose continuous service on active duty in both peace and war is contemplated by law, and of retired members of the Regular Army.”

* Title 10 U.S. Code, § 772(c) states “A retired officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title and wear the uniform of his retired grade.”

As LTC Rodriguez noted, they are also fully subject to the UCMJ by law, even though DA policy states they will not be tried unless extraordinary circumstances are present:

* Title 10 U.S. Code, Chapter 47 (Uniform Code of Military Justice), § 802, Art. 2.(a) states “The following persons are subject to this chapter: (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.”

LTC Rodriguez is also correct that manuscripts or speeches by retired personnel are “not subject to review and clearance” as per AR 360-1, paragraph 6-6d; in paragraph 6-8c there is a similar provision for students and faculty:

c. Service school students, faculty, and staff and think tank-type organization members may publish articles without the standard review and clearance process. This is in the interest of academic freedom and the advancement of national defense-related concepts and to stimulate debate on strategic Army issues. The following guidelines apply:

(1) They may express their views in such materials if those views do not disclose classified or operations security information and provided their work is submitted through appropriate channels for security clearance prior to release to any publisher. Unofficial writings are exempt from this requirement.

(2) The following disclaimer must be used: “The views expressed in this article (book) are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”

(3) Authors may disagree with current national policies as long as the policy is correctly stated. However, should military forces become operationally engaged supporting that policy, the author may not publish or distribute the material.

The greater civil-military crisis awaiting us is the rift growing between the military profession and the American society.  The average American has little or no connection to the military or our country’s ongoing armed conflicts.  Furthermore, they have little understanding of the Soldiers of the military outside of the occasional recruiting commercial.  Our civilian leaders are a reflection of the American people, so as this trend continues our civilian leaders will understand their military less and less and the greater crisis between the military and civilian leadership will truly emerge.

The STRATCOM requirement for CGSC is a beginning but is not nearly enough.  For instance, we should be having these discussions externally.  A great place for these discussions would be on civilian university or public policy BLOG site that gets wider readership from the general population.  Honestly, CGSC should not count blogging on the CAC site towards fulfilling ones STRATCOM requirement.  Another good idea is for CGSC to have exchange programs with major universities across the country, and not just KU.  We have exchange programs to foreign countries, but what about fostering an understanding of American military culture within US universities.  In addition, there needs to be more programs to get retired officers into professorships in civilian educational institutions.  This is certainly not the “sexy” thing to do after retiring but it could have a huge impact on our youth.  A retired flag officer who takes a professorship in a major civilian university would truly be an example for others to follow.  American society could benefit greatly from the “new” perspective and understanding imparted upon the country’s future civilian and industry leaders.

An alternative point of view:

Retired Generals comments aimed at promoting hate and other negative social reactions can be detrimental to public support towards a conflict, but those isolated events have been offset by numerous objective views of public interest - the real art of war.  Most civilians agree that the media provides an indirect "check & balance" in our government and public officials.  That is one of the reasons that our government promotes openess and transparencies.  Furthermore, we are engaged in improving military-media relations in our operations.  It is plausible, then, that retired generals comments can affect public opinion and serve as a control mechanism to poor decisions.  During a conflict, retired generals are bombarded by the media to provide their point of view and analysis to our citizens.   Every day, numerous networks enlist military experts (Jensen, 2003).  The Washington post published an article saying that a retired general critized the U.S. government for going into Iraq without a plan (2007).  But that comment was part of the numerous of other comments and analysis that led to the decision for a "Surge".  We cannot ignore the possibility that retired general's opinions to our public can drive desired results and it can present our public with an experienced perspective of the art of war.  Civilians that have not been exposed to the truth of war cannot dupplicate that valuable input.

I believe this would have been much more beneficial and meaningful if the panel consisted of former members of the executive branch (i.e. Under SECDEF or a former NSA) and retired senior general officers.  I can't get over my feeling that the panel members were commenting as "Monday Morning Quarterbacks".  Comments from those who weren't actually in the positions seem irrevelant.  It doesn't matter if you've studied or written extensively on a topic.  If you didn't walk in the man's shoes your opinion is strickly academic.  

