Top-ranking officer warns U.S. military to stay out of politics

[AdamG]

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

"The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway."

Mullen's essay appears in the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal that is distributed widely among the officer corps.

The statement to the armed forces is the first essay for the journal Mullen has written as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and veteran officers said they could not remember when a similar "all-hands" letter had been issued to remind military personnel to remain outside, if not above, contentious political debate.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/25/america/pent.php

Signal flags from the Admiral read Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.

[Schmedlap]

I hope that candidates take this advice to heart as well. I am a big believer in the military being apolitical. And though I have always had some strong and heavily slanted political views, I never voted while I was in the Army or expressed my views in the company of other members of the armed forces. Some would disagree on whether refusing to even vote goes a bit too far, but that was what I believed and that was how I conducted myself and I recognize that others have different opinions and I respect that.

Now that I am out of the military, I have registered to vote (Independent) and regardless of party or ideology, I refuse to vote for any candidate who makes their service in our current conflicts part of their campaign in order to lend credibility to their assertion that we should or should not embark upon some change/continuation of policy in Iraq/Afghanistan/elsewhere. I think it is worse than unprofessional - it is anti-professional. It undermines the value of selfless service that is central to the professionalism of our officer corps by making service self-serving rather than selfless. Even before 9/11, I knew a small handful of individuals who chose to serve in the military purely as resume padding for a future run for office - granted it was not at the national level. I suspect that this motivation has been exacerbated today, especially with the instant celebrity status that can accompany such service if you hold convenient political views in certain circles.

[ODB]

Sorry but under the belief that when the popular vote elects the POTUS and not the electoral college then it will be worth it. Just my view on it and believe it should be that way. As far as staying apolitical while serving, why? Are these not the same people who decide how much I get paid? How much money I'll get for training? How well equiped I will be? The list goes on and on, point being I should be able to help decide who these decision makers are. Don't misunderstand my initial statement, I vote in local elections and for Congress members but will never vote for POTUS until the electoral college is dissolved.

Finally if anyone should be heard more than others it is the service members, simply because our lives are influenced more than others based on who holds these offices.

[Ken White]

Sorry but under the belief that when the popular vote elects the POTUS and not the electoral college then it will be worth it. Just my view on it and believe it should be that way.

Most Americans and the Constitution disagree.

As far as staying apolitical while serving, why?

Because AR 600-20 pretty much wants you to do that?

Are these not the same people who decide how much I get paid? How much money I'll get for training? How well equiped I will be? The list goes on and on, point being I should be able to help decide who these decision makers are. Don't misunderstand my initial statement, I vote in local elections and for Congress members but will never vote for POTUS until the electoral college is dissolved.

You can help decide, you're encouraged to vote -- what you're discouraged from doing is taking public sides while you can be identified as being in the Armed Forces. That is due to the fact that your Oath is to the Constitution and not any one person or party and everyone has a right to expect you to serve faithfully and honorably regardless of who gets elected. It is also to prevent any news media or political activists from getting hold of a serving member and making political fodder out of him or her.

Finally if anyone should be heard more than others it is the service members, simply because our lives are influenced more than others based on who holds these offices.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Mine and yours differ significantly on that topic. My life was and is no more influenced by who held or holds what office than any other US citizen and nobody made me stick up my hand and take that oath any one of the seven times I did it...

I know that the Armed Forces are a reflection of the society from which we all came and I know Americans are a contentious lot. Theoretically, though, we're professionals today and a professional military is almost by definition apolitical. There are those who exclude the NCO from the 'professional' categorization. I strongly disagree and I do not believe those who try to do that should get any ammunition to reinforce their view.

Mullen did the right thing -- it's just a shame he had to do it.

Having said all that, obviously you're entitled to your beliefs and I'm in no way saying you're wrong; just that we don't agree on most of that.

[120mm]

I'm just wondering why this is an issue, now. I don't see ANY of the candidates saying ANYTHING to differentiate themselves from each other. Other than skin tone or plumbing, they are the same person.

I also am hearing NOTHING from my peers or those I train with that would indicate that this upcoming election will even come anywhere near touching issues that can be remotely considered controversial.

This is much ado about nothing. Past elections have been different, but this one...meh... who really cares?

I'm thinking the top-ranking officer is making a mountain out of a molehill. Good on him, I guess

[Ken White]

in the DC area; always been a bunch more political jabber there than elsewhere in the services.

[MattC86]

I'm thinking the top-ranking officer is making a mountain out of a molehill. Good on him, I guess

I think this is because in the campaign as a whole, and in recent weeks, you've seen a lot of competition between the candidates for the national-security credential of having that wonderfully vague generalisation "the generals" in your camp. Obama was not very subtle in suggesting his approach to Hizbollah and Hamas, as well as with Iran, is more in line with what the military thinks; and McCain's campaign revival was built on his national security resume and his claims of being knowledgeable about what the military needs (see his defense of his vote on Webb's "new GI bill.") If she stays in long enough, Hillary Clinton will claim not only that "the generals" support her, but that she and several "generals" dodged sniper fire in Bosnia.

You combine that with the always entertaining race for retired GO endorsements (Delta Air Force General McPeak always seems a popular choice amongst the Democrats, and now they're big Sanchez fans suddenly - why is my party such a bunch of losers?), and you have a perceived stake for candidates in having the overt backing of the military.

Admiral Mullen is giving a perhaps unnecessary reminder that as the crapfest that is our election cycle heats up, the "support" of the military - or maybe just that cabal of generals everybody is always talking about - will be intensely contested by all the candidates,* and it is the duty of those in uniform to remember where their loyalty lies. It's better safe than sorry.

Shame he doesn't still have jurisdiction over the retired mouth-flappers. . .

*although I don't think Nader is out for too many GO endorsements.

Regards,

Matt

[Cavguy]

I'm just wondering why this is an issue, now. I don't see ANY of the candidates saying ANYTHING to differentiate themselves from each other. Other than skin tone or plumbing, they are the same person.

I also am hearing NOTHING from my peers or those I train with that would indicate that this upcoming election will even come anywhere near touching issues that can be remotely considered controversial.

This is much ado about nothing. Past elections have been different, but this one...meh... who really cares?

I'm thinking the top-ranking officer is making a mountain out of a molehill. Good on him, I guess

A few weeks ago I was in an office making travel plans for some TDY. The individual who was processing the orders (A DA CIV), literally had his cubicle plastered with right wing bumper stickers, placards, signs, etc. Some were very critical of a former president and current presidential canidate, and others were extremly hostile to those of other political persuasions.

Regardless if I agreed with the politics, I just thought it inappropriate for a government office staffed by a government employee to allow such blatent political bias and even critical statements of former presidents. It's fine in your house or on your own time, but not at a government place of business.

I have seen several other troubling displays and attitudes from some of the officer corps. I think the chief sent a timely and needed message - for all sides.

[Chris Albon]

These are the types of things that make me proud of the US military.

As a political scientist, I think the media and general public takes the effort the armed forces puts in being apolitical for granted.

Good on them!