When Generals Where Apolitical, Those Were The Days

[Annie]

Eisenhower didn't vote, at least in a primary, until after WWII. If only it was so today:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040913&s=kaplan091304

GENERALS USED TO BE NEUTRAL.
Officer Politics
by Lawrence F. Kaplan

Post date: 09.06.04
Issue date: 09.13.04
errill "Tony" McPeak doesn't like George W. Bush. But it's more than that. McPeak has contempt for the president, which he freely expresses. Speaking from his home in Oregon, the John Kerry partisan describes Bush in terms usually employed by the likes of MoveOn.org. "Not even his best friends would accuse this president of having ideas," McPeak says. Mild stuff in the age of Michael Moore. Except that McPeak's first name is General.

The former Air Force chief of staff is not the only general describing the president in such vivid terms. On behalf of the Kerry campaign, an entire phalanx of generals--McPeak, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili, former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe Wesley Clark, Army Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, and a parade of eight others that the Kerry campaign set loose at the martial-themed Democratic convention in July--has taken to the airwaves in what a Kerry press release trumpets as an "unprecedented display of support from the military establishment." They've been touting Kerry's war record, and the president's lack of one, ever since.

This week, the Bush team responded in kind, boasting of 100 admirals and generals who have endorsed the president. And, though the Democratic convention had to make do with an address by the mild-mannered Shalikashvili, Republicans gathered in New York were treated to the folksy Texas wisdom of Army General Tommy Franks, fresh from invading Afghanistan and Iraq and barely out of uniform. Like Kerry's generals, Bush's generals--who include former Air Force Chief of Staff Ronald Fogelman, former Marine Corps Commandant P.X. Kelley, and Medal of Honor recipient Army General Pat Brady--won't confine themselves to touting the martial prowess of their chosen candidate. They'll also tear his opponent to pieces.

Thus begins a quadrennial ritual, in which the two campaigns vie to squeeze as many generals as possible onto their convention podiums and into our TV sets. And this year, the competition is fiercer than ever. "It really tells you something about John Kerry," says one of his aides, "that so many high-ranking officers would line up behind him." Not so, says Brady. "There are a miniscule number of general officers supporting Kerry," he says, "and I've talked to three times that number who support Bush." During a presidential contest in which both sides have embraced militarism as a campaign theme, such statements may not seem particularly notable. Over the long term, however, showcasing generals in the political arena harms both the services and the civilians who must control them.

[...]

 

[Merlin1047]

"During a presidential contest in which both sides have embraced militarism as a campaign theme, such statements may not seem particularly notable. Over the long term, however, showcasing generals in the political arena harms both the services and the civilians who must control them. "

I'm not sure that I'm reading the author's intent in that last sentence. If the campaigns are soliciting the endorsement of active duty officers then that is indeed a problem. But involvement of retired officers poses no threat to the constitutional process.

First, it seems to me that the Democrats embrace military men and women with one arm only. They're using the other hand to hold their noses. The anti-military legacy of the Clinton era is still alive and well. If anything, the Democratic party has become even more virulently anti-military as a result of the embarrassment that the SBVFT has caused their candidate. The so-called "militarism" of the Democratic campaign is a thin veneer painted on to fool the rubes. It is already wearing off in spots and it will vanish entirely in less than two minutes after the conclusion of the election.

Once a general or an admiral retires, he has as much right as the next person to express his opinions and to support a candidate. Involving military personnel in a political campaign is dangerous only if it is done while they are still on active duty. Dwight Eisenhower retired and was elected president. The country seems to be no worse for wear from that experience.

 

[5stringJeff]

Arrrggghhh!!! Say it isn't so!!!

LTG Christman was the Superindendent of West Point my final two years. Great guy, great Supe. I can't believe he's a Kerry supporter.

All things said, though, there are many generals (Tommy Franks comes to mind) that have endorsed Bush. As long as they're retired (i.e. gone from the military) they are free to speak out.