Having gotten that off my chest, I will agree that former GOs have, at the very least, a moral obligation to the country and Army to not make public adverse comments against those they recently served.  If for no other reason to preserve good order and discipline, which all who served should still hold sacred.  At the very most according to many of the blogs already posted, they also have a legal obligation to do so.  

John Drake said:

"My last thought is that it is your DUTY to disobey or protest if you are given an unlawful order.  Are you a Sam Damon or a Courtney Massengale?"

I wonder how many posting on this have actually read the book..........

As for me, I reject wholeheartedly Dr. Cohen's premise that senior flag officers, or any other service member, have no right to speak out against bad policy.  I do concede that there could be better methods with which retired senior military personnel can engage in the political debate.  I believe that we have a duty (AD, Retired, resigned, whatever) to speak up with candor whenever the situation warrants, regardless of rank or status.  

I believe that Huntington's objective control model seems to be the most expedient way to structure civil-mil relations.  I also think that it can easily come into conflict with the Clausewitzian theory that we are all so familiar with that war is a political endeavor.  In fact, Huntington's design bears strong resemblance to Moltke's adaptation of Clausewitz where he acknowledges the political purpose of war, but resists any political encumbrances once hostilities have begun.

I applaud the efforts of those like LTC Yingling, and some of the general officers who have spoken out about the failures within the system.  Without discourse, we are doomed to continue following the same path to failure.  When the environment within the military structure fails to allow dissent and brings heavy penalties for failure to "toe the party line," the system has failed, and extreme measures are required.

The best way to dissent remains a dilemma.   Alternatives exist to the methods discussed during the panel.

Resignation is an option, and seemingly the most honorable course, but why should the professional warrior forsake all of the benefits earned through his service to the nation?  No one expects academics, senators, lawyers, doctors or anyone else to fork over their retirement and health care plans just to participate in political discourse.  If Dr. Cohen's premise that senior flag officers hold a "special" relationship that denies them participation in very system they protected for decades, there is also the option of publishing remarks anonymously or using a pseudonym.  Military and government folks "in-the-know" will understand exactly who is making eth remarks, and the public interest is served by allowing educated public discourse reinforced by expert opinion.

Secretary of the Army Pete Geren wrote an article in the October 2008 edition of Army Magazine entitled “Today’s Army – Ready Today, Preparing for Tomorrow” –

www.ausa.org/.../Geren.pdf

Excerpt from page 15 of the article:

“Recently, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling wrote a piece that appeared in the Armed Forces Journal and sparked heated debate throughout the Army—ruffling a lot of feathers. That is a good thing. We need more, not fewer, Paul Yinglings.”

Retired flag officers should not shy away from the mass media they are one of the best ways for the military and sometimes policy makers to distribute their message to the public.  Retired Flag officers have an obligation to the public and those who are still serving to speak publically and provide useful information on today’s issues.  These retired flag officers usually possess a wealth of knowledge and breathe of understanding that adds context to current issues. This context can be valuable in assisting the public et al with developing an informed opinion on a given subject.  In addition, these officers gave a significant portion of their life to the military and welfare of the nation. They probably still harbor patriotic feelings and maintain a deep desire to serve the greater good, so it is positive that they still seek to help the nation where they can have a positive impact.  However, it is a slippery slope to both provide useful and objective information on an issue while at the same time remaining apolitical.  Former officers who engage in this practice must be very cautious when airing information about current policy especially when disagreeing with decision makers still responsible for prosecuting an action.  The technique that retired flag officers employ to air their disagreements about policy or ongoing operations is key.  Accepting a guest invitation  as a commentator on some cable news show viewed by millions of people should be the last course of action that a former flag officer embarks on to deliver their disagreement about a policy or program. All of these officers are perceptive enough to understand the power of the media and understand that most mass media is geared toward the entertainment rather than education sector.  It is irresponsible for someone of such stature, intelligence and character to engage that kind of program with a very serious issue such as disagreeing with a current military policy or government program. The news outlet is more interested in increasing its viewing audience and advancing its own opinion rather than providing useful information to the public. Thus, issuing inflammatory remarks on current policy over these types of media programs the retried flag officers only serve to add extra emotional energy to situations that often times are already over saturated with emotion. The former officers should help educate the public not try to sway public opinion about a given policy. Rather than use the mass media as a primary outlet to air their disagreements with current decision makers retired flag officers should utilize their civilian networks that they have built over the years to influence the process if they feel that strongly about a given policy.  Only as an act of last resort should they resort should they consider using the mass media as an outlet for their disagreements.

