The Generals Who Said Too Much

When a handful of recently retired generals publicly attacked the Defense Secretary they served, blaming him for the mistakes of a war gone sour and calling for his resignation, the American people took notice. As well they should. Almost always the professional military — serving and retired — follows a code of silence, in keeping with acceptance of civilian control.

Not that generals and admirals have always been quiet. Western civilization's first blockbuster war history, still read today, was written by a former general named Thucydides, who was himself sacked in the long struggle between Athens and Sparta in the 5th century B.C. Countless writings by retired flag officers have lambasted politicians or slammed policies, strategies and decisions in war. Douglas MacArthur tried in statements and letters to undermine President Harry S Truman's decision to keep the Korean War limited and was fired for it. During the Vietnam War, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suffered nearly constant criticism from inside the Pentagon and out. The conflict between the military and the Defense Secretary was far more bitter, personal and public than that today.

But whatever one thinks about whether Donald Rumsfeld should go — and there are sound and persuasive arguments that he should — there is a larger problem that cuts to the heart of our political system.

First, such attacks undermine civilian control of the military. Retired Lieut. General Greg Newbold attacked Rumsfeld in last week's TIME "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership," suggesting that he spoke for those still on active duty. That has happened before, most recently in 1992-93, when retired officers were animated to stymie the open service of gays in the military. When military officers leak information without authorization, or encourage a contractor to lobby for a weapons system, or try through Congress to restore cuts to a service budget — and recruit retired officers to join them — they are undermining civilian control.

The role of the military is to "speak in," not "speak out," to make its views known in private to those elected or appointed to decide. Senior officers frequently testify before Congress and are asked their personal and professional opinion; they are under every obligation to speak up. Nor do we expect officers to remain silent forever. Journalists and historians, some employed by the Pentagon itself, ask retired leaders to recount their experiences on the record and in detail. They are expected to be candid so their successors can benefit from experience and so the American people can learn what their government did in their name. But this occurs after an Administration has left office, and sometimes the interviews remain under wraps far longer. Certainly Newbold and his colleagues have the legal right to speak out. But senior officers do not retire a lifetime of professional norms and values with their uniforms. When he calls for active military leaders "to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly," and to add that "we won't be fooled again," the threat of military revolt is not subtle.

Second, such criticism furthers the politicization of the military. Over the last generation, fewer and fewer officers identify as independents and more and more retired officers have endorsed presidential candidates of both parties. The public does not easily distinguish between serving and retired officers. When the latter sign themselves "General" and highlight their responsibilities while in uniform to give credibility to their views, they dress highly partisan acts in the nonpartisan, patriotic clothing of military service.

Finally, the harsh criticism of Rumsfeld poisons the relationship between civilian and military leaders. Given this precedent, politicians will be impelled to appoint senior officers who can be counted on for their loyalty and discretion above all, who can be counted on not to hang up their uniforms and then attack their former bosses — at least while still in office. Those will not necessarily be the most capable, accomplished, strong-minded, and professional officers needed to lead American youth into battle.

In the end, military officers have no duty or right to hold anyone accountable except those under their command and supervision. It is up to the American people to hold their government accountable, and their refusal does not transfer the authority or responsibility to anyone else, particularly the military. To have military officers, even those who are retired, take it upon themselves to unseat the civilian leadership and change American policy is indeed to turn the American government upside down.

Richard H. Kohn is chairman of the curriculum in peace, war and defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill