Mix of Politics and Retired Military
Edward Chang of The Federalist makes a case for Why Retired Military Officers Need To Shut Up About Politics. To make his point, he cites the recent commentary by Retired Admiral William McRaven.
Not all servicemembers, active or retired, appear to see it that way. Retired Admiral William McRaven, former Special Operations Command commander and Navy SEAL, best known for his involvement in the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, recently authored another op-ed critical of President Donald Trump.
McRaven has been a consistent, vociferous critic of the administration from the beginning, as previously reported. But even by his standards, has McRaven gone too far this time?
Here’s the big point McRaven seemed intent on getting across: “if this president doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, both domestically and abroad, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it.”
Let there be no mistake: McRaven is leveraging the uniform he once wore and the reputation he cultivated in the military to influence readers. Given the readership of The New York Times, this op-ed was clearly intended reach a wide audience, including potential voters. McRaven is intent on encouraging the public to turn against President Trump. It matters not that McRaven’s retired, because the public recognizes him not as a private citizen, but as an admiral and a decorated Navy SEAL, a perception McRaven is very likely aware of and embraces.
Maybe this is a case of having one’s political views suppressed for years while in uniform, and then suddenly being allowed to spread one’s political wings. The writer makes a good point that people don’t tend to trust a political institution and that it is for good reason that politics views are kept out of public military statements.
Someone once told me that the number one reason that military officers were dismissed since WWII is for public misstatements. Let that sink in – not sexual misdeeds, but public speaking mistakes.
Category: Politics
I am sorry I bought the book he wrote, “Make your bed.” He is turning out to be a sheep in wolf’s clothing, just like Dan Crenshaw.
Absolutely true. We must remember that all that serve do not necessarily hold the constitution to its word. Speaking specifically of Dan Crenshaw. It the animal farm analogy: all or equal, but some are more equal. You can bet he will be protected unlike the masses.
What happened with Dan Crenshaw?
Sending out funding-request direct mail letters.
First! “it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it.”
Is he suggesting the military have something to do with installing a new President? McRaven needs to take the uniform off before making public statements.
Because he’s retired I feel he HAS taken it off. In the civilian world he is merely MR. McRaven.
Flame away…
Technically, retirees still serve in the “retired reserve”, thus the ranks on their ID cards.
Similarly, former USMC General Mattis is now “Mr. Mattis.” You folks are all piling on McRaven, but maybe you missed what Mattis (who also served as Secretary Of Defense under Trump) said last week. To paraphrase, Mattis said he earned his spurs on the battlefield, while Trump received his “spurs” via a doctor’s note.
I am so disappointed in Mattis. How can anyone who has served see the cultural war going on and side with the Democrats?
I suspected bad things when I heard the stories calling him a “monk”. I have a hard time trusting people that don’t commit to building a family, the building block of society.
If memory serves, our Republic hasn’t elected a RETIRED military officer President since General Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s. I applaud Admiral McRaven’s political activism and would welcome his candidacy for the highest office in the land. In politics, just like in love and war, all’s fair.
HOOK ‘EM HORNS!
I too look forward to watching him make an ass out of himself on the campaign trail while he demonstrates is total lack of knowledge.
You mean like how Wesley Clark did?
McRaven can go right on then.
While I agree with you in principle Ret_25X, I don’t think he will make an ass out of himself due to lack of knowledge…I think it will have more to do with his opinions are not shared enough by others.
While I admired his time at my Alma Mater, I did not think to kindly of his comments about gun control. Especially when he tried to lie about the incident on campus where a CCW holder was able to stop a knife assault in the middle of campus!
These retired admirals/generals that talk about gun control should raise a Red Flag of awareness. If I were a Military big wig looking for an easy over throw, I wouldn’t want the populace to be armed like they were back in 1776. Hmmm.
Speaking of Red Flag and retired Flag Officers making bad choices…
Haven’t elected a Dem combat vet since Truman, eithr.
I think you’re forgetting JFK. Saint John actually did hear shots fired in anger. LBJ, probably not.
But his Silver Star! He heroically took a single airplane ride.