     I believe that the focus is a small minority of the military population.  As discussed by the panel, the 4 star Generals level was really the only target.  The arguments they gave about resigning to take up the cause or early retirement does not hold much water with officers of lower rank.  The panel also stated that it was turning our back on our Soldiers.  We do not see company, battalion, brigade, division and corps commanders leaving due to any civ-mil issues.  These answers or depictions only work for an extremely small population and that is why they are the only target.   Yes, they may hold more “political power” as stated by the panel, however do we determine this to be the basis for all civ-mil cooperation?  I believe we all have a role to play in this relationship and as Mike stated earlier or why would we discuss it here and not at the War College level?

Second, the “Trust” in which the panel discussed seemed to be a hand wave, a requirement with no suggestions.  If this is really, what has to be done then why no recommendations to help support these relationships as these are the experts in this field of study?  Yes, education through exchange programs, partnerships, and working relations will help as we continue to move forward.    As we continue to move forward I believe we the current Junior FG officers have developed relationships at the “tactical level” with civilian counterparts and the “Trust” has already began.  As we continue forward through promotions and such these will be some of the same future civilian leaders we have already worked with, and there will be a “Trust” that had been developed.  

Just like we discussed with the media panel, not long ago the military believed the media was bad and we pushed and moved them as far away as possible.  Today, most officers have dealt with more forms of media then the officers before us would have by this time in their career.  These type relations will continue and will help to “re-balance” the civ-mil relations.  

Lastly, I agree with what someone mentioned above out time.  The panel is to help give us a different prospective.  For us to do be able to do any real analysis or educational reflection is through the question and answer portion.  The panel spent far too much time doing introductions leaving almost no time for questions.  We had time for three questions in a 90-minute panel.

Sir,

   While I fully support the constitutional process for retired General officers to voice their views, I believe they should not use their status to undermine the military.  There are other forums which they can use to get their message out to the "public."  They can submit "op-ed" pieces under a pen name to blogs, newspapers, etc.  I think when they speak to the media as "retired generals" it gives them instant legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the general public.  If they are speaking out against the president or SECDEF, under the guidse of educating the public; it is really distracting for the Soldiers who are out in the trenches making the mission happen.  

    When generals retire, they need to remain professional and respectful, period.    

Very Respectfully,

MAJ Kris Aberg

It is important to note that Eliot Cohen did not call for a “First Amendment” right restriction of retired generals.  He called for the exercise of professional norms by these personnel.  This does not limit their ability to speak up but provides acceptable guidance and perhaps limits the medium employed when they choose to speak up.  

