Trump and Our Retired Generals: Righteous Disagreement or Revolt?

The recent criticism of President Trump by several retired generals and admirals has called into question the unwritten rule that accompanies those who hold high civilian or military office: to be cautious about publicly criticizing the commander in chief since your position carries a weight and influence not given to anyone else. Over the last few weeks, many of these high-profile generals and admirals have crossed that line and taken a harmful and relatively new demeanor. Rather than offer constructive criticism, they have spewed uninformed personal attacks by denouncing the president for dividing the nation, falsely portraying him as ordering the U.S. military to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens and flagrantly mischaracterizing the recent unrest in many U.S. cities.

Yet, character assassination is nothing new for former senior military officers and the Trump administration.

Retired officials have publicly excoriated and second-guessed Trump since day one. Criticism has run the gamut from the withdrawal of forces in the Middle East to the president’s handling of North Korea to questioning iconic alliances like NATO. While constructive criticism is needed and healthy for public policy, especially when America sends troops into harm’s way, the recent condemnation from former civil servants is reckless. It has gone too far, moving from politically objective to subjectively personal and biased opinions – not necessarily liberal bias but hateful, disgruntled bias. While this sort of slant is to be expected from the mainstream media, given the public’s high-regard of and trust in the military and the opinions that emanate from senior military leaders, such personal attacks on the president are shameful.

One example of a slanderous assault comes from the former Special Operations Command commander Adm. Bill McRaven. The Admiral, Naval equivalent to a four-star general, challenged the president’s integrity and fitness for the job in a New York Times Op-ed, when he said, “...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.” Even recent comments by former Secretary of Defense (SecDef) Mattis in an interview with the Atlantic appear tainted with personal animosity: “We must reject and hold accountable those [meaning Trump] in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

Some very powerful words from some very respected warriors…is it legitimate criticism or have they crossed the line?

Is there a discretionary boundary that senior officers should cross only in exceptional circumstances? Their prestige and status certainly deserve our consideration, but their public statements need to be prudent. Retired generals are rarely politicians or part of official policy-making. Their critiques are picked up by a malicious media or a slanted “buddy filter,” which calls into question the reliability of their views, the tilt of their politics, and their disregard for a sitting president’s responsibilities. Recently, these distinguished servicemen have gone well beyond useful disagreement to politically motivated and possibly mutinous language.

But aren’t they like anyone else? The answer is no!

It is true that former members of the military are like any other U.S. citizen: they are entitled to the constitutional rights guaranteed to every American, including the right to free speech. However, depending on their background, stature, and previous position, their right to speak carries obligations and restraints. This obligatory control is even more important in a national emergency. The words from a Colin Powell or a Jim Mattis, who were not just distinguished military generals but also citizens who held influential government positions, have an elevated status and pulpit, much like star athletes and Hollywood celebrities.

When they speak, America listens… insightfully or regrettably.

Unlike these luminaries, a similar platform for the average citizen is almost non-existent. He or she is unable to present the same analytical significance in a message – the reach and effect cannot be compared to those with media access. It is therefore wise and prudent for senior military officers to be calculated, timely, and cautious about criticizing the president’s competence since their influence can have unwelcome consequences for those who stand watch over our country. 

So, what motivated these esteemed senior officers to step beyond assessment to resistance?

What has so strongly shaped their beliefs that they would take advantage of a privileged stage and harshly criticize a sitting president? These breaches in public confidence risk these generals’ legacies and reputations. Is it the work of former disgruntled employees, a belief in a higher cause, or an attempt to right political wrongs?

To answer such questions, a discussion of reverence, loyalty, and politics is in order.

Throughout antiquity, generals were revered and celebrated. Their accomplishments on the battlefield often meant the difference between their country’s survival or extinction. And in America, they represent one of our finest traditions—smart, disciplined, principled men and women whose loyalty to their country and fellow warriors is beyond reproach—service before self.

Certainly, many generals believe in and live by that code, which is no different from that of any other person in the armed forces. But for serving officers, politics is a foreign country, a barren wasteland for the principled and noble – not a place for those who have been in harm’s way and know its consequences. It should be known that ‘honorable politics’ is an oxymoron and that ‘selflessness’ is a throw-away slogan soon forgotten once an election is over. Even though the word is often used in politics and the military, loyalty has a different meaning in the latter, where it does not mean devotion to a person or political position but to an ideal: “duty, honor, country.” Even in retirement.