And then LBJ lied for years about the aircraft receiving fire from an attacking Jap Zero, when in reality the B-17 in which he was strap-hanging aborted the mission and returned to base due to a mechanical malfunction. If everyone who deployed to a combat zone but never experienced enemy fire got the same treatment as LBJ, Silver Stars would be almost as common as the vaunted NDSM.
You mean LBJ got his Silver Star for a 1942 fact-finding mission over the Pacific without hearing a shot fired in anger. LMAO/sarcasm
GEN Perkins got one for riding a Hummvee. Or was it a Bradley?
SJ:
He was in a
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier.
“The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress July 9, 1918 (amended by an act of July 25, 1963), takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star to Colonel (Infantry) David Gerard Perkins, United States Army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while Commanding the 2d Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division, during combat actions in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, on 7 April 2003, in Iraq. Colonel Perkins led his forces in his M113 Armored Personnel Carrier, at breakneck speed across the Iraq desert from Kuwait, in the “Thunder Run” to liberate Baghdad. His gallant leadership and dedicated devotion to duty, without regard for his own life, were in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.”
https://www.armytimes.com/military-honor/vietnam-vets-rolling-thunder/2018/01/16/the-armored-workhorse-of-the-us-army-the-m113-tank-has-been-on-the-move-since-vietnam/
I stand corrected.
GEN Perkins got a Silver Star for riding in an M-113 APC.
(It must have been one hell of ride. At breakneck speed, no less. I wonder what kind of medal his driver got. It must have been at least the Distinguished Service Cross.)
Yef [also known as Slow Joe and Slowest Joe]
For someone who wasn’t even in the Army yet in 2003, you sure do feel entitled to talk a hell of a lot of jealous shit about awards that your fellow soldiers received for actions in Iraq in 2003.
You weren’t in Iraq in 2003.
You weren’t even in the Army yet in 2003.
You are in no position to comment on anything that happened in Iraq in 2003.
You weren’t there.
SJ:
Sometimes Sarcasm can bite you in the Be-Hind.
Sometimes you are just as bad as Commissar. He is obsessed with POTUS.
You are obsessed with General Perkins and his SS.
Bruno is right. You were not there. How can you pass judgment on other folks’ awards?
Am surprise that continue to show your jealousy. Why can’t you be happy for others or better yet, happy with your own award?
If you think you can do better, then I recommend you go to OCS to become a Commossioned Officer. You may have a chance oneday again to go into Battle as a Colonel. Who knows: Your 2nd Battle may gain you the DSC.
Please be a Man and Grow Up. You are so much better than this. After all, you escaped from Castro.
LTC Margaret Desanti got hers without even serving. Top that!
Absolutely correct… been a bit distracted lately. But being former MI, similar to Lars, I will continue to shoot my mouth off without benefit of facts or rationale.
JFK was a NRA Life Member, something that would upset Democrats today.
According to Progtard D-rats, that would make JFK a domestic terrorist, cuz the Progs are now saying the NRA is a “domestic terrorist” organization.
McRaven is a liar, who lied to me personally about a very important matter while I was with NAVSPECWARGRU TWO. His reputation was abysmal amongst the Seal Teams; he was largely known as someone who would do anything, including sex with animals, for money or a promotion (He learned that during his many tours in Washington). He’s not going to run for office – there’s too many issues with which he could be “swift-boated.” He’s “making his bed” for a cabinet position in the next administration, whether it be in 2020 or thereafter, and he’s betting that it will be a Democrat. He wants to follow in the footsteps of that empty product of Affirmative Action Colin Powell – like becoming Secretary of State.
Politicians…veterans or not I just have no trust in them as a species. I’d never vote for anyone just because they were a veteran.
People change, motivations change, power corrupts, money talks… yadda yadda yadda.
veteran or retired I mean… same same
I will state, again, that deTrumpster was not my FIRST choice during the primaries. I did vote for him and for right now, plan on voting for him again in 2020. I will also state that I do not agree with everything he has done, nor the way he has done some things. I am glad that he has seemed to at least slow down the rapid slide towards a socialistic destruction of our Republic. If the Bitch of Benghazi had of been elected, we could kiss this Country good bye.