With this point made, “speaking up” through normal accepted professional channels and “speaking out” to the media with one’s own political view for reasons “disguised as trying to help the soldier” are not the same thing. Those who participate in such an activity no matter the rank deserved to be thrown out with the dirty dish water because they are a device that can create a “toxic” environment.  This is especially applicable when retired generals say things like “I speak for the soldiers because they cannot speak for themselves.” This has been done in recent conflicts.  Anyone, no matter the rank, who makes such a comment is arrogant and assuming and has no business speaking for others without their permission. In many of the instances in which retired generals have spoken out they have made comments that I as a serving professional officer do not agree with.  What gives a general of any rank or any military person the right to pass a political view and agenda off as “helping soldiers.” Such actions are shady, hypocritical and an abuse of power.  If an issue was so important and a change is required the retired generals should have demonstrated the army value of personal courage to make required changes when they were serving. One can only speculate as to the true intentions of retired generals who choose to speak out in the media after they retire. (Self preservation? Dubious intent? Ulterior motives? Selfishness?)  During World War II, the Australian General Arthur “Tubby” Allen, the commander responsible for the planning and executing the majority of the operations that occurred along the Kokoda Trail in Papua New Guinea, willingly spoke up in defense of his soldiers and their performances to his senior officer General Blamey and to General Douglas McArthur.  He did so because MacArthur arrogantly assumed that he knew the on the ground conditions better than the commanders fighting on the ground.  Furthermore, he viewed what he deemed as “light” casualties on the part of the Australians as an indication that they were not making progress against the Japanese along the Kokoda Trail. As a result of his speaking up to his superior and General MacArthur, he was removed from command.  Generals in the US military need to demonstrate the same personal courage that General Allen demonstrated. They   should speak up in defense of those serving under them while they serve not afterwards through a medium that undermines those serving and commanding in the military and creating a toxic divisive relationship between the military and the political leaders.  

Furthermore, Eliot Cohen and Michael Desch are well known and respected in their field of study.  Their presence at Ft. Leavenworth was an honor. Their views should not be automatically discounted because they have “no military” experience. One would not dismiss the advice and recommendations provided by a civilian doctor, that has no military experience, but works in a military medical hospital.  Military experience does not make one an expert.   An immediate dismissal of their views demonstrates qualities that indicate a closed mind and a smallness in character. Professional officers need to be open and receptive of the views of others because by understanding those views can we truly make a difference in civil-military relations.

In conclusion, it is not acceptable for retired generals to meddle in the internal affairs of the military, anymore than it is acceptable for any other official (elected or otherwise) to meddle in the internal affairs of the military.  This is not longer the retired general’s job.  Furthermore, while it is inevitable that the military will be politicized to a degree, the extent of that politicalization of any figure should be minimized.

First of all, whether right or wrong, every individual has the constitutional rights to speak their mind and state their opinion.  Just because they are retired General Officers does not mean they no longer have the right to speak up when necessary.

Although, I concur with Dr. Cohen that there should be a better medium the retired General Officers should engage the political arena but I do not concur that they need to “keep their mouth shut.”  These retired flagged officers have every right to speak their mind.  It is obvious that Dr. Cohen has no idea about our culture or values.  Every leader has the responsibility and duty to ensure the welfare of his/her soldiers, unit, and the United States.  If retired General Officers believe that our current civilian leadership’s policies are in direct conflict with the military leaders’ responsibilities, then they have the right to speak up.  Remember, these retired General Officers are still commissioned officers in the U.S. Armed Forces.  They have not resigned their commissioned; they are just retired from active duty.  In their minds, they still have the responsibilities and loyalty to look out for the welfare of subordinate leaders, Soldiers, unit, and our nation.   If they only speak up after the civilian leadership has been changed, then they are doing disservice to the military leaders and the nation.  These retired General Officers have a wealth of knowledge and experience and are well connected with the current leadership of the military.  They possess situational awareness of current military affairs. Maybe, just maybe current civilian and military leadership can learn from what these generals say.  

Lastly, I like to suggest having the Civil-Military Panel during, or even prior to our Civil –Military instructions.  Having the panel a couple weeks after the instruction is a disservice to ILE students.  CGSC should use the Civil-Military Panel as gateway to the instruction block.

The problem with retired GO's speaking out is that it serves to politicize the officer corps of which they are the senior members.  This was never a problem before our wars became politicized - see Iraq/GWOT.  When I see politicians using the names of various retired GOs as supporters, I cringe.  Now, every politician must view an active GO as a potential supporter/detractor upon retirement.

