{"id":100788,"date":"2020-06-11T07:36:16","date_gmt":"2020-06-11T11:36:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=100788"},"modified":"2020-06-11T08:41:49","modified_gmt":"2020-06-11T12:41:49","slug":"on-retired-flag-officers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=100788","title":{"rendered":"On Retired Flag Officers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nPresident Trump attends a briefing from his senior military leaders, including then-Defense Secretary James Mattis (left), in the Cabinet Room at the White House<\/em><\/p>\n

“Like the old soldier of the ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Goodbye.” Douglas MacArthur<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Would that they all did. Poetrooer sends us an article on the effects that retired Flag Officers can have on the political process, and how they far exceed the intent of Article 88 of the UCMJ. If indeed they are under any obligation to abide by it from retirement.<\/p>\n

Not-So-Retiring Retired Military Leaders<\/h3>\n

By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON<\/strong>
\nIn a time of crisis, their synchronized chorus of complaints, falsehoods, and partisan appeals to resistance threaten the very constitutional order they claim to revere.<\/em><\/p>\n

Sometimes retired generals are deified. Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower won two presidential terms in landslide elections.<\/p>\n

At other moments, war heroes such Generals Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay were vilified as near insurrectionaries for their blistering attacks on sitting presidents.<\/p>\n

In such a climate, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which became effective law in May 1951, prohibits active generals from disparaging their commander in chief \u2014 in the way perhaps MacArthur had bitterly pilloried then-president Harry Truman over the Korean War. Article 88 of the UCMJ makes it a crime to voice \u201ccontemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State.\u201d<\/p>\n

But no one quite knows, and debate continues over, whether such codified prohibitions on free expression apply to retired generals receiving military pensions. Yet, given the spate of recent \u201ccontemptuous words against the President\u201d leveled from retired generals, it seems that few worry about regulation AR 27-10 of the code: \u201cRetired members of a regular component of the Armed Forces who are entitled to pay are subject to the UCMJ. (See Art. 2(a)(4), UCMJ.) They may be tried by courts-martial for offenses committed while in a retired status.\u201d<\/p>\n

A Dangerous Precedent<\/p>\n

In 2016, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and retired general Martin Dempsey wrote an emphatic op-ed criticizing retired generals, not running for office, who politicked or by extension attacked a sitting president. Dempsey perhaps was influenced by a number of retired top officers who were then in high-profile roles in the 2016 election on both sides. He apparently wanted to immediately stop the intrusions of warring generals into the campaigns, given that Trump had won the political endorsements of 88 former officers, versus the 95 retired generals and flag officers who offered Hillary Clinton their formal support. \u201cThe American people should not wonder where their military leaders draw the line between military advice and political preference, Dempsey wrote. \u201cAnd our nation\u2019s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines should not wonder about the political leanings and motivations of their leaders.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Need for Restraint<\/p>\n

So the issue of proper military conduct versus First Amendment rights for retired generals remains nebulous. Perhaps in such a void, a confused public could at least expect four rules of general decorum and common courtesy when our top retired military leaders go on the attack against a sitting president.<\/p>\n

One, a retired general need not under any circumstances stoop to invoke Nazi Germany, Hitler, or Fascism to criticize the current commander in chief.<\/p>\n

Two, any disparagement should not hint at any active resistance to, much less the removal of, an elected president other than through constitutionally mandated elections.<\/p>\n

Three, the condemnation should rest on clear factual evidence, not emotive anger or partisan disagreement.<\/p>\n

Four, there should be no semblance of coordination among retired military officers. They should avoid even the inadvertent appearance of a sudden chorus of like-minded retired military officers acting in concert to attack the policies of their current president with whom they disagree, and whom they disparage in personal terms.<\/p>\n

Indeed, to do otherwise, whether by intent or inference, would suggest a harmonized effort to nullify the authority of an elected president \u2014 a dangerous escalation to extra-legal efforts that would be a first in American history.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, in this age of dissension, a number of our most esteemed retired generals and admirals, many of them heroic combat veterans, in their fury at President Trump, have not met these modest ethical expectations. However well-meaning, they seem to have little inkling of how their advocacy and speech have only further polarized a divided country whose streets are currently in chaos.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Read the article in its entirety here: National Review<\/a><\/p>\n

Thanks, Poe.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

President Trump attends a briefing from his senior military leaders, including then-Defense Secretary James Mattis (left), … On Retired Flag Officers<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":657,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[406,84,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-guest-link","category-military-issues","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/657"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=100788"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100788\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":100796,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100788\/revisions\/100796"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=100788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=100788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=100788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}