Does the RETIRED Admiral have the right to speak his mind? Of course. Does he have the right to flout his uniform and past service? Sure why not. Should he do so? Yeah at his own risk. Do former military members make a better or worse President? Hard to say overall, a tossup? US Grant was prolly the most popular former General ever elected and look at the corruption that went on in his administration. Albeit, a good part of, he was unaware of. Ike warned us of the coming Military/Industrial Complex, and it is here, now, and biting us on the ass. Too bad we didn’t heed the deep state that started becoming obvious after Nixon, during the Ford and then Carter terms. The Repubs may have been in the elected positions but the demon rats were taking over the Civil Service. Much of this is obvious now with all of the true collusion and “whistle blowing” that Trump is facing.
The news media and the career politicians are against Trump because,…well he’s Trump and he threatens their ultimate goal of destroying the Republic to preserve their Power. YMMV
…he threatens their ultimate goal of destroying the Republic to preserve their Power.
OMIGOD!!! I should hope he does threaten their “power”. They are way too full of themselves as it is.
The problem is that Americans seem inclined to give respect to what these pampered princes/princesses say as if being a senior officer in the military makes one an all knowing savant.
senior military retirees have a very particular knowledge set that applies to the military. It is far past time for Americans to stop pretending it makes them relevant outside that field.
It’s like asking a cast member of Chicago PD how to reform police operations in the USA. I mean, WTF do they know about it?
So, while Mcraven’s opinions are interesting, they are not more important than the opinions of John Q Public.
I agree. I’ve seen it in arguments where someone will say “I’m a veteran” or “I’m a retired (whatever).” It’s usually done to leave the impression that they are some sort of expert, to shield them from criticism, and to silence the opposition. In those instances, I tell them that their veteran or retired status means squat. It doesn’t impart them with special expertise in much of anything.
I don’t think Admiral McRaven’s opinions are any less relevant or misguided then the opinions previously expressed by candidates Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barry Soetoro, or Donald Trump.
Perhaps only Al Gore had a lock on expert opinions, but that’s because he invented the Internet and told us what to think.
https://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2019/10/20/who-the-hell-do-they-think-they-are-angelo-codevilla/
I agree with Codevilla. The kindest thing I can say about McRaven is that he is a deep state swamp rat. Fuck him.
Benedict Arnold and Robert Lee were valiant warriors. Just as misguided as McRaven.
Like the AF General who made a unfaltering reference about Bill Clinton.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/19/us/general-ousted-for-derisive-remarks-about-president.html
Funny, what is good for the Goose is not good for the gander? I know McRaven is retired but have some decorum. Mattis has mostly stayed quiet about his rift with Trump.
But McRaven was one of the Obama Flag Officers, so birds of a feather. Was it me or was what he said a semi-veiled threat? He should be “Removed”? How pray tell? Most people would say “Voted Out” not “Removed”.
Hmmm… if McRaven is even hinting at “removing” dTrump from office, and/or tries to somehow, it’s a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, isn’t it? He may be retired, but he’s still military and can be recalled to AD. I think he’s forgetting that part.
1. He typed an editorial. My guess is that he didn’t put on his old uniform in order to type it.
2. He’s retired, so I doubt he’ll get “dismissed” for public speaking mistakes.
3. The quote about “the fate of our Republic” (as I recall) was him quoting another retired officer. In other words, that speech should be attributed to someone else, not McRaven (although McRaven presumably agrees with it).
4. “Let there be no mistake: McRaven is leveraging the uniform he once wore and the reputation he cultivated in the military to influence readers.”
So what? Trump leverages the fact that he’s (supposedly) a billionaire at every opportunity. Mnuchin leverages the fact that he was a big shot at Goldman Sachs. Giuliani leverages the fact that he was a federal prosecutor. Etc., ad nauseum.
I have observed that no one here had a bad thing to say about McRaven until he expressed his opinion. The same is true in regards to John Bolton. For whatever reason, when Mattis wrote an oped in the WSJ, all I heard about it here was crickets.
Let the man speak. Don’t be a snowflake.
Gotta agree with you. I don’t really care what his opinions are. Let him speak them to whomever will listen.
A while ago, when John Brennan had his clearance pulled, McRaven came out with a real snotty screed telling Trump to pull his clearance, that he would consider it an honor. Trump should have done it and busted his sorry ass down to two-star (the highest permanent grade) on the same day it was published. McRaven caught a bunch of flak on here then, and coming out as an acolyte of that seditious snake Brennan deserves an enthusiastic encore…. “FUCK HIM”.
