The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Political General Complains of Politics

By on 8.23.12 @ 6:08AM

Time for First Amendment training for flag officers.

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has brought into relief a serious problem of politics in our military.

But the problem, a long-standing one, is not the group of former CIA officials, Navy SEALs, and others who’ve criticized President Obama for taking too much credit for cancelling Osama bin Laden’s ticket, and for leaking secrets about this operation in order to glorify himself. This is the group Dempsey is trying to bring to heel. No, the problem is an officer promotion system that, beyond the rank of commander in the Navy and lieutenant colonel in the other services, begins to weed out warriors and lift up bureaucrats and politicians.

These former service members — remember that word “former” — have released a political ad criticizing Obama, which drew this criticism from Dempsey:

“If someone uses the uniform, whatever uniform, for partisan politics, I am disappointed because I think it does erode that bond of trust we have with the American people,” Dempsey told Fox News.

Dempsey needs to take his own advice. This is a very political statement. It’s an attempt by a man in uniform, at the very peak of our military establishment, to deflect legitimate criticism away from a politician during a difficult campaign. How better to shred the bond of trust Dempsey claims to worry about?

These former special ops types, who have first-hand knowledge and a good case that Obama is exploiting their brave and competent work for his own advantage, have every right to make their points. We can’t categorize every criticism of a president by anyone with an honorable discharge (I have one too) as “partisan” just because the Commander in Chief is a politician. Was Dwight Eisenhower using his uniform for partisan politics when he ran for president twice?

Nothing said here is meant to question the concept of civilian control of the military, a bedrock principle of our republic. And neither Dempsey nor Obama can legitimately invoke it here, though they may try to muddy the waters with it. Members of the military on active duty have to accept certain restrictions on what they can say about their ultimate boss, the president. But the First Amendment applies as much to those who have a form DD214 in the file cabinet as it does to people who’ve never spent a day in uniform. When you’re out, you’re free again. A former Navy SEAL is a civilian like any other, except that he has served his country admirably, and can kill you with his eyebrows.

Uniformed service members are bedeviled with sensitivity training of all sorts — how to treat women, how to treat gays, how to treat minorities, how to liberate Muslim countries without offending the locals, etc. It’s clearly time for an inter-service sensitivity training course on the First Amendment, and General Dempsey should be the first student.

Dempsey’s mission in this political controversy is to button his olive drab lip. The elves in the Obama administration and their sycophants in the left-stream media are fully capable of distorting the criticism of Obama on their own. They don’t need Dempsey to act as horse-holder for them. Nor does the American public need his help in evaluating what these whistle-blowers are saying about a politician with little understanding of the military, and little concern for it beyond using it for his own political purposes.

I’m not familiar with General Dempsey’s long military record. I don’t doubt that he has in many ways over the years served his country well. I’ll take the opportunity now to thank him for that service. But in this instance he is, excuse the expression, way off base. He may not wish to hear this from a guy who never made it beyond E-4. But, you’re way out of line, soldier. If you want, as you claim, an apolitical military, you need to stop being political yourself. And you need to remember that one of the things you’ve been fighting for since you were an officer candidate is freedom of speech.

About the Author

Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (43) |

spike59| 8.23.12 @ 6:19AM

it is well-known in the Army that once you pass 'Light Colonel' and make 'Full Bird', you're officially a politician/paper-pusher

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 7:22PM

Day 1.

Everyone of these Ass Kissing Suck ups gets the boot, to be replaced by Active Duty Senior NCOs.

MEN who still embrace - DUTY. HONOUR. COUNTRY.

Enough, already, with these Overpaid Cruise Ship Greeters.

DarkMan| 8.23.12 @ 6:40AM

Permission granted for uniformed military to participate in 'Gay Pride' events. That's not political?

LindaF | 8.23.12 @ 7:33AM

I agree - once permission was given for service members to march in uniform, refusing that "permission" for INACTIVE soldiers is a ridiculous notion. The general should be ashamed to be making such a partisan statement.

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 7:24PM

He has NO AUTHORITY over what these MEN do.

NONE.

Indy| 8.23.12 @ 5:50PM

Agreed, I lost respect for the Brass long before that decision but that was a glaring change in policy. I have never attended such and "event" but having seen many pics on the web of those "events" its quite troubling the Brass caved to pressure.