 

[Annie]

"During a presidential contest in which both sides have embraced militarism as a campaign theme, such statements may not seem particularly notable. Over the long term, however, showcasing generals in the political arena harms both the services and the civilians who must control them. "

I'm not sure that I'm reading the author's intent in that last sentence. If the campaigns are soliciting the endorsement of active duty officers then that is indeed a problem. But involvement of retired officers poses no threat to the constitutional process.

First, it seems to me that the Democrats embrace military men and women with one arm only. They're using the other hand to hold their noses. The anti-military legacy of the Clinton era is still alive and well. If anything, the Democratic party has become even more virulently anti-military as a result of the embarrassment that the SBVFT has caused their candidate. The so-called "militarism" of the Democratic campaign is a thin veneer painted on to fool the rubes. It is already wearing off in spots and it will vanish entirely in less than two minutes after the conclusion of the election.

Once a general or an admiral retires, he has as much right as the next person to express his opinions and to support a candidate. Involving military personnel in a political campaign is dangerous only if it is done while they are still on active duty. Dwight Eisenhower retired and was elected president. The country seems to be no worse for wear from that experience.

I'd say they always have the right to express opinions and support any candidate, provided they didn't dis the CIC, with that said, there has been a tradition that most on duty officers, kept it apolitical.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'd say they always have the right to express opinions and support any candidate, provided they didn't dis the CIC, with that said, there has been a tradition that most on duty officers, kept it apolitical.

There are substantial restrictions on political activities while on active duty. The following is an extract from the applicable directive:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm

Department of Defense

DIRECTIVE

NUMBER 1344.10

Augsut 2, 2004

USD(P&R)

SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed
Forces on Active Duty

References: (a) DoD Directive 1344.10, "Political
Activities by Members of the Armed Forces," June 15,
1990 (hereby canceled)

(b) Sections 973, 101, 888, and Chapter 47 of title
10, United States Code

(c) DoD Directive 5200.2, "DoD Personnel Security Program,"

April 9, 1999

(d) DoD Directive 1325.6, "Guidelines for Handling
Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the
Armed Forces," October 1, 1996

(e) through (h), see enclosure 1

1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE

This Directive reissues reference (a) to update DoD
policies on political activities of members of the Armed
Forces on active duty and implement section 973(b) through
(d) of reference (b).

2. APPLICABILITY

This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Military Departments, the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a Military Service in the
Department of the Navy by agreement with the Department
of Homeland Security, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the
Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all
other organizational entities in the Department of Defense
(hereafter referred to collectively as the "DoD Components").

3. DEFINITIONS

The terms used in this Directive are defined in enclosure
2.

4. POLICY

It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces
(hereafter referred to as "members") to carry out the
obligations of citizenship. While on active duty,
however, members are prohibited from engaging in certain
political activities. The following DoD policy shall
apply:

4.1. General

4.1.1. A member on active duty may:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express his or her personal
opinion on political candidates and issues, but not
as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.2. Make monetary contributions to a political
organization.

4.1.1.3. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political
meetings, rallies, or conventions as a spectator when
not in uniform.

4.1.2. A member on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Use his or her official authority or influence
for interfering with an election; affecting the course
or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular
candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political
contributions from others.

4.1.2.2. Be a candidate for, hold, or exercise the
functions of civil office except as authorized in paragraphs
4.2. and 4.3., below.

4.1.2.3. Participate in partisan political management,
campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention
as a spectator when not in uniform).

 

[Annie]

There are substantial restrictions on political activities while on active duty. The following is an extract from the applicable directive:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm

Department of Defense

DIRECTIVE

NUMBER 1344.10

Augsut 2, 2004

USD(P&R)

SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed
Forces on Active Duty

References: (a) DoD Directive 1344.10, "Political
Activities by Members of the Armed Forces," June 15,
1990 (hereby canceled)

(b) Sections 973, 101, 888, and Chapter 47 of title
10, United States Code

(c) DoD Directive 5200.2, "DoD Personnel Security Program,"

April 9, 1999

(d) DoD Directive 1325.6, "Guidelines for Handling
Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the
Armed Forces," October 1, 1996

(e) through (h), see enclosure 1

1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE

This Directive reissues reference (a) to update DoD
policies on political activities of members of the Armed
Forces on active duty and implement section 973(b) through
(d) of reference (b).