This guy is a retired Navy SEAL (reportedly). I suppose he should just shut up and take it.
https://mustreadalaska.com/republicans-react-in-shock-at-laddie-shaw-rejection/
Not at all surprising this is happening. Appointment to any grade above O-6 requires Presidential nomination and consent of the Senate – in other words, it’s all political even while these flag rank types are in uniform. They just cant say anything until they’re on Fat Pension Street.
Most of them are a form of politician wearing a uniform. Nice to know McRaven is a progressive totalitarian now that he has dropped his mask.
Exactly!
That is a misleading statement. Yes, the president nominates and the Senate confirms (this starts at the O-4 level, by the way), but the services run their own selection processes, and other than McChrystal getting fired for what his staff had to say about Biden and Obama to Rolling Stone, there is little evidence out there that our GO/FOs are overly politicized while actively serving.
And, GO/FOs have the same rights of political speech as any service member- they can’t do it in when a reasonable person would assume they are speaking officially. Since they are very public figures that are essentially always on duty, that basically means they can never do it.
Also, as commissioned officers, they are prohibited by UCMJ from using ‘contemptuous language’ about the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present.
It is interesting to me that the debate seems to be about his right to speak (of course he has that right, some would say he has a duty), not about what he said.
Commissioned Officers have additional restrictions on their political speech. Please read Article 88 of the UCMJ.
It’s in my post- that’s the bit about ‘contemptuous language’ and the president, vice, congress, etc.
So, they do not have the same rights as others.
Not at all.
It’s more a question of the duty of an office trumping individual rights.
Like any service member, commissioned officers cannot engage in political speech while in uniform or when a reasonable person would conclude that they are speaking in an official capacity.
, commissioned officers, especially commanders, are quite often responsible for ensuring the political rights of their troops and even family members
In other words, duty often trumps an individuals rights. This is not uncommon- lol at teachers in the classroom, or even police officers at a political rally for a party they don’t support
So, not the same at all.
And with very good reason.
Officers have duties, which include both the authorities and responsibilities of the office they hold.
These duties do not nullify their rights, but they do present factors the officer must consider as he exercises those rights so he does not violate or endanger the rights of the people under his command.
Officers are well within their rights to have political views and even state them publicly, they just cannot do so when it would appear that it constitutes an official position- they do not have that right.
You clearly don’t see the distinction, so we will have to disagree. George Washington seemed to get it:
“When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen;”
Uh, what lack of leadership? He’s held firm with the Hermit Kingdom, he’s not bending over to China, he came down hard on ISIS, he moved the US Mission in Israel to Jerusalem, his pro-business policies have led to jobs, jobs, and more jobs and less, less, less unemployment ect, ect, ect… All this while dealing with the opposition party on their third or fourth different coup d’état attempt and their complicit lackeys in the media. If that’s not leadership, I don’t know what is.
But, he is loyal to the ordinary folks who elected him, not the swampcritters that are the actual aristocracy!
That is why they have to destroy him. Ordinary folks might get the idea that they actually are the ones the government is to serve.
TARDOs inside and outside of DC screech that President Trump is out of control and that’s not it. The truth is that President Trump is out of the DC Insiders’ control and it’s driving them triple batshit crazy!
It amazes me how all those retired GOFOs agree with everything every President says while they are on active duty, even when successive Presidents disagree, but suddenly discover when they retire that they find disagreements with that same President. Magic, I guess.
A big old freaking BRAVO goes out to Timactual. There it is. And many of them have done crap like that, too.
I suspect we should replace the “star” insignia for Generals and Admirals with a small chrome-plated weasel.
Generals and admirals disagree with the president all the time- they just do so respectfully and through proper channels. They have a duty to do so, in fact. To do it publicly would be counter to good order and discipline, insubordinate, and arguably a violation of the oath of office, which is different from the enlistment oath.
Yes, there is a lot of Kabuki theater involved an it is all very cordial on the surface- the one and two stars call the NSC staffers, the Secretaries call the National Security Advisor, etc., but there is plenty of disagreement and debate (and PowerPoint)- it’s just done behind closed doors.