Active duty officers have an obligation to express their concerns to their boss, once the boss makes a decision we are duty bound to follow orders.  How many commanders would allow their XO to undermine them?  This remains true as long as the order is legal and moral, but what if the commander’s decision will cause undue loss of life?  If this is the case, senior officers should have the ability (if not the obligation) to resign and publicly state their case.

Two other thoughts occurred to me during the panel:

1. It is ironic that we deploy and conduct civil security in foreign countries, but we forbidden by law to do the same within our own borders…………  I don’t disagree with the law, I just find it ironic.

2. As officers we have sworn to …support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic…  What if our own government was an enemy of the Constitution?

For instance a president directs the ATF and FBI to seize Pump Shotguns from all citizens, the Supreme Court declares the order unconstitutional.  The president ignores the Supreme Court ruling and the Congress refuses to impeach the president.  What is the military’s responsibility?

I look forward to your thoughts.

MAJ James - Your second question brings to mind a Vince Flynn book I read several years ago. He's a fiction writer, along the lines of Tom Clancy.

Term Limits

tinyurl.com/TermLimitsVinceFlynn

Scroll past the Editorial Reviews (they hated the book) and scan the customer reviews - the majority of whom gave the book a 5-star rating.

This topic continues to be debated by civilian, media and military leaders throughout the country on the balance between military advice and a political agenda by our retired generals.  I know there is a debate on the responsibilities of both active and retired generals, but the focus is on retired.  What makes the military such a respected institution by the American population and in some sense the world is are ability to be non-political and follow the orders of the commander and chief, not a political party?  First, this respect has been built by the courage, self-less service and honor that our institution represents.  Secondly, because our population expects we are committed to the defense of our nation and its values and not a political organization.  Our profession is that of “Arms” not “Politics” and we should stay in our lane.  What we have is some retired Generals who blur that line between being political, but using their military background as a podium to get their views out to the general public.  If a retired general decides to go into politics after office that is his choice.  A good example is that of General Powell, but he understood the balance to providing advice as a career soldier and advice based on his political agenda.  I believe a simple solution would be generals don’t comment publicly if the administration they served are still in office and that they acknowledge that their political opinions don’t reflect that of the military or their position as a retired general.  If you look at retired Generals who fall into the category, that use that use their four-star military career as a podium to express their political views, not their military advice – the numbers are small and that is a testament to the many retired generals who stay in their lanes.    

A retired officer's exercise of free speech rights (of any rank), whatever they want to say, for any reason, is far more important than whether they share your opinion of what constitutes appropriate, "professional" content or style. I am free to judge them, or more apprpriately consider their behavior and my reaction to it, as a guide to my own behavior.

If you wouldnt say what they said, dont say it yourself. If you are moved to criticize them in public or private or both, enjoy the exercise of your own free speech.

"LTC Mark Salas said:

The problem with retired GO's speaking out is that it serves to politicize the officer corps of which they are the senior members.  This was never a problem before our wars became politicized - see Iraq/GWOT.  When I see politicians using the names of various retired GOs as supporters, I cringe.  Now, every politician must view an active GO as a potential supporter/detractor upon retirement."

I concur with LTC Salas and I would also add that retired GO's are not oblivious to this fact. These retired GO's have their own agenda and will use any measure to pass their message. They know that once they go public with a position, whether supportive or opposed to the current administration's policies, they add fuel to the political debate.  But take the ratio of the total number of retired GO's with the ones that actually voice their opinions in the media, it's relatively minor. True, sometimes there is impact (depending on the particular officer), but the general populace's attention span is so short, that their words are usually forgotten within a week (unless that retired officer is running for office).

I was surprised that Dr. Cohen had nothing to say about retired General Officers' endorsement of presidential candidates.  Retired three- and four-star generals regularly offer formal endorsements of presidential candidates during each election cycle.  I cannot recall hearing any public outroar in response to what is clearly political speech.  

What Dr. Cohen and others fear, I believe, is that the speech of these retired officers can carry greater weight.  By virtue of their rank alone - and not their particular competence our qualification to speak to an issue - a retired general's speaking out can (and perhaps should) carry greater weight and importance as ordinary citizens sort out their preferred policy preferences.  

So, in my view, the right question to ask is not "can or should retired GOs speak out?"  Instead, we should think about the costs and benefits of a retired 3- or 4- star general's speaking out.  

The benefits are readily apparent.  Perspective, maturity, and judgment come immediately to mind.  Moreover, the intelligent citizen should be able to sort through the various opinions and voices.  The more perspectives we have floating out there in the political discussion - whether they come from retired GO's or not - the better off a democratic society will be.  

The costs, though, are alarming.  Sure:  if GOs speak out - and they are right - society benefits.  If, however, GOs speak out and they are wrong or if they are perceived as being political or if they are perceived as pursuing their own narrow interests - that is when we have a problem.  The American military profession will lose public confidence.

In short, I argue that we shouldn't be talking about whether or not these GO's have a right to speak out.  Instead, we should be thinking about the costs and benefits of their doing so.

The issue of presidential endorsements by retired GOs is interesting.  There is also the question of retired senior officers running for public office.  The latest example was Wesley Clark's run.  The nature of the electoral system makes it necessary for retired GOs to speak out against the sitting administration and their policies.  

Although Clark was a Clinton era general the fact that he spoke out against the Bush administration rubbed many people the wrong way.  I would caution against getting too excited about this as, in my opinion, the actions of McArthur and McClellan many years ago make what is going on now seem mild.

This is something that we'll most likely be dealing with as long as we are engaged in combat operations and we can only hope that it doesn't escalate too much to be a distraction to our active duty senior GOs.

Retired military officers can pretty much say whatever it is they want to say.  It isn't about academic freedom, it is about United States Constitutionally afforded freedom.

At the bottom line, retired general and flag officers enjoy mostly unlimited free speech as afforded under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,  At the end of the day, retired military personnel are much more civilian than military in terms of their Constitutional privileges of free speech.  The Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5700.7-R with Changes 1-6) deals almost entirely with "current" employees of the Department of Defense.   A retired military officer is not an employee of the United States Government, unless he has other, separate employment with the United States Government.  While indeed, the UCMJ has numerous punitive articles which apply even to retired officers, prosecutors must meet certain specific elements of proof which are often very difficult for them to do in terms of retired military officers.  What is written on the pages, and what is done in practice may be two entirely different things.  What is written and what is in legal precedent setting case law may be two different things as well.  Simply because some members of the active force may not care for what a retired officer might have to say, does not make it wrong for the retired officer to say it.  Critical remarks don't necessarily rise to a level of contempt.  Disagreement doesn't equal contempt or treason.  In fact, criticism may be healthy for the organization.  For while we may not like what we always hear a retired officer say, frankly, we can't stop it, nor should we.  Just what makes the critical comments of some retired officer so unprofessional?  What makes a retired officer's comments unethical, when in most instances the ethics regulations don't even apply to that non-employee retired officer?  We need to read the rules and read the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments, a document all of us swore to support and defend.  No one has absolute free speech; we all know we can't yell out fire in a movie theater.  Privileges and the exercise of freedom involve responsibility.  

The Army leadership is not going to take a retired officer to court over a trivial matter; they won't subject the institution to ridicule, to unwarranted and excessive media criticism.   In very egrigious cases, the military may certainly invoke the UCMJ, on certain punitive articles, recall a retired officer to active duty, and subsequently court martial that officer, but it is rare, and it isn't done lightly.  Such actions need to go to the very highest levels of the Army (or other Service) for approval before the convening authority can even bring a retired military officer before a court martial as a defendant.  The local convening authority cannot do it on his own authority alone.