Lullabys Legends and Lies| 8.23.12 @ 7:19AM

I've noticed over my years in the Army, that my 1st Amendment rights depend on how political the Officers above me really are!! In the past, in my office, I used to collect political pictures and some economic charts, which in my opinion were not very biased at all, just factual. I put them up there, so that when one of my Soldiers would come in to see me, they might just look at them, get curious, and ask a question about them!! And if they did that, it would open up the door for me to school them a bit about politics, which inevitably led me to blaming the Democratic Party for all that is wrong in America (which is completely true)!! Then about a year ago, we had a very politically correct Officer in my Battalion, and amazingly, I got word from my Company's XO, that it was time to get rid of my pictures and charts!! What? But I took it all in stride, I only threw a tantrum, and cried a bit, possibly screaming, "who the "F" is guy to censor me"?

Lullabys Legends and Lies| 8.23.12 @ 7:20AM

Continued: But I finally did remove them, and when I was done with that, I mopped up my tears from the floor too!! And with the removal of those pictures, the questions about them stopped, and so did the learning!! But like all Officers in the Army, they only last so long, before they move on to their next job, and so did he!! And since then, the photos and charts have crept back onto the walls of my office, and so have the questions and answers about them (which normally is, it's all the Democrats fault)!! So no offense to General Martin Dempsey (who looks a lot like the Officer I was talking about), but you're starting to sound like a Democrat to me (and as you all know well, the Democrats hate the 1st Amendment rights of non-Democrats)!!

JP| 8.23.12 @ 8:20AM

If you ever wish to see a highly decorated O-6 quake with fear, just send an angry feminist or mullah to his office.

fmm| 8.23.12 @ 8:21AM

Here here Mr. Thornbury! I saw the "general" make these statements on TV. His expression showed elements of the Cheshire Cat. In other words, he knew he was being unfaithful to the military but was proud to do so at the same time. People like him engender no respect from those in the ranks.

Pecos Pete| 8.23.12 @ 9:01AM

No politics in the military? Can we say Rules of Engagement?

Rules of Engagement have probably caused more armed forces personnel in Iraq and Afganistan to be killed or injured than any strategy of the enemy.

DarkMan| 8.23.12 @ 9:09AM

Follow the money.... military leaders who fail to bow low to civilian masters will be starved of resources. There's a competition among the military services as to who can touch foreheads to the ground first.

Derek Leaberry| 8.23.12 @ 9:20AM

Sadly, if you've made it up the chain of command in the military to general or admiral, you are almost certainly a liberal. Liberals like General Dempsey, General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen must be cashiered by the next Republican administration. Conservatives must regain the institution of the military.

DarkMan| 8.23.12 @ 9:38AM

Yes - it's the Beltway disease. Not even so much the uniformed services as the liberal civilian bureaucrats in the Departments and Agencies. Those 'lifers' are infecting every aspect of decision making - hollow force indeed!

Indy| 8.23.12 @ 5:55PM

Agreed, no General with any stones would sit back and allow the Fort Hood Shooting to be called a "workplace shooting" and not speak up or resign.

They stay silent while our troops operate under stringent rules of engagement, what happens, we have our troops being murdered in cold blood by so-called friendlies...disgraceful.

Where are the Stormin' Normans? Our military leaders are SOS (Stuck on Stupid)

JimP| 8.23.12 @ 9:33AM

Here, here. Well said, Larry.

RAM| 8.23.12 @ 10:04AM

Once Obama really believes that the brass will do anything to advance their own careers, who knows what liberties he'll take?

DarkMan| 8.23.12 @ 10:14AM

Well, not so much career advancement as the belief in maintaining the fighting condition of the armed forces. Rather than openly resist the occupying liberal forces, and be eliminated, some senior leaders prostitute personal feelings in the hopes that the forces will survive the coming budget bloodletting.

Bill8472| 8.23.12 @ 10:13AM

There was once a custom among military officers. General Eisenhower adhered to it, as did my father-in-law, a Lt. Col. of Infantry. That custom was that military people, particularly officers, are not political, and for some, not political to the point where they didn't even vote in elections.

Too bad that custom isn't more widespread. General Dempsey could learn from it.

MK48| 8.23.12 @ 11:53AM

Dempsey..........got a call

Mike G| 8.23.12 @ 10:29AM

"...that bond of trust we have with the American people..."

General Dempsey,
Can we assume from your comment about the bond of trust with the American people that you and any troops under your command will be siding with the people in the next American Revolution?

fmm| 8.23.12 @ 10:51AM

Don't bet your retirement on it.

wukong| 8.23.12 @ 11:29AM

As a career officer (O-5) I served with many senior officers who were not primarily politically motivated and I say most are not. What officers do owe is loyalty to a commander as long as that loyalty is ethical and does not violate the constitution.

I may have agreed with the position of a General Singlaub v. President Carter, but Singlaub should have retired before using his uniform in their disagreement.

I would wish that Gen. Dempsey had not commented. He has been appointed to a position where his job is to support the President. As a retired officer I am subject to recall to active duty and if recalled, I will execute all legal orders issued by any legal occupant of the constitutional office of the President, eve if I do not personally like the son of a bitch.

