The Revolt of the Generals

Authors Note: I wrote this in April 2006 and reflects my thoughts then and now.

For the last several days I have pondered what the media has dubbed the "Revolt of the Generals." The whole discussion surrounding the propriety of retired senior military officers speaking out on Iraq has generated a host of opinions from both the right and left, supportive and non-supportive, regarding their actions.
It seems to me there are two essential questions which must be answered regarding the comments of the Generals. First, what freedom of dissent do the military posses while on active duty, and second, upon retirement or discharge do former members of the military enjoy the full exercise of liberty conferred by citizenship.
Clearly our founding father's envisioned that the military would be subordinate to the rule of the civil magistrates. In Article II, of the United States Constitution, the President is declared to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. While no President since Washington has marched at the head of a military formation, all Presidents since him have exercised a certain flair for wrapping themselves in the mantle of the military. Be it Franklin Roosevelt's naming his sons as military aides or Ronald Reagan saluting the Marine Crewmen of Marine One. Today, as it has been the custom for a number of years, bachelor military officers in Washington are pressed into service as social aides at the White House.
Likewise the founders of our nation wisely gave the power to regulate the Armed Forces to the Congress of the United States. Congress has the exclusive power to approve commissions and promotions of officers, to appropriate money, and to make the necessary laws governing the armed forces.
But the founders were also deeply distrustful of both Central Government and a large standing military. To prevent a possible collusion between the government and the military, or domination of the government by the military the states were empowered to maintain militias under the control of the respective Governor's as a bulwark against military rule.
I mention the above facts not to show my knowledge of our Constitution, or the learned principals which underpin the Constitution and the founders thought, but rather to show the tradition of control and subordination of the military to the civil magistrates.
But, our theory and practice are all together opposite. It was not until the end of the 19th Century that the United States military adopted the professional ethos that the military should be apolitical. Throughout the 19th Century it was not uncommon for military officers to be actively involved in partisan political affairs while serving on active duty. Winfield Scott was the Whig Candidate for President while serving as the Senior General in the United States Army; George Armstrong Custer was openly plotting a political career when he was killed at the Little Big Horn. In the 19th Century, Jackson, Harrison (both William Henry and Benjamin), Taylor, and Grant were elected because of their military service. In the 20th Century both Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower used their military service as proof of their ability to lead. Eisenhower was unique as he was recruited by both parties to run for President of the United States.
With the exception of Eisenhower and the man whom William Manchester referred to as the American Caesar Douglas MacArthur, for the most part the military has lived up to the example of Marshall in eschewing politics both when on active duty and in retirement.
Because the military is subordinate to the civil magistrates there are clearly limitations on active military participation in the political process. By tradition, regulation, and statue, the military is to eschew active participation in political activities. However, since the end of World War II and in particular since the end of the Vietnam War, the professional military has increasingly identified with the politics and polices of Republican Party. In the most recent election it was not unusual to see in the parking lots of a military installation cars with bumper stickers supporting Republican candidates. Thirty years ago when I entered the military it would have been the exception and not the rule to see partisan bumper stickers on a vehicle driven by a military member. Clearly while the ethos of non-partisanship remains a steadfast principal of the professional military, it is more honored than practiced.
There is no question that active participation in political activities while on active duty is prohibited. This does not mean a member of the military may not express his or her opinion either in private conversations or through a bumper sticker, the only cavet would be if he spoke in a contemptuous of the President or another member of the civilian chain of command.
What then is the option of a member of the military who disagrees with the policies of the government he or she serves? There are only two recourses; to continue to serve; or to seek discharge at the completion of an enlistment or to resign ones commission. Until separated from the military, a member is compelled to say nothing or if he or she chooses to speak out to face punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
There are those who will say the choices which I have stated previously deny those serving in the military the full exercise of their fundamental rights as a citizen. To those I would remind them of two points that by our tradition and our Constitution the military is subordinate to the Civil Magistrates; and two the military by its nature is hierarchical with those below having to obey the commands and support the decisions of their superiors. To allow otherwise would threaten the cohesion and the good order and discipline and inhibit the militarys ability to execute its mission of providing for "common defense." To allow the military to question the decisions of their superiors--the civil magistrates would erode the subordination of the military to the civil magistrates.
Those in the military while citizens, also serve the nation. Their fidelity is not to the President but "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same." and to whomever, regardless of political party, is the Commander in Chief.
Now to the second question, which I shall frame, as is it right and proper for the members of the military who are discharged or retired to be involved in the political process.
Once either separated or retired a member of the military is free to participate in the political process. There are however some restrictions to ensure that the public does not construe the military is actively involved in politics. These restrictions include a prohibition on wearing a military uniform at a partisan political event.
The fact that one is either separate or retired from the military does not disqualify them from participation in politics. In fact some of our greatest political leaders were in fact formerly in the military is proof this is acceptable. However once a former member of the military enters the partisan political arena they become a politican.