Many retired officers have exercised their Constitutional right to run for political office.  They don't need the Service's permission to do so, and they don't need to give up their commission to do so.  Being a retired military officer is not a sentence to life-long indentured servitude limiting all aspects of their free speech.  Is a retired officer unethical if he runs for the Presidency of the United States, or Senator, or U.S. Representative?  I don't think so!  Is a retired officer unethical or unprofessional if he accepts an appointment to be the Secretary of State, or Secretary of Energy, or Ambassador to the United Kingdom or China?  I don't think so!  Is a retired officer unethical if they support a particular political candidate of political issue?  No, they are not.  The retired officer may believe his comments to be a form of continuing to serve the people of this country.   We need to support their rights; in fact, it is our duty to support their right to do so.

I wonder where the generals blog or talk openly about this issue?  Is it only interesting to the "lowerarchy?"  

I would respectfully argue they should be "knee deep" in this conversation and share their thoughts and opinions with us.

With few exceptions, like the BG C, Gen C, and LTG C, there are few GOs who enter these blog debates as an ongoing process.  

There are hundreds of flag officers with voices unheard in the blogosphere.  Why?  With all the interest in communications lately, why are they not debating these issues with us hand-in-hand?  We demand our majors blog at CGSC, why doesn't the Army demand that the generals speak up in blogs?

The original question reveals a major short-coming in the panel, already noted among the notes posted above. I hope our institutional leadership take note and correct the deficiency next time this topic is considered for a panel discussion.  Its interesting to hear academics philosophize about the papers they've written and published and to hear their war stories of what they were doing on campus while Soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam or now in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world, BUT... it would have really been [much more valuable and] interesting to hear from Generals Newbold, Batiste, Sanchez and/or Abizaid, and their thoughts on this topic.

To the question of Generals entering the public debate, blogging, etc., I would submit that they are doing it more and more.  The SOUTHCOM CDR, Admiral Stavridis has a blog that he posts to daily, and he also has a presence on Facebook.  Many, many other Army GOs participate in private blogs that are personally monitored by the CSA, GEN Casey, but for understandable reasons, these blogs are not made available to the force or the public IOT allow for honest/open/frank discussion among the GO community.

"...but for understandable reasons, these blogs are not made available to the force or the public IOT allow for honest/open/frank discussion among the GO community"...

hmmm, what if our CGSC students claim the same -- alas, they cannot.

Practice what you preach!!

In the post Vietnam era, fewer and fewer prominant politicians have notable military service.  In fact, the last three Presidents of the United States have had no active duty military service among them and only 1 of the last 3 has served in any capacity in uniform, but had no service in combat.  As globalization and the information age bring nations closer together and more inter-dependent, the number of small scale military operations have increased and will likely continue to do so during the 21st century.  With that said, we are likely to see more and more Flag Officers speak out in support of, or in opposition to American military strategy in a public forum.  When military operations fail to achieve strategic ends, as they did in Vietnam, it is easy to say that the commanding Generals did "nothing" to tell the President he was wrong.  Because NSC conversations are not held in a public forum, it is difficult to say conclusively that our generals in fact "did nothing."  On the other hand, once the President makes a decision, we say it is the Commanding Generals duty to salute and carry on with his orders, or resign in protest.  Then we heard from Dr. Cohn, that a commanding general that resigns is in effect "abandoning his troops as they march into combat." He then said that a retired General who speaks out against a sitting President is disruptive force and that retired generals need to "keep their mouths shut" until the operation in question is over.  I don't think we can have it both ways.  Clearly we can't have active duty Generals publicly question the orders of the President...we also expect that they will give the President honest advise and counsel.  Once a decision is made, he will execute his orders.  Once he retires however, he is free to be silent or speak out if the situation requires him to do so.  I think that if the President is going down, what the retired officer sees as a disasterous path, it is wise for him to speak up in a respectful and prudent manner, voice his opinion and offer other solutions to the problem.  General officers spend decades studying strategy and employing military power.  To have them sit silently while politicians with no experience at all make disaterous decisions is not the smartest way to do things.