JP| 8.23.12 @ 12:41PM

All the action is in the Pentagon. I don't suppose you were ever assigned there? The Pentagon is filled with O-6s and above who depend upon Senate approval for thier next promotion. Harry Reid and Obama control that process, and every O-6 and above now must dance to their tune. Gays, Climate Change, and Muslims fill their time; Afghanistan is just a side show for them.

Make no mistake. The President has transformed our military. By the time Obama is through, our military will resemble Austria-Hungary's military on the eve of the Great War.

Mars the Avenger| 8.23.12 @ 1:31PM

Col David Hackworth, USA (God rest his soul) despised them and referred to these officers as the perfumed princes of the Pentagon. I served 8 years there as a reservist and saw it myself. It is tough to respect these officers (you have to respect the rank, but not necessarily the man) after you've seen all the toady-ism going on there.

Houdini| 8.23.12 @ 11:30AM

For a four star to make any comment, however remote, on politics, he would have to be dumber than a box of rocks or some directive had to have come from his boss. For the General to make such a stupid comment in leiu of resigning exposes his character and lack of honor. Romney and company will have a lot of Pentagon housecleaning to do next January starting with the gay pride parades (which have our potential adversaries quaking in their boots).

Thom| 8.23.12 @ 11:45AM

Long story short to demonstrate how far the American high command has fallen over the decades. Most people know that General MacArthur was relieved of his duties in Korea for speaking out publically against Truman. He suggested the use of nuclear weapons on the Chinese; Truman would not hear of that. Who ordered two atomic bombs dropped on Japan without batting an eye? Who was against that? MacArthur for the record and he had no real interest in atomic weapon use but he was committed to winning what Truman had committed him to. It was all politics between MacArthur and Truman at that point.

MacArthur was ordered out of “retirement” and sent to the Philippines shortly before the Japanese invasion in order to save a losing situation. He had spoken of the need to do this before his retirement in strong terms. Truman ordered MacArthur into Korea without the proper forces and support and the end result was bottled up US forces in a 40 mile wide pocket on the end of the Korean Peninsula with their backs to the sea. He used what forces he could scrape together to outflank the North Koreans by sea and invaded a place thought impossible to do so. He routed the North Koreans all the way back to the border between North Korea and China having started out with his back to the sea….. The 120,000 man North Korean force was defeated by a man that understood the term audacity and his craft.

Thom| 8.23.12 @ 11:46AM

The Chinese took offense and sent 300-400,000 men into Korea pushing MacArthur’s less numerous forces back to the 38th Parallel. Truman did what Democrat politicians tend to do when things don’t go their way and punted the ball to the UN and the Korean conflict became a quagmire and set the template for the next Democrat President to do even better at getting US servicemen killed in vain.

What MacArthur did was “political” in nature and embarrassed Truman in public. He paid for that with his job and he was long past “retirement age”. What Truman did was shear incompetence on parade. It’s a disease modern day Democrat Presidents inherit. Everything is political to them.

Thom| 8.23.12 @ 11:46AM

I know nothing of General Martin Dempsey’s military career but I know something about him with absolute certainty. He is no MacArthur. MacArthur violated protocol and is remembered warmly in history due to his devotion to his men and finishing the tough jobs given to him. He wasn’t interested in political victories. Truman is remembered for the “Forgotten Conflict” where we settled for the status quo that cost us 38,000 men. Given the level of politicalizing of the military the current King has engaged in over the last 3+ years one has to wonder at what level General Dempsey might come out of the “closet” and show us his true self? As a holder of an honorable discharge from a time when wearing the US military uniform off base was considered bad judgment and in all due respect to all the battles and wars General Dempsey has obviously won for this nation, General shut your mouth. An honorable man would have resigned rather than serve the current King. We know where your priorities are General.

JP| 8.23.12 @ 12:35PM

But, Truman told MacArthur not to send forces to the Yalu River,and MacArthur did anyway. Turman didn't want a war with the CHICOMs; MacArthur did. Whether MacArthur had sound policies (he didn't) is beside the point. MacArthur's actions led to the CHICOM's involvement, as well as needless deaths of American and UN troops. Truman had every right to sack him.

Thom| 8.23.12 @ 12:43PM

No disagreement on presidential power here JP but Truman could have relieved him at any time north of the 38th parallel and didn’t. There is nothing magic about the 38th parallel except to politicians. Had MacArthur stopped at the 38th the North Koreans would have got a free pass on their aggression. You can’t say with any certainty at all that the Chinese would not have come in on the North Korean’s side even if MacArthur had stopped ten miles north of the border in 1950. It is all speculation on your part. I have historical record on my side.

