Appearance of two retired distinguished general officers at the recent Republican and Democratic conventions has reenergized long-standing debates about the underlying values and norms that define the U.S. military and its relationship to the nation it serves. Both Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, U.S. Army (Retired), and General John Allen, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), made prominent speeches at these events, which drew numerous comments about their public involvement in partisan politics.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) General Martin Dempsey, U.S. Army (Retired), in a letter to The Washington Post, claimed that as generals “they have an obligation to uphold our apolitical traditions.” He went on to assert, “They have just made the task of their successors—who continue to serve in uniform and are accountable for our security—more complicated. It was a mistake for them to participate as they did. It was a mistake for our presidential candidates to ask them to do so.”
Admiral Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy (Retired), General Dempsey’s predecessor, made similar comments about officers opining on policy matters in the media. In a major speech at West Point, Admiral Mullen argued that the American people expect their officers to “remain a neutral instrument of the state, accountable to our civilian leaders.” Our current CJCS, General Joseph Dunford, Jr, U.S. Marine Corps, in Joint Force Quarterly, emphasized the need to “collectively guard against allowing our institution to become politicized, or even perceived as being politicized, by how we conduct ourselves.”
General Dunford specifically addressed today’s serving military professionals, but his warning underscores other concerns. Advocates of a purely neutral apolitical character for U.S. military officers claim a number of potential negative outcomes:
• A perception on the part of very senior governmental leaders that military leaders are political actors and that they cannot be trusted to give uncolored professional military advice, and that perhaps they might exclude military leaders from participating in policy deliberations to protect themselves from post-decision criticism.
• A perception on the part of very senior governmental leaders that retired officers really are speaking on behalf of the active-duty military leaders in an effort to generate political leverage over the civilian leadership.
• A perception by the general population that the U.S. military is a political group or constituency, which might lead them to think that senior military advice, from active or retired military leaders, is colored by self-interest in terms of bureaucratic biases.
• The potential implication that government officials will begin to react by selecting senior military leaders on political reliability, not military merit, which would compromise the profession’s stature and competence.
All of these undesirable perceptions, however, must be balanced against the benefits accrued by the general public in having an informed public discourse on key matters affecting their national security interests by experts whose talents and knowledge were developed in uniformed service to the nation. The absence of such voices leaves the field entirely to academics and journalists, as well as serving or prior government representatives.
Consideration also must be given to the legality of enforcing a standard or ethical expectation that constrains individual free speech. Military officers are citizen soldiers and certainly had limitations on various forms of expression while serving the nation in uniform. Preserving the comfort level of civilian policy elites does not trump military professionals’ rights.
That said, there are numerous guidelines and enforceable Defense Department directives on standards of conduct while serving in uniform, yet there are few clear and enforceable measures about post-retirement activities, partisan or otherwise. The normative values and ethics embodied in any profession are defined in writing. The military defines itself as a profession, and meets all of the characteristics of a profession, with the exception of an explicit code of ethics.
Given three Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs have felt compelled to provide specific guidance on the ethical conduct of senior military officers suggests we have an educational gap. One way to close that gap would be to update and reissue The Armed Forces Officer, which is described as “an ethics handbook for a professional unlike any other.” It defines the honor of being an officer in the U.S. military and was last issued by General Peter Pace, U.S. Marine Corps, in his capacity as the Chairman in 2007.
Clear guidance is needed to help military professionals recognize the potential ethical redlines between policy commentary in the media or on the Hill and overt endorsements of political candidates.