Should Ex-Military Generals Be Endorsing Anybody?

Harry Levins, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Aug. 1, 2004):

Missouri's Omar Bradley once said, "Thirty-two years in the peacetime Army taught me to do my job, hold my tongue and keep my name out of the papers."

But last week's papers listed a dozen retired generals and admirals who allied themselves with Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Even more retired officers are expected to rally this month behind Republican George W. Bush.

Their involvement runs against the grain of American military tradition, several scholars say. What's more, say the scholars and one retired general, this involvement packs the possibility of problems.

Other retired generals call that view nonsense. They say retired military people have the right to speak out -- and the experience that qualifies them to speak out.

"We fought the wars, and we understand what war is all about," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Sam Wetzel.

"Neutral servants"

Until recent decades, American generals and admirals have largely steered clear of politics.

In 1884, the Republicans asked the Army's William Tecumseh Sherman to run for president. He famously replied, "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."

Others would. In the 19th century, two active-duty generals (Winfield Scott and Winfield Scott Hancock) won presidential nominations but lost the elections. And in the 20th century, two active-duty generals let it be known (in vain) that they were available -- Leonard Wood in 1920 and Douglas MacArthur in 1944.

But by and large, tradition in the officers' mess held that politics (like sex) was a taboo topic. Until Dwight Eisenhower sought the Republican nomination in 1952, nobody knew whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.

"Almost all officers abstained from voting, much less taking an active role in politics," says Jerry Cooper, professor emeritus of military history at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.

Historian Richard Kohn of the University of North Carolina says officers of that generation "considered it improper to involve themselves in politics. They didn't want to compromise their role as neutral servants of the state."

UMSL's Cooper thinks things began to change in the 1950s, when Army generals like Matthew Ridgway and James Gavin resigned rather than go along with Eisenhower's cutback of the Army. (Cooper adds, "One has to admire the fact that they quit before they criticized.")

Political scientist Peter Feaver of Duke University cites the demise in the Vietnam era of the pro-defense wing of the Democratic Party and its leader, Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson of Washington. Then, says Feaver, along came Ronald Reagan to build up the armed forces. "You had one party embracing the military and one party spurning the military," Feaver says.

Under Bill Clinton, Feaver adds, the politicization spread to the ranks of the retired.

"In 1992, Clinton trotted out retired flag officers to counter the charge that he was a draft-dodger," says Feaver. Among them was Adm. William Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1985-89 -- and one of last week's campaigners for Kerry.

Now, the gates stand wide open. A spokesman for Bush's campaign told The Washington Post that later this month, "We will announce the support of over 100 retired flag officers."

Sending a message

All of those interviewed agree that once a general retires, he (or she: Kerry's bunch includes former Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy) has any citizen's right to take part in politics.

Still, some question the wisdom -- and the long-range effect.

North Carolina's Kohn says, "It sends a message to active-duty people: 'It's OK to be political.'"...