« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

General Dempsey Tacitly Endorses Barack Obama

Two weeks ago Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey waded into the 2012 political campaign by criticizing a ad run by a Super PAC composed of former Special Operations veterans opposing the re-election of Barack Obama.

At the time, General Dempsey made this statement as reported in The Hill:

“If someone uses the uniform, whatever uniform, for partisan politics, I am disappointed because I think it does erode that bond of trust we have with the American people,” Dempsey said during his flight back from a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq.

In my view this is one of the most absurd utterances ever by a serving general officer. Veterans are just that, veterans. They are no longer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice or to command authority. Expecting veterans to set aside their political rights forever because the “aren’t helpful”, to use Dempsey’s phrasing, simply runs against American history.

At the time I noted that Dempsey had made no effort to criticize hard left groups like VoteVets or IAVA. He didn’t mention political hacks like Tammy Duckworth who have built a career around wounds received in combat.

Now we have an additional data point.

A featured speaker the Democrat convention was retired Admiral John Nathman. Unlike the mid-level veterans associated with the ad that got General Dempsey exercised, Nathman retired as commander of US Fleet Forces Command. Why was Nathman and the other veterans on stage? The answer is obvious, he was there to try to convince us that the pantywaist in the White House is one tough hombre who will make that “gutsy call” (don’t believe me, go to http://www.gutsycall.com).

I waited in vain for General Dempsey to protest this “use of the uniform for partisan politics”. Unfortunately, it seems that General Dempsey only objects to veterans having a political voice when they are “not helpful”. In other words he objects to veterans that oppose Obama’s re-election but not to those who support it.

What we are seeing here is that the nation’s senior military leadership has been deeply and seriously co-opted and compromised. And the reason is completely understandable. The military leadership has been told, in essence, “that’s a mighty nice military you got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it.” The military is facing huge cuts under the best of conditions and Dempsey and his compatriots have either been told, or decided on their own, that having veterans oppose Obama’s re-election is “not helpful” and maybe even detrimental to those future budget discussions.

As a result, General Dempsey has done what has never before been done by a serving general officer. He has entered a re-election campaign on behalf of a candidate. The fact that he hasn’t objected to anyone other than anti-Obama veterans speaking out demonstrates the duplicity of his position and does more damage to the concept of an apolitical military than any advertisement run by veterans.

COMMENTS

  • Tbone

    It would appear that anyone who get to be a General is far more politician than soldier. As such, selling the Country down the drain would be of no consequence to them.

  • Viet71

    Tbone, don’t know how things are today. In October 1972 — just back from Viet Nam and shortly to check out of army active duty — I witnessed an O-6 get promoted to one-star general. An intelligence officer. Good looking, relatively young, charismatic and charming.

    His very first assignment: Charm School, as it was called.

    Charm School was all about dealing with the press and PR.

    It was clear this officer had been picked (among a number of O-6s up for promotion) because of his charm potential. Am sure he did well.

  • ohiohistorian

    I think the comment for Dempsey is that by LTG Russel Honore: “You are stuck on stupid”. If veterans speaking out on political choices is considered misuse of the uniform, then he is saying that the ignoramuses of OWS should have more opinion than a veteran? He can put that opinion where the sun doesn’t shine. You can be a vet, but not all decked out in the uniform. The UNIFORM is not political. However, all soldiers are allowed to have political opinions and are ENCOURAGED to exercise their rights as citizens, subject to the restrictions of the chain of command.

    I liked Robert Heinlein’s approach in Starship Troopers: that only VETERANS get to vote. It would get rid of communists like Obama from the candidate pool, wouldn’t it?

    For an active duty (AD) officer to be out there IN UNIFORM should be at least administrative punishment, if not immediate retirement/discharge from AD. Here is the 2008 directive; I do not know if it has been updated. Note that the HuffPo made a big deal of it in 2008. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Directives.pdf

  • streiff

    to be clear, the admiral I’m writing about retired in 2008. The point is that what he did is much more of a partisan act that what the SOF Super PAC did but there wasn’t a peep from the military leadership.

  • greyeagle

    Mitt will have a lot of house cleaning at the Pentagon. I expect the cleaning will have to be a deep one.

  • annas

    I surmised this guy was a Obamabot when he came out against the ad. The worst though is that no one in the media is there to call him on his double standard. They just let that go–like everything else that might harm the king in charge. And all the kings men have lauded that lame Democrat convention to the point that today–they have surged ahead in the polls by 5 points!! I am very afraid for this country!