In recent days six retired General Officers have called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld; four of the 6 were directly involved in the invasion of Iraq, the other two, one was a former Central Command Commander and the other a former Senior Army Staff officer. The essence of all but Anthony Zinni's critique is as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld has chosen to ignore the advice and consent of his Senior military officers; Zinni critiques is much broader in he is critical of the prosecution of the War on Terrorism.
The press, regardless of perspective has portrayed this as the "Revolt of the Generals." The left has shouted, "I told you so;" and the right has accused the Generals of being unpatriotic and endangering the lives of our servicemen serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It seems there are two essential questions which must be answered to determine which side is right. Are the General's right for speaking out, and are they wrong for demanding Secretary Rumsfeld resignation.
The first question is easy to answer, yes. If they feel strongly that mistakes have occurred, as citizens they have a right to speak out. Their bona fides is their service and position as retired military officers.
The second question is less easily answered. If the retired Generals are speaking out not as individuals but serving as the stalking horses for those still serving then they are wrong, for the military should not be involved in the political process. While it is true that senior officers are in fact politicans, they are not partisan politicans, rather they are politicans in the sense they must work with the elected and appointed political leaders to ensure the outcome they desire. If as retired General's they are representing the special interest of the military and are trying to change policies they disagree with then they are wrong. If on the other hand they are speaking out as individuals and are not representing the interest of the military but are merely expressing their own personnel views--then their actions are right and proper. How do we know what their motives are; we don't and we must leave it to their consciences to know what there true motives are.
In evaluating the General’s message, I believe it is important to look at what they did in the military and what they are saying. General Zinni position is that of a former Commander of Central Command. In that position he was in effect the Pro Counsel for the United States in the Middle East. The position of Regional Combatant Commander is more than just a military position; he represents the United States politically and diplomatically, is the point man for our getting the United States position out to the governments of the region, and has some influence regarding economic activities. Zinne was one of a long string of exceptional CENTCOM Commanders and as such his voice and views should be given great credence. He did not serve in the military under the Bush adminstration thus his criticism of the Secretary of Defense have more to do with the underlying policy issues than any specific concerns about Donald Rumsfeld. Part of Zinni critique may have to do with his belief that his detailed OPLAN for Iraq was scrapped by the SECDEF, at least this is the indication given in Cobra II by Gordon and Trainor.
Lieutenant General Newbold was the Director of Operations, J3 for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has first hand knowledge of the deliberations which took place leading up to execution of Cobra II. His position within the hierarchy of the military command required him to execute the orders of the Secretary of Defense. His criticism deal with the micro-management of the military planning and execution by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Defense's total disregard and disdain for the advice of his Senior Military leaders.
General Batiste criticism centered on the Secretary of Defense’s refusal to provide sufficient forces to secure the peace in Iraq. Batiste’s argument is the heart and soul of the military dissatisfaction with the Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld persuaded General Tommy Frank that Iraq could be conquered with fewer than the 350K troops envisioned under General Zinni’s plan. Rumsfeld believed, that the military had become overly cautious and had taken to heart the Weinberger-Powell dictum that you only fight with overwhelming force. Rumsfeld was convinced that the Revolution in Military Affairs made it possible for military operations to be conducted with far less in the way of forces because of the technological advances in air delivered and electronic warfare system. In the weeks preceding the start of the ground war the Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shiniski opined that it would require several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. His opinion was dismissed by the civilian leaders of the Department of Defense as old thinking. Since that time, Shiniski has proven to be right and not Rumsfeld and his henchmen.
Rumsfeld public treatment of Shiniski and his and his assistants refusal to attend Shiniski’s retirement ceremony rankled the rank and file of the Army and to some extent the other services. Rumsfeld and cohorts are convinced that the future of warfare does not lie in large ground maneuver units but rather in sophisticated weapons systems which can eliminate the fog of war and replace the soldier on the ground. In order to pay for these weapons systems the largest single expense the Department of Defense must be reduced–personnel, thus leading to the belief that large ground combat units should be reduced and replaced by weapons systems.
So what is the General’s beef. Is it really with the course of the war or is it their fear that Rumsfeld is bent on replacing land forces as the centerpiece of America’s National Strategic power. I don’t think anyone really knows the answer, what I do know is if the General’s are sincere they would not use the specter of military mistakes to ensure the preservation of their vested interest of large ground maneuver forces. I do believe they are, and that their concerns are legitimate and are worth considering. I also believe that regardless Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld should not be removed simply because they say so. The decision to remove him rests entirely with the President, and any move to remove simply because the General’s say so is a threat to the constitutional underpinnings of our nation.
If I was to offer advice to Zinni et al, your criticism are valued and welcomed, however you should and must not interject yourself in the military into the political sphere of our nation. There is 200 plus years of tradition and history at stake. Duty, honor, and country and the watchwords of our professional military. Duty to ones profession, nation, and soldiers; honor in word and deed; and placing country before self. I believe each of these General’s is living up to these words through their action and their criticisms are legitimate, however their call for the replacement of the Secretary of Defense is wrong. There is a fine line between expressing one opinions and interjecting the specter of military involvement in the political process. The unintended consequences; whether it is undermining our Constitutional heritage, or the loss of respect the American public holds the military, or the American military becoming another special interest group.

Hank Foresman