2. APPLICABILITY

This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Military Departments, the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a Military Service in the
Department of the Navy by agreement with the Department
of Homeland Security, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the
Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all
other organizational entities in the Department of Defense
(hereafter referred to collectively as the "DoD Components").

3. DEFINITIONS

The terms used in this Directive are defined in enclosure
2.

4. POLICY

It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces
(hereafter referred to as "members") to carry out the
obligations of citizenship. While on active duty,
however, members are prohibited from engaging in certain
political activities. The following DoD policy shall
apply:

4.1. General

4.1.1. A member on active duty may:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express his or her personal
opinion on political candidates and issues, but not
as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.2. Make monetary contributions to a political
organization.

4.1.1.3. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political
meetings, rallies, or conventions as a spectator when
not in uniform.

4.1.2. A member on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Use his or her official authority or influence
for interfering with an election; affecting the course
or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular
candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political
contributions from others.

4.1.2.2. Be a candidate for, hold, or exercise the
functions of civil office except as authorized in paragraphs
4.2. and 4.3., below.

4.1.2.3. Participate in partisan political management,
campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention
as a spectator when not in uniform).

All of which I was referring to. They cannot say the CIC is a dodobird or worse! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[Merlin1047]

And this troubles me a bit:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39f592627a2a.htm

Military Breaks Ranks With Non-Partisan Tradition

Foreign Affairs News
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Published: October 22, 2000 Author: David Wood
Posted on 10/24/2000 0606 PDT by Stand Watch Listen

Many In Service Turn To Bush, Reject Political Correctness

Washington -- Traditionally uneasy about partisan politics, the 1.4 million Americans on active duty in the armed forces are preparing this year to speak with a big voice in the presidential election.

The trend toward increased partisanship is marked by a surge in voter registration on military posts around the country, and by an increase in political endorsements by retired senior officers.

Many in the military are taking the Republican side with a vengeance, saying they do not trust Democrats to manage or use the military properly.

"In my 18 years in the Army I have never seen anything like this," said Maj. Don Vandergriff, an armor officer stationed in Washington. "So many people, captains to colonels, are saying that if (GOP candidate George W.) Bush gets in, political correctness will go away and they can return to being warriors, and the military will be taken care of."

This accelerating trend of military partisanship, which has its roots in the bitter domestic divisions of the Vietnam War, deeply worries seasoned observers and some officers themselves. They see it as an alarming breach in the once-sacrosanct division between military and politics.

It "tells people that the military no longer stands above the political fray, that it has an investment in certain policies," said Richard H. Kohn, professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "It undermines the trust that the most senior political leadership has in the military."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is nothing wrong with members of the military participating in the political process by voting and voicing their opinions. After all, they have certainly earned it the hard way. But the thing that must be avoided at all costs is a military PAC or voting block. The danger here is that we could ultimately be ruled by a type of military junta.

But the article goes on and points out something I feel is rather silly, if not flatly false. I cannot recall ever having been counselled or read any policy regarding officers not voting, but:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Voting always a duty

Voting has always been a duty in the military ranks, especially for younger recruits. In the 1996 presidential election, for example, 64 percent of the active-duty military voted, compared to 49.8 percent of the general public.

An equally long tradition, however, held that military officers ought not to steal, lie, cheat or vote - the last in the belief that to be effective as professionals they had to be scrupulously apolitical.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I said, I have to challenge the accuracy of that second paragraph in regards to voting. Throughout my time on active duty, I was alway encouraged to vote.

Anyway, the article is lengthy so I will not post it here. However, it is informative and interesting and I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.

 

[Merlin1047]

All of which I was referring to. They cannot say the CIC is a dodobird or worse! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Actually, they can. As long as they do it in civvies - and with a bag over their heads.