Thom| 8.23.12 @ 1:01PM

“But, Truman told MacArthur not to send forces to the Yalu River,and MacArthur did anyway.”

The only US forces to even approach the Yalu river was the 7th division. The rest of the US forces were 50-60 miles away from the border when massive Chinese forces attacked our forces 50-60 miles deep in Korean territory. The Chinese were already in Korea before UN forces moved north of Pyongyang. 50-60 miles in mountainous terrain is a long way to travel for “light” Chinese infantry and the popular myth that MacArthur moving on the Yalu was the motivation of the Chinese suddenly sending in 3-400,000 troops on short notice is simply not supported by the facts.

nathan| 8.23.12 @ 1:15PM

Well, multiple problems here. For Truman there was this minor little detail he neglected called a congressional declaration of war. Given that North Korea posed no direct threat to the United States, certainly was not going to attack us, Truman's failure to go to Congress and secure that declaration meant his actions were patently unconstitutional. To quote Madison on this, "In no part of Constitution is more wisdom to be found" he said in 1793, "than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Were it otherwise, "the trust and the temptation would be too great for any man." UN resolutions, War Powers acts are no substitute for that declaration so the war was unconstitutional to begin with as have been all subsequent actions like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

But please McArthur was a ghastly general who put his monumental ego ahead of everything else. There was no military reason to attack the Philippines and certainly the assault on Manila lacked ANY military justification. The loss of life was horrendous. Sadly Marshall lacked the courage to control him and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost because of it.

Thom| 8.23.12 @ 1:48PM

Two problems Nathan. Any Congress can refuse to fund or impeach a President for what you call an “undeclared war”. None have and the list of undeclared “wars” is a long one by your standard. Academic nitwit arguments like this don’t change any “facts” on the ground. The final authority rest with Congress and if they fund, approve resolutions or sit silently by then they have approved of the actions of the President regardless of the formalities you insist on.

Second, your understanding of WWII in the Pacific is naive at best. The Japanese took horrific causalities against us in their eternal effort to inflict the same on us well beyond any hope of victory. MacArthur declared Manila an open city when he retreated to Bataan. They were offered the same turn when MacArthur returned and they refused and chose to fight to the death instead. They had kind of a pattern for that long before MacArthur returned to the Philippines. As for the battle of Manila being unnecessary well I don’t think you know what function such a port city plays in the scheme of things whereas supporting an invasion and offensive combat is concerned. The Japanese knew thus they fought to keep the port out of US forces hands at all cost. Opinions are like arseholes; everybody got one, some more than one. Patton was a “ ghastly general” too. He was the only allied General the Germans feared and who got the “ball” when the allies were breaking out of Normandy?

Houdini| 8.23.12 @ 3:38PM

It is generally accepted that MacArthur did everything possible to keep American casualties to a minimum, As for the Japanese, who cares.

RODGE| 8.23.12 @ 3:47PM

WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THOSE "COURAGE IN PROFILE" CHARACTERS OF THE U S SENATE.
WHERE IS ALL THAT OVERSIGHT ?

Thom| 8.23.12 @ 4:09PM

Who controls the Senate?

Indy| 8.23.12 @ 5:59PM

WWPD?

What would Patton do? or what would he say? Cover your ears!

Alej| 8.23.12 @ 8:10PM

It's been so long since Dempsey was a company grade officer that he forgot why he sought a commission.

McChrystal, among some notable others, never did.

Thom| 8.23.12 @ 9:23PM

McChrystal, a Democrat, to his credit pulled a “MacArthur” to get out from under being dealt a losing hand by the man he supported in 2008. The Irony of that escapes many…. Far too many people at the top put their career before honor and in the end serve neither.

Glenn Malling| 8.23.12 @ 10:57PM

I am puzzled (or maybe just naive) about current behavior of our military. When the President is sworn into office he takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United State." The officer corps takes the same oath when they first receive their commissions. We now have the situation where the President has violated the constitution multiple times and the officer corps stands by in silence. Have we descended into tyranny while I wasn't looking?

Jane Chingo| 8.24.12 @ 4:53PM

You're all missing the point -- what kind of long-term secrecy agreements did the SEALs sign? Are they violating those?

NW Rob| 8.25.12 @ 7:57PM

If we used General Dempsey’s logic John Kerry, John McCain, Bob Kerrey, Alan West and many other politicians who are ex-military could never speak out on military and national security issues. We certainly could never tolerate them using their prior military experience in their decision making, right general.

More Articles by Larry Thornberry

More Articles From Special Report

Tornado Chasers

May 24, 2013 | Claire Healey

The Inoperative Jay Carney

May 23, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/23/political-general-complains-of

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.