So, what went wrong? Why would a decorated and distinguished group of retired military officers abandon their principles and begin a dangerous dialogue of personal attacks and mutinous criticism?

The story begins in a Pentagon meeting. In his new book, Trump and His Generals: The Cost of Chaos, Peter Bergen describes the first Joint Chief of Staff (JCS) meeting where the then-Defense Secretary Mattis, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Joe Dunford (who is a very close friend and served under Mattis), military service chiefs, and Secretary of State Tillerson were giving President Trump his first primer on global security. The briefing laid out in detail the security picture and America’s involvement. After almost an hour of briefs, Trump interrupted, “You guys have just walked through exactly what we’re not gonna do!”

Somehow, the JCS had misread their boss. He wasn’t looking for how involved we need to be but how we were going to get the hell out of these conflicts…It got worse.

Trump began to berate then-Chairman Joe Dunford and secretary of state Rex Tillerson in front of dozens of generals and state officials. As Peter Bergen says, “Referring to the Afghan War, Trump demanded to know from General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ‘Why don’t we win anymore? Why are we not winning?’” Further castigating those at the meeting, he said, “General [Gen Dunford], I disagree with all this.” It was an unprecedented dressing down of America’s top military officials and left an unforgettable mark on Mattis and every other senior officer in the room. As Bergen says, “The president had just launched a cruise missile through seven decades of American national security policy and trade agreements” …and the word got out.

It was the beginning of the end of Trump’s confidence in his generals and admirals…and the beginning of their disdain for the president.

To this blunt president from Queen’s New York, dressing down people whom he deemed were failing is a common – albeit coarse – way of getting his message across to those whom he did not think were listening. Much like his strategy on trade, immigration, and manufacturing, Trump was going to completely rearrange America’s view of its position in the world – costly stagnant conflicts and outdated alliances were on the chopping block.

This lack of understanding by the military brass was never more evident than Mattis’s introductory statement justifying U.S. overseas military commitments: “The greatest gift of the greatest generation is the post-war, liberal, international rules-based order.” Mattis could not have said anything more contrary to Trump’s beliefs…it was a complete misread of this president. The idea of trying to educate him on their version of national security was a cataclysmic mistake!

How could a group of Americas’ finest miss the boat? 

The bottom line is they shouldn’t have. Trump’s security strategy is not a mystery. It has been a part of his conversation for over three decades – he preached it, he believed it, and he campaigned on it. Rebuild the military, get out of foreign conflicts, make countries pay for their security, and “it’s the economy stupid.” Bergen cites Trump saying, “Look, national security is a function of two things. It’s the military stuff, and I’m rebuilding the military, but it’s also economics. It’s trade. It’s in finance.” This quote encapsulates the president’s security doctrine and should have been understood by everyone at that briefing. No longer was the basis of U.S. global preeminence a military solution; it was all about prosperity and America First!

Yet, there’s more to the root of the problem.

Was their view of the world the result of arrogance, ignorance, or what I believe it to be, a completely different paradigm reinforced by years of security partnerships and up-close warfare? A paradigm built and solidified over decades of an alliance-based Cold War, a steady-state conflict in the Middle East, but mostly an unwavering belief in the War on Terror. So ingrained is it in military doctrine that the war on terror has created a dogma of questionable interventions, endless coalitions, and a commitment to nation-building. To the point where the war became an existential necessity. America’s overseas commitments were not only critical to our security but became an accepted norm for world order. How could the president question it?

But what they missed was that this president was a change-agent and questioned everything…especially policies that weren’t working…it’s all about America First!

Either these warriors didn’t pay attention or they refused to listen. Their hardened beliefs could not have been further from Trump’s view of America’s position in the world or the 63 million Americans who voted for him. They either failed to grasp the oncoming and monumental shift in security policy – or, worse, understood it and felt that educating Trump was all that was required. They grossly misjudged their boss. His response to their apparent disregard for his advertised convictions was a gruff, demeaning, and a cold blow. Trump dished-out his criticism like it was a take from his reality TV show, The Apprentice – berate the losers and make it clear to all in the room who was in charge and what he believed in – the only thing left was “You’re fired!”

And the resistance spread like wildfire.

Time to fast forward…

Since Mattis’s resignation as Secretary of Defense, he has largely refrained from publicly criticizing the president. Personal jabs and disgruntled remarks are not part of the military tradition and, as we have said, an uncommon characteristic of generals and admirals. It is well known that Mattis had several security disagreements with Trump while SecDef. Discords such as the validity of the NATO alliance and troop withdrawals from Syria as well as the downsizing of forces in Afghanistan. As Mattis said before his resignation, “We are going to stand with the 41 nations. The largest wartime coalition in modern history is the NATO-led campaign in Afghanistan.”