 

[Annie]

And this troubles me a bit:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39f592627a2a.htm

Military Breaks Ranks With Non-Partisan Tradition

Foreign Affairs News
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Published: October 22, 2000 Author: David Wood
Posted on 10/24/2000 0606 PDT by Stand Watch Listen

Many In Service Turn To Bush, Reject Political Correctness

Washington -- Traditionally uneasy about partisan politics, the 1.4 million Americans on active duty in the armed forces are preparing this year to speak with a big voice in the presidential election.

The trend toward increased partisanship is marked by a surge in voter registration on military posts around the country, and by an increase in political endorsements by retired senior officers.

Many in the military are taking the Republican side with a vengeance, saying they do not trust Democrats to manage or use the military properly.

"In my 18 years in the Army I have never seen anything like this," said Maj. Don Vandergriff, an armor officer stationed in Washington. "So many people, captains to colonels, are saying that if (GOP candidate George W.) Bush gets in, political correctness will go away and they can return to being warriors, and the military will be taken care of."

This accelerating trend of military partisanship, which has its roots in the bitter domestic divisions of the Vietnam War, deeply worries seasoned observers and some officers themselves. They see it as an alarming breach in the once-sacrosanct division between military and politics.

It "tells people that the military no longer stands above the political fray, that it has an investment in certain policies," said Richard H. Kohn, professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "It undermines the trust that the most senior political leadership has in the military."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is nothing wrong with members of the military participating in the political process by voting and voicing their opinions. After all, they have certainly earned it the hard way. But the thing that must be avoided at all costs is a military PAC or voting block. The danger here is that we could ultimately be ruled by a type of military junta.

But the article goes on and points out something I feel is rather silly, if not flatly false. I cannot recall ever having been counselled or read any policy regarding officers not voting, but:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Voting always a duty

Voting has always been a duty in the military ranks, especially for younger recruits. In the 1996 presidential election, for example, 64 percent of the active-duty military voted, compared to 49.8 percent of the general public.

An equally long tradition, however, held that military officers ought not to steal, lie, cheat or vote - the last in the belief that to be effective as professionals they had to be scrupulously apolitical.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I said, I have to challenge the accuracy of that second paragraph in regards to voting. Throughout my time on active duty, I was alway encouraged to vote.

Anyway, the article is lengthy so I will not post it here. However, it is informative and interesting and I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.

I can see why it worries you, but it's a direct result of Kerry running on his record of 35 years ago and the Swiftboat Vets. Not good, but reality.

 

[5stringJeff]

Voting always a duty

Voting has always been a duty in the military ranks, especially for younger recruits. In the 1996 presidential election, for example, 64 percent of the active-duty military voted, compared to 49.8 percent of the general public.

An equally long tradition, however, held that military officers ought not to steal, lie, cheat or vote - the last in the belief that to be effective as professionals they had to be scrupulously apolitical.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I said, I have to challenge the accuracy of that second paragraph in regards to voting. Throughout my time on active duty, I was alway encouraged to vote.

I absolutely agree. I have always been encouraged to vote. This "tradition" is something I've never heard of - although not lying, cheating, or stealing is the West Point Honor Code.

Stupid Free Republic...

 

[DKSuddeth]

All of which I was referring to. They cannot say the CIC is a dodobird or worse! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

sure they can, as long as they are not in uniform and are not speaking for their branch of service.

 

[CSM]

Funny thing, the US military is made up of people. People that for the most part, have the right to vote. If the perception of some of those people is that they will be better off voting for a particular person who is running for office, why would anyone expect that they would/should not vote? I can honestly say that in my years of service, NO ONE tried to convince me to vote one way or another other than in typical barracks BS sessions akin to the everyday office cooler talks. I was always encouraged to vote by my chain of command and offered every opportunity to do so.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well, if the Democrats get Hollywood, it's only fair that the Republicans get the military.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, if the Democrats get Hollywood, it's only fair that the Republicans get the military.

Considering how much money Hollywood makes off pretending to be in the military you wouldnt think there would be that great a difference.