"If it is not appropriate for retired flag officers to speak out, then who?"
Major General John M. Riggs, U.S. Army (Retired)
Don't confuse having the right to do something with appropriateness to act. "Having the right" implies much greater responsibility than the subjective "appropriateness." The real question for me as a retired general officer was, did I have the right to publicly question the President's policies and the performance of his lieutenants?
The Constitution guarantees each of us freedom of speech. However, while we are in uniform we swear an oath not only to support and defend the Constitution, but to follow the orders of the President and the officers appointed over us. Underlying this oath is the understanding that flag officers will never openly criticize political policy, but we have every right, and a duty, to provide our best advice to superiors and subordinates alike on military matters. Once a decision is made, we are obligated to salute and execute. We do not speak out; we simply comply with the orders and direction of our commander-in-chief.
For me, military service was nothing less than a calling. Some have compared it to an "affair of the heart" since it requires total commitment. Throughout my four decades as a soldier I dedicated myself not only to the mission of protecting the homeland, but to my subordinates and their families as well. Doing what I considered right is part of my ethos and taking off the uniform does not change that. A lifetime of service has instilled in me a moral obligation to do what is right.
When I as a retired general officer believe unequivocally, based on my training and experience, that young Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines have been put in harm's way (sacrificed) because political agendas have overridden sound military advice, I believe that I have not only the right but an obligation, a duty, to act. Unbridled egotism (never being wrong) by those entrusted with policy-making only perpetuates their wrongdoing unless someone challenges them. As a retired general officer, I felt no longer bound by the obligation to remain silent on what I perceived as misguided or self-serving political policies.
From the beginning, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld surrounded himself with a small coterie of senior aides who supported all the items on his agenda while he systematically removed those who did not. Members of the Office of the secretary of Defense accepted professional military advice only when it served their agenda. They politicized the general/flag officer corps by controlling promotions and job appointments to an unprecedented degree. They "nano" managed every aspect of military planning and execution, resulting in total unpreparedness for the Stability phase of the war in Iraq. They have incrementally approved only the minimum forces needed for security, resulting in just enough troops to fail while steadfastly blaming the outcome on the "advice of the generals."
As to the question of "appropriateness" for retired flag officers to challenge the President's policies, I believe the answer resides within the individual who is doing the challenging and, of course, with those who are questioning his or her actions. In other words, it is subjective. I, for one, do not challenge the President. The American people elected him; I leave it to them to decide his future. The Secretary of Defense has no such standing.
The challenging flag officer's motives are certainly subject to scrutiny and comment. And if a single ounce of self-serving results are desired in the outcome, then it is probably inappropriate. After all, you are then on the same level as the countless flag officers who provide nightly commentaries on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or those who endorse political candidates in the never-ending set of next elections.
It should also be understood that those of us who have spoken out have nothing to gain by publicly stating our concerns and misgivings. As Ralph Peters recently maintained in his article "Rummy and the Generals" that ran on the online edition of the New York Post. "These men have much to lose by going public with their criticism. They'll never get the lucrative defense industry jobs in corporations whose profits depend on the favor of the Pentagon. They're not going to be offered political appointments in any future administration, Republican or Democrat. They'll be frozen out of the Washington insider's club. They face organized political attacks upon their personal reputations."
They will also get caught up in the "David and Goliath" struggle with an Office of the secretary of Defense that wields enormous power. Understand also that a handful of retired flag officers really do not command the ability to change the political agenda. Look at the recently publicized comments by me and five other retired generals who said secretary Rumsfeld should step down. In truth there was no collusion among the flag officers calling for his resignation. Each of us made his own decision and kept his own council. The press merely colorized its description of the facts, making it "a small group of dissenting flag officers," grouping us together even though we acted independently. Within 48 hours a defense was mounted by the White House, with the President coming out in support of the Secretary of Defense and several notable individuals, including active and retired general officers who support the administration, praising secretary Rumsfeld's great abilities. "A small group of dissenting flag officers," a label we can't seem to shake, can only hope to call attention to a wrongdoing and let the people or Congress decide the outcome.
For me, going public was a moral obligation to do what I felt was right, a duty to highlight areas of concern where I had a degree of first-hand knowledge about the secretary of Defense and his lieutenants, a group much more interested in appearing to be right, than actually being right.