MacArthur was fired by Truman for publicly challenging his decisions as CINC.
Billy Mitchell was demoted and then court martialed for public displays of insubordination.
They do it all the time, just not in public. They have a duty to provide their best military advice. Doing it in public would be insubordinate, contrary to good order and discipline, and a violation of the oath of office.
On top of that, the civilian leaders do most of the direct interaction with the president. Every 4 star out there reports to a civilian boss- either the Service Secretary or the SecDef, who are all appointed by the current president.
The Service Chiefs and Chairman have a legal duty to provide their best military advice, but again that is done formally through specific channels.
” They have a duty to provide their best military advice.”
Yes indeed. And not only to the President. They have the same duty to provide their best advice to the Congress, also. Compare their slavish support of an administration’s policies and actions at Congressional hearings to what they later (post retirement) claim to be their real opinions. It’s very convenient for the GOFOs; politicians take the heat when things go tits up but the military gets the credit for victories.
And last, and obviously least, is their duty to the American people. We who pay their salaries deserve to receive the benefit of their best advice, also.
“a violation of the oath of office.”
An oath do defend and protect the Constitution, not a personal loyalty oath to the current fuhrer. That Constitutional oath is to “We, the people,….do ordain and establish this Constitution…”
Yes, commissioned officers take an oath to the Constitution, and therefore to the people of the United States, not to the president. Officers are well aware of this- they are required to reaffirm their oath at every promotion.
However, the Constitution establishes the president as the Commander in Chief.
The Commander in Chief issues orders, Congress does not. Officers are duty bound to obey these orders as long as they are lawful, even if they think they are bad ideas.
The President gets to set national policy, and when it applies to the military it constitutes an order.
When GOFOs testify before congress they are representing the President. Unless there is something illegal or immoral happening, they will support his policies- their duty demands it. That doesn’t mean they agree with those policies. If you watch some of this testimony, you will see them go to great lengths to avoid giving their opinions at times.
That said, Congress does issue laws. One of those laws is the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act, which establishes the role of the Chairman as the principle military advisor to the President. The Service Chiefs are also required by law to provide advice to the president.
The law uses different language to describe their role with Congress- it uses the term ‘recommendations’.
The difference is that advice is provided to the president continuously as part of the planning, operational, and crisis action process. Recommendations to Congress are periodic and in response to specific requirements such as posture statements or nomination hearings.
Obviously, Congress can call GOFOs as witnesses to testify during inquiries, etc., but this is neither advice nor recommendation.
” you will see them go to great lengths to avoid giving their opinions at times.”
Precisely what I am talking about. Congress is also entitled to their expert opinion in order to make decisions.
This just might be a clue:
McRaven graduated from the University of Texas/Austin in 1977 with a bachelor’s degree in JOURNALISM.
Hmmmm?
Horror of horrors, Poe. Not only did McRaven go to J-school at UT in Austin, he also got his Masters at the Naval Post Graduate school in California, and was later stationed in Coronado. That’s practically a commie-pinko trifecta…
Perry, you ink-stained wretch, are you pokin’ fun at ol’ Poe, hmm?
I do seriously wonder how many in the flag ranks majored in journalism, though. Think you can find another one in any of the combat arms branches?
BTW, being in J-school at UT/A in the 70’s was like an immersion course in far left political indoctrination, which is likely from whence his current sentiments arise. I seriously doubt he got them from his fighter pilot father or his fellow officers in the SEALs.
In fact, now that I think about it, McRaven is the only liberal SEAL officer I have ever read about in all my reading on this infernal machine. I’ve heard of a couple of enlisted, but special operations is not known as a hive of liberalism and a strange bed from which to sprout a flowering blue four-star.
I have heard in years past from other SEAL and Army SF officer acquaintances that McRaven was known to think differently from most of his kind.
Who would be the one to thrive in the zer0 administration…
Poe, when you mentioned UT/Austin in the ’70s, my first thought was how much McRaven was influenced by Armadillo World Headquarters…
Could be, Perry, but every person I ever met who came out of UT/A back in the 70’s listed so far left they could only walk in counter-clockwise circles, including my communist brother-in-law.