As stated above by LTC Rodriguez, military retirees have the same constitutional rights as those still wearing the uniform.  However, the issue is that some critics of retired officers say that they should have expressed themselves while in uniform.  They have a point thinking like that, because while in uniform these General Officers (GOs) have more power and can influence decisions than when retired.  Additionally, these same GOs in uniform are the ones who will make sure these decisions are carried out.  Therefore, regardless of who is in power, officers should disagree respectfully remaining apolitical at all times.  Now, the dilemma is when to stop or to “cease fire” on a topic.  

Expressing professional views to civilians is part of the military’s responsibility.  However, once a decision has been made, continued expressions of disagreement undermine civilian authority (Sewall and White, 2009).  This is true even to our superiors in uniform.  Now, at the same time, civilian leaders must publicly assume responsibility for their policy decisions.  Hiding behind “military advice” undermines the military’s professional role in the matter (Sewall and White, 2009).  Bottom-line, professional disagreement should be encouraged in and out of uniform while remaining apolitical in the process.

Reference:

www.boston.com/.../the_civil_military_challenge  

They do have the right. With that being said, how else will military matters be addressed. We all know we need the military because we were or are in the military. Most civilians do not understand what it takes and cost to protect this country. We need our generals as politicians and speaking on our behalf. If we don't have this than we have retards that have never served a day in their live cutting this and cutting that and then blaming the military when the country gets attacked.

Pingback from  The Citizen Soldier and the Citizen Journalist « Johanna Roering – Media Researcher

If they so deside to voice an opinion, retired military members should properly identify themselves as such.  While the American public is eager to hear how the men and women serving their country feel about current politics, current service members must remain apolitical to preserve the civil-military relationship.  Retired individuals, most recently Lt Col (Ret) Ralph Peters on FOX News, should ensure that if they choose to use their former service to legitimize their views, they should clearly state their lack of affiliation with the current military and that in no way do their opinions represent current service members.  A simple (Ret) after their retirement rank would suffice.

 The saying “Timing is Everything” is especially serious in statements relating to the pursuit of  peace and war and it becomes  even more sensitive when tied to current national security even in matters that are not highly classified when spoken by a person in authority such as a  senior military officer whether active or retired.  So when Colonel Timothy R. Reese, U.S.A. (a senior military advisor in Baghdad) wrote a blunt memorandum in July 2009 to General Ray Odierrno (senior American commander in Iraq) summarizing the reasons for the United States military to exit Iraq by August 2010, the memorandum, not intended for a broad audience, became public. It was picked up by the media and numerous blogs alike and reported or politicized by each organization or individual opposed to the war. Among many reasoned points including the signing of the  2009 Security Agreement, Reese stated “Declare victory” also “bring the troops home with a well deserved Job Well Done” also such action “ is not a strategic paradigm shift but an acceleration of existing U.S. plans by some 15 months”.  Colonel Reese served as director of the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth before deploying to Iraq and would have observed and had the experience to comment about the condition on the ground. General Odierno’s spokesperson stated the memo did not reflect the official stance of the United States military.

 This incident represents a current example of “Timing is Everything”. Before the security agreement was signed or five years from now the leak of such a memorandum or the public discourse of such information by say a recently retired general would not have the poignancy  that the press captured on July 30, 2009 or any potential negative effect on the mission or the military involved.

 My point is when an opportunity presents itself for a senior retired officer to discuss a current matter and publicly provide a view or professional judgement that falls short of absolute certainty he or she is obligated to make it clear that it is an opinion clearly open to dispute. If the professional judgement results from absolute certainty the same obligation for such a person suggests the judgement of certainty be processed through authoritative channels to be used for the advantage of accomplishing the mission.  Just a “Timing is Everything” so is the old saw “Think Before You Speak”