But I am not trying to convince you that I am correct in what I am professing. Form your own conclusions. But rather I have the right, and, yes, it is appropriate for a retired flag officer to be critical. For me to remain silent when continuing poor leadership at the top of the Department of Defense is perpetuating wrongs that are crippling the Army and, more important, those who man its ranks, would be a violation of my cultural ethos of duty first, developed over almost 40 years of uniformed service to this nation. To me, it is no different from the sergeant who walks by a private doing something wrong. Failing to correct the wrongdoing means he condones it. Failure should not be reinforced in privates or the secretary of Defense.
If it is not appropriate for retired flag officers to speak out, then who? Who else have been trained over a lifetime for selfless service to this nation in the art of war? Who other than flag officers have the first-hand knowledge, experience, and expertise in working within the secretariat. Flag officers are perhaps the only ones capable of providing a credible evaluation. Goldwater-Nichols provided a two-way glass separator between the military departments and the secretariat. Active-duty general officers as a rule should refrain from commenting on policy matters, but when political appointees delve too deeply into the execution of military matters, they also overstep their bounds and shatter the glass barrier. If there is no system of checks and balances remaining, everything becomes politicized.
Yes, retired general/flag officers have the right and it is appropriate to challenge the president's policies and those he chooses to implement them, just as you have the right to judge me. If not us, then who: politicians, contractors, professors? All I can say is, God help us if that ever becomes the case!
General Riggs retired from the Army in 2004. At the time he was serving as director of a task force entrusted with creating a high-tech Army for the 21st century. He currently is working as a consultant for a number of defense contractors. He lives in Panama City, Florida.
General Riggs, one of the generals who took on Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in April, insists that not only was his criticism proper, he had a duty to speak out.
"It is not the job of retired personnel to criticize a policy in a time of war. "
Rear Admiral Geoge R. Worthington, U.S. Navy (Retired)
We've recently experienced a palace revolution. Several retired general officers have gone public disagreeing with the Bush administration's implementation of its Iraq policy. Moreover, they have called for replacing the secretary of Defense. The detractors are blaming secretary Rumsfeld for everything. This appears simplistic, at best, and has created a firestorm. Seismic measurements have not come in from overseas in terms of combat morale. Momentous questions, however, have cropped up as to the appropriateness of retired flag and general officers speaking out publicly on the nation's recent and current foreign policy. Specifically, the generals are challenging the way in which the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are being waged, from inception through stabilization and rebuilding operations.
Generally, the allegation is that we have lost three years because of bad Middle East policies and ineffective leadership throughout the chain of command, starting with secretary Rumsfeld. The generals' call for his sacking has been broadcast on all the networks and memorialized in the print media. The effect is to increase the gap between the administration's supporters and the anti-war movement. Naturally, this tends to spill over into the political arena, especially in this mid-term election year. Politics notwithstanding, the central issue devolves to the probity of retirees questioning ongoing policy execution in the middle of a war.
The first problem I see is politicizing the military. Regardless of personal political affiliation, former officers going public has a decidedly political effect by bringing politics too close to the service vest. Beyond the potentially negative effect on troop morale, this is the most immediate result. There will always be political fallout from opposing opinions. The issue is the appropriateness of public opinions from the retired quarter.
Up front, it is not the job of retired personnel to criticize a policy in a time of war. Legal routes are available to the retired community to express concern. If of immediate moment, write a letter to the official, be he Secretary of Defense, State, or the President.
The military works by presenting courses of action (COA) to the civilian leadership, which considers all inputs and facts having an impact on potential outcomes, such as the international politico-military and/or socio-economic state of affairs, the array of allies, the probable enemy order of battle, and even domestic sentiment for or against foreign intervention. A military staff study measures COAs against three criteria: Feasibility-will the recommended COA accomplish the mission? Suitability-are forces adequate to the mission? Acceptability-are the costs in manpower and resources worth the mission? When the recommended courses of action are submitted and a decision taken, it is the military's job to carry it out to the best of its ability. In the Navy and Marine Corps we are taught from Day One to give "a cheery Aye, Aye!" and get on with the order. As for publicly questioning that order, an officer's only avenue is to resign if he or she cannot carry it out.
In recent national elections we've seen retired flag officers supporting candidates from both sides of the aisle. This is a political "open season" available to retirees to register their voting preferences. It crosses no legal line. Taking to television, however, to air your personal opinions against current policy pulls the rug out from under the active people deployed to carry out that policy and runs counter to good order and discipline. Imagine the poor Soldier or Marine who has to prosecute a policy his former commander is now decrying in public. Pretty bad for morale, eh?