Many of these differences are what set the stage for Mattis’s departure and the recent “coming out” of his public disapproval. Years of established security beliefs and the callous handling of staff went against his leadership style as well as what he perceived to be a threat to the military institution. It was too much for Mattis. In his mind, he had to react, but to many of the president’s supporters, he was about to cross the line. In early June, Mattis gave a statement published in the Atlantic where he broke his silence and berated Trump’s handling of recent discord over the injustice to George Floyd and its related protests and riots.

Mattis did not hold back.

It was obvious this was pent-up anger just waiting for the right moment – Mattis went for the jugular. The attacks were personal and harsh. As Mattis asserted, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us.” He added, “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

Harsh criticism or a call for revolt?

Mattis did not simply criticize a sitting president, he appeared to call for mutiny. “We can unite without him…”? An alarming call to action, which, taken literally, could incite insurrection-like behavior. Mattis’s rant continued, contrasting “Nazi ideology” and “division” as if fascism was somehow related to Trump’s actions – a bizarre and irresponsible analogy. And it did not stop there. Others began to pile on. Former Secretary of State and chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, gave an even more puzzling and questionable interview on the same subject to Jake Trapper of CNN. Powell harangued the president for several minutes about “constitutional trampling” and the president’s threat to use the military to quell the riots and looting in dozens of U.S. cities. Powell never identified specific actions that the president did or said he would do that were constitutionally unlawful. He merely suggested inappropriateness.

Further, the interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper began by reviewing the previous week’s interview with General John Allen, former overall commander in Afghanistan and a distinguished and decorated military veteran. General Allen, in a response to Tapper’s question about Trump’s threat to deploy U.S. military against American citizens, said, “It may well signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment.” He continued, “I never believed the constitution was under threat until recently and I have concerns about that…to how the rule of law is being administered in this country.”

The list goes on.

James Stavridis, another admiral and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, gave a critical review of Trump in an interview with MSNBC. The interview consisted of little more than personal jabs and troublesome analogies about the clearing of protesters by federal officers and the National Guard in Washington DC’s Lafayette Square. The admiral commented, “We cannot afford to have a Lafayette Square end up looking like a Tiananmen Square.” A thoughtless comparison with little reference to the facts on the ground. Again, like the others, the admiral provided few legal references to what he thought would be unconstitutional.

More importantly, he left out critical details about the event: the National Guard, there to protect monuments and federal property from looters and rioters, were not armed, active-duty troops never left federal installations, and the Insurrection Act was never invoked. What is more, active duty servicemen are often postured on federal installations in support of large-scale civil response efforts - hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and, yes, civil unrest (e.g. Hurricane Katrina and the 1992 LA riots). For those who pay attention in the Pentagon, this should be nothing new. There is no comparison with Tiananmen Square, which had thousands killed and injured, followed by mass arrests and executions – It paints a dishonest and misinformed picture.

Is this willful deceit or situational illiteracy? In either case, it is damaging.

Even the usual apolitical and former White House chief of staff, General John Kelly, questioned Trump’s interpretation of Mattis’ resignation or firing, backing Mattis’s comments in the Atlantic publication. Criticism of the president is not new with Kelly, as recounted in a February speech at a Drew University event. The retired United States Marine Corps four-star general, even though tactfully, criticized the President on several issues ranging from Lt. Col. Vindman’s position on the Ukraine phone call to immigration to Trump’s handling of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Kelly’s support for Mattis was not unusual or unexpected, but personal and remissive criticisms highlight the political vs. apolitical obligations of retired senior military officers – why do it, and what is the motive?

Why would these iconic American champions come out of the woodwork and trash a sitting president, even suggesting foul play and resistance?

To these warrior sages, Trump is the threat. To them, it is one thing to question the current security strategy but another to threaten the use of our military against the American people. Yet, instead of providing evidence and informed critique, they went off on a politically motivated tirade. Their positions were ill-informed, inaccurate, and troubling. No one did their homework on civil disorder or presidential authority, such as using the military, except Powell who, in 1992, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, had to explain why he approved federalizing troops to quell riots in Los Angles – the very same authority with which they challenged Trump.