Poe, I’d guess more than a few students attended UT instead of A&M to avoid hearing all the Aggie jokes:
A tip of the Stetson to the Aggie Jokes Page at UT…
Geez Poe. If you’re going to plagiarize me, how bout a reach around?
https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=81215#comment-3149176
Sorry, brother, I just ran his WIKI profile and there it was.
Obviously looking forward to a career as a Public Affairs Officer. Or maybe some sort of post-retirement career in the world of politics?
As long as this retiree does not use his rank I think he has all the right as any citizen. If I think the POTUS is a piece of dog crap, then that should be my right to say it. Although I may suffer consequences for my words that is how freedom works.
I think anyone who holds a commission, including those in the retired reserve, should comport themselves within the boundaries of Article 88.
Article 88 prohibits contemptuous language. Criticism is not contempt.
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
I think too many of the retired officers at that rank are just like celebrities – they labor under the illusion that the rank and file really gives a shit about their opinions. Just because they make it to the top ranks of any branch of service doesn’t always meant that they are a qualified subject matter expert! I had a former TAG that thought that he was the answer to all the problems in the Pentagon – only to discover when he actually tried to get there that he was a super small particle in the picture, and they could care less about him. For some strange reason he just kind of disappeared in the background very shortly afterwards.
Retired Military Officers are no different than anyone else. They have a right to write books and speak their minds like every other citizen.
It doesn’t mean they are right.
Trump is far from perfect, hes is an egotistical loudmouth with zero filters.
He also is head and shoulders above anything the Democrats are trying to push on the country.
I believe officers, including retirees, should conform to the restrictions of Article 88.
it is there to ensure good order and discipline in the rest of the folks in the services.
In effect, “thou shalt not encourage mutiny through disparagement”
-that- is one big reason for Article 88.
Thus why I tend to scorn those who wipe their asses with it.
Disagreeing is not contempt. Disagreeing is saying I think Bob’s policies are bad. Contempt is saying I think Bob is an idiot, and because of that his logic is flawed.
As I said.
Why doesn’t he say something about all of us that had our clearance data compromised as a result of the OPM debacle? Where is he regarding the Fat Leonard Scandal? The collision of USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald, with loss of 17 enlisted lives? Funny how an Admiral can be a part of a large military organization and conveniently overlook these egregious events. Makes me sick.
Doesn’t fit the narrative:
“Orange Man Bad”
(Squawk!)
“Orange Man Bad”
(Squawk!)
Who gives a Fuck I for one support my CIC, Even Obama. I don’t like some of the things they do, and I’m not privy to inside thinking. You obtain your GO status because you have Great NCOMs doing the heavy lifting.
I think Trump is repositioning Troops just in case he fires Iran’s Ass UP. Just saying there is more going on that the Public, and Pentagon know. Trump can’t piss with out someone screening it.
So, regarding the topic of “politics and retired military” any comment on the story about how the FBI illegally edited its records of LTG Flynn’s interview in order to make it look like he lied so that they could pressure him into copping a plea (after they threatened to indict one of his kids)?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/more-bombshells-from-the-flynn-prosecution.php
The deep state will use the awesome power of government to destroy anyone that they think might be a threat to their ever increasing ability to inject themselves into our lives and they have not the tiniest scruple about doing exactly that.
I am amazed that all the top Generals and Admirals are not all ashamed of their performance.
In my lifetime, I have seen the failure in Vietnam, The complete disaster in Iraq, the rise of Isis, and we are still in Afghanistan with no end in sight.
The Iraq National Army collapsed after receiving our training and billions in equipment.
That is billions with a “B”
The Afghan National Army will collapse 2 weeks after we leave.
We abandoned the Hmong, our Iraqi translators and now, the Syrian Kurds.
As a civilian looking at military affairs from the outside, I see complete failure in spite of our powerful weapons and excellent troops.
President Trump as a disruptor of business as usual is the best thing that could happen to the military.
I think most of that can be laid at the feet of politicians. Wars shouldn’t be micromanaged from D.C. with ever-changing ROEs.
Give the military an objective (unconditional surrender of our enemies) and let them do their thing. When we let them off the leash, we get results. It’s when we get in the occupation business and try to nation build for a populace that hates us and everything we stand for that we get into the quicksand.