The next problem I sense is one of probity. Again, in the United States the military is subject to civilian control. It has been argued that it is a moral responsibility to speak out if one is not in accord with a policy. Officials retire in the face of policy they can't support. In the case of already retired members, the stricture should still apply except that one can write his memoirs. Commenting on historical events is laudatory and of inestimable value in learning from the past. For example, some years after the Vietnam War ended in 1975 we started seeing books about it. A few surfaced early, but the majority of literary "autopsies" starting hitting the stands more recently. There were no service outcries during the war itself, or even high-level resignations.
Would such actions have changed the policies? Probably not. Vietnam was a contest with communism. The argument remains moot that had we gotten out earlier lives would have been saved; the counter argument is that a more diligent effort in the mid-1960s would have saved more. The fact remains that there were no flag or general officer defections during the policies of two different administrations. And no out-of-school pronouncements, either.
Here's a question yet to be answered: "What if the disaffected generals are wrong?" The Global War on Terrorism is not going to be an overnight affair. One could argue it began with the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1981. Or with the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, or 9/11. Regardless of where one plants blame, we are in a war in Iraq that has been hot for three years. It would be gratifying to see the indigenous forces come up to speed so Americans can rotate home. But one can't dwell on past mistakes without having an adverse effect on deployed troop morale, confusing the troops at best, demoralizing them at worst.
The retired community has a responsibility to support those still on active duty. Some may feel that changing a particular war plan or policy is the best way to accomplish this. Unfortunately, publicly lambasting a course of action rarely changes anything. Remember, the duty of the military is to execute orders to the best of its ability. The people left in the trenches still have to execute the President's policy, which their former comrades-in-arms now impugn.
It's irresponsible for retired officers to speak out publicly against the policy the guys in the trenches have to carry out. And when these officers deign to suggest personnel changes, they're exceeding their pay grades! And they weren't elected!
Specifics of Operation Iraqi Freedom notwithstanding, there will always be mistakes in war. Planning for peace following hostilities is probably as demanding as combat itself. The essence of the issue, however, is how retirees address themselves to policy decisions they object to. It is not an issue of style over substance.
It has been suggested in the press that some connected with the war fear another book like Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam, the incisive 1997 post-mortem of Vietnam by Army Colonel H. R. McMaster. Suffice it to say, the issue of correctness still obtains, and going public against a standing administration during hostilities is disingenuous.
Most of the retired officers involved in the current dust-up served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ostensibly, their views were considered, taken into account, and either included in some planning or scuttled in favor of another course of action. If you're unhappy, resign or get on with it. Some were retired before the war and may be upset their earlier views were not central to the planning. Again, write memoirs, run for office, or seek to change policy through the accepted channels cited earlier.
The effect that retired officers going public has on troop morale is difficult to assess. Generally, troops will keep faith with their leadership. The Army and Marine Corps in Iraq have superb commanders in the chain of command whose recommendations are heard at the highest levels of government.
It remains to be seen what type of Iraqi armed forces will develop. Latest reports are they're doing fine. It took a decade to build the Continental Army. In Iraq, with two branches of Islam and tribal loyalties to contend with, three years is probably just a start, so this type of Monday morning quarterbacking amounts to a lot of sturin und drang. Having issues with national policy decisions is not the point; going public to complain and chastise a cabinet officer is. To do so plays to the enemy. In the final analysis, retired officers should not publicly criticize any administration's foreign policy. Doing so breaks faith with those on active duty. Our dedicated people need to know we have their best interests in mind, and retirees, especially, owe them that.
Finally, a word of editorial circumspection: My thoughts herein are in no way meant to impugn officers who have spoken out against the administration's Iraq policy. Their superb careers speak for themselves. I simply believe that retirees should keep their council private and influence events behind the scenes insofar as possible. The responsibility to the troops continues far into the sunset.
Rear Admiral Worthington is a 1961 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a veteran of Naval Special Warfare. He deployed twice to Vietnam with Underwater Demolition Team 11. and had a year tour with Naval Special Warfare Group (Vietnam). He retired in 1992 as commander of Naval Special Warfare Command. He is a frequent contributor to Proceedings.
Admiral Worthington warns that troops may suffer severe morale problems if retired flag officers question the conduct of a war the troops are fighting.