Further, and the real irony here, is that compared to the LA riots in 92, which lasted six days and occurred chiefly in one U.S city, recent unchallenged violence and the threat by President Trump to use the military to contain it, has occurred in dozens of cities, lasting for weeks – and continues to this day. It highlights the hypocrisy and duplicity of these senior officers regarding past precedent and constitutional authority. The public display of the lack of understanding by career military leaders is so troubling that it makes one wonder: Is there a common purpose to their unified criticism or useless tautology?

The answer is easy…it was a common theme that was politically motivated.

The generals had had enough of this brutish change-agent president. Loyalties to their institution were paramount – the president was attacking their core beliefs about the world-order and had to be challenged. Who was Trump to question them, these battle-hardened soldiers who had sacrificed so much to ensure victory against America's enemies? To these seasoned soldiers and marines, the security world was dynamic, evolving, and required American leadership. The Middle East was of great strategic importance, the threat of terrorism was real, and the decades-old alliances were as important today as they were fifty years ago – not to be questioned and certainly not to be disbanded.

Worse, they felt that Trump’s recent threat of using military force to quell the riots was tantamount to dictatorship, America’s Tiananmen Square. It was a misuse of the military’s sacred vow to protect the constitution and, in their eyes, an abuse of power. If change was needed, as Gen Allen recklessly remarked, “…it [change] will have to come from the bottom up. For at the White House, there is no one home.” To these self-proclaimed stewards of America, we needed political change at the top, and the stage was set.

But the problem is they’re not in charge!

President Trump is an elected official – 63 million Americans and an overwhelming electoral vote made him president. Not only was Trump elected, so too were his beliefs, promises, and policies. Like no one else in recent memory, he upset the security apple cart. And, he has unapologetically chided those who opposed him to include government officials within his circle who failed to do his bidding. In an ironic reversal of roles, Trump spoke truth to power, and the generals didn’t like it. They took his bawdy behavior personally, regarding his national security direction as careless and a threat to America. They were going to protect the institution and the hard-earned progress made over decades – at any cost!

But there’s only one commander in chief.

None of these generals direct U.S. policy. Trump does. The president is the commander in chief and oversees foreign affairs, an authority vested in him by the Constitution. In the United States, the president is authorized to quell civil disorder by the same Constitution the generals accuse him of ignoring. There is nothing murky or troubling about the president’s right or authority to override incompetent governors and mayors who place politics ahead of civic order. What they miss is the politics camouflaged by the crisis. There is more to the riots and looting than the constitutional guarantee of the right to protest – or a solution to social injustice. It is complicated and full of political agendas – a situation ill-suited for apolitical warriors.

And there’s an even greater concern, our national security.

The U.S. is experiencing more than internal unrest. We are fighting for freedom and liberty around the world against a resurgent and oppressive Russia, a kleptocratic and domineering China, and an unstable and threatening Iran and North Korea. Our security dance card is full, and now is not the time for retired generals and admirals to maneuver between the president and those who seek to challenge America. The U.S. is losing the “cognitive war” or, in national security terms, “an attack on what we think and our way of thinking.” As stated in the Future Military Intelligence CONOPs and S&T Investment Roadmap 2035-2050, “It is in the cognitive realm we are losing the ideological war on multiple fronts, we are losing our intellectual property, our adversaries are outmaneuvering us…”

This cognitive threat is the most serious danger we face, either foreign or domestic, as the last three years of internal political muckraking has shown. America’s politically motivated sedition against the president has no basis in fact or reason. By dividing us, it unites our enemies and erodes the republic. Our internal political battles are nothing but a self-inflicted “cognitive” wound, an assault on our values, liberties, and institutions, and should shame those who perpetrate it. Egregious opposition to and the undermining of a sitting president benefit only our enemies – a risk that any general should understand. America needs cohesion and unity, a commonality of purpose, from its respected retired guardians. While informed criticism is welcome, political and personal attacks on a sitting president corrode the fabric of our nation.

Unity is what we need.

As much as I want to believe that the generals and admirals are principled men defending America’s best interests, I suspect that behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz, stands a withered fellow pulling levers and turning dials with labels like resentment, retribution, and political reckoning. There is little virtue in this. The retired sages have clung to decades-old security policies and see this president as a threat to American institutions and America’s global preeminence. It is one thing to disagree and provide thoughtful criticism; it is quite another to undermine the policies and direction of an elected president. Retired generals and admirals should be cautious of criticizing their former boss, who is currently the commander in chief. As anyone in the military will tell you, you don’t have to respect the person to respect the office and rank.

Generals should leave politics to politicians.