Get Task & Purpose in your inbox
America’s senior military officers should retire from becoming America’s TV talking heads
Editor's Note: The following is an op-ed. The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Task & Purpose.
Americans are more politically divided now than at any time in living memory.
It seems that the old adage about opinions and assholes has finally been proven without a doubt. And perhaps the most prominent people with both are America's retired general and flag officers.
From Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.) to Marine Gen. John Allen (Ret.), retired senior officers now seem almost as prone to join political campaigns as they are corporate boards. Cable networks also love having them on panels to lend credibility to their cadre of talking heads.
Between their appearances in political events and on cable, many people believe that these retired officers are damaging civil-military relations — that by expressing their personal political opinions they might make people think the military is a political institution.
Therein lies the problem. It's not that senior officers speaking for partisans lowers the military's reputation, but that the military's reputation is too high to begin with. The military and its leaders are held in unjustifiably high esteem. The military has come to be perceived as the all-purpose multi-tool of American power, while service in the profession of arms has come to eclipse all other forms of service in perceived merit.
For example, if one thinks of what American institution does humanitarian assistance overseas, most people wouldn't answer USAID, they'd answer the US military. If you asked what job is associated with serving one's country, almost everyone would say the military.
So if you want the best expert on anything national security for your political campaign or to fill out your herd of talking heads for a news channel, why not get a senior military leader?
The military is a machine that does a great job blowing things up. Depending on their roles, various general and flag officers were different cogs in that machine. Big cogs, but cogs nonetheless. If you need information about military tactics, logistics, or even leading large organizations, they're the right people to ask.
But questions on the politics of the Middle East? Not so much.
Some former senior service leaders and combatant commanders had broad-reaching portfolios that went across the political-military spectrum, but the majority of senior officers, just like most of the military in general, have little more insight on the non-military aspects of national security than a well-read average citizen, much less an academic in the field or a diplomat.
But the only academics most people have heard of are those who've written books popular with non-academics, which is not always a sign of great expertise. And as far as diplomats, even fewer people know what a charge d'affaires actually does.
It's not about knowledge, but about the immense and disproportionate esteem the American public invests in the military. They extend that same excessive adulation to retired senior leaders. If the military is full of heroes, then the leaders of those heroes must have some kind of superhuman wisdom. Politicians in particular love to leverage that built-in credibility.
People need to realize how uninsightful the opinions of most retired military personnel are. It doesn't mean they're bad at their former jobs. It just means they're not automatically good at everything just because they were good in the military. Just because you're smart at one thing, doesn't make you a universal problem-solver. Former military officers commenting on military matters have valuable perspectives. On anything outside of that, their opinion is worth no more or less than anyone else's.
You can often see the deference civilians give the opinions of vets in your everyday life. For example, when I talk with distant relatives or run into casual acquaintances, they often ask my opinion on global politics and security affairs, as if I have some special national defense decoder ring. I tell them I have my opinions, but in all reality, my insight is because I'm a well-read citizen, not because I was in the Marines.
Just as a brilliant surgeon would likely be unable to run public housing, generals can lead thousands of soldiers but still be wholly unsuited to much else.
Maybe the military needs to be taken down a peg, or more precisely, maybe we need to accept that the military knows a lot about destroying things, but it isn't good at much else.
Perhaps by these senior officers exposing their ignorance on things non-military, they'll also reveal the military isn't a universal problem solver, but a part of government that's suited to a particular set of tasks, just like any other, from the State Department to the Department of Agriculture.
Retired officers didn't join the Nights Watch from Game of Thrones. They joined the military. Just because generals and admirals were more accomplished than most doesn't mean they have any less right to expose their ill-considered opinions to the light of day than the rest of the veteran community. If we grow accustomed to that, maybe society will become more realistic about its expectations for the military as a whole. The military isn't a holy organization with a calling from on high. It's a group of people who do a very difficult, very essential, but also very specific and peculiar job.
Perhaps that's the first step in people understanding that military genius doesn't lend itself to solving every problem. Power isn't the only type of power, and ultimately, our country should rely on more than just the military to solve international problems.
Carl Forsling is a senior columnist for Task & Purpose. He is a Marine MV-22B pilot and former CH-46E pilot who retired from the military after 20 years of service. He is the father of two children and a graduate of Boston University and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @CarlForsling
The Air Force's top general says one of the designers of the ride-sharing app Uber is helping the branch build a new data-sharing network that the Air Force hopes will help service branches work together to detect and destroy targets.
The network, which the Air Force is calling the advanced battle management system (ABMS), would function a bit like the artificial intelligence construct Cortana from Halo, who identifies enemy ships and the nearest assets to destroy them at machine speed, so all the fleshy humans need to do is give a nod of approval before resuming their pipe-smoking.
An F-15 is rocking a WWII paint job to honor a B-17 pilot who gave his life to save a wounded crewman
An F-15C Eagle is sporting a badass World War II-era paint job in honor of a fallen bomber pilot who gave everything to ensure his men survived a deadly battle.
A U.S. E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node aircraft crashed on Monday on Afghanistan, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein has confirmed.
Beloved basketball legend Kobe Bryant, his daughter, and seven other people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California on Sunday. Two days earlier, Army Spc. Antonio I. Moore was killed during a vehicle rollover accident while conducting route clearing operations in Syria.
Which one more deserves your grief and mourning? According to Maj. Gen. John R. Evans, commander of the U.S. Army Cadet Command, you only have enough energy for one.
After 70 years, service members are finally filing medical malpractice claims against the US military
Jessica Purcell, a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve, was pregnant with her first child when she noticed a swollen lymph node in her left underarm.
Health-care providers at a MacDill Air Force Base clinic told her it was likely an infection or something related to pregnancy hormones. The following year they determined the issue had resolved itself.
It hadn't. A doctor off base found a large mass in her underarm and gave her a shocking diagnosis: stage 2 breast cancer.
Purcell was pregnant again. Her daughter had just turned 1. She was 35. And she had no right to sue for malpractice.
A 1950 Supreme Court ruling known as the Feres doctrine prohibits military members like Purcell from filing a lawsuit against the federal government for any injuries suffered while on active duty. That includes injury in combat, but also rape and medical malpractice, such as missing a cancer diagnosis.
Thanks in part to Tampa lawyer Natalie Khawam, a provision in this year's national defense budget allows those in active duty to file medical malpractice claims against the government for the first time since the Feres case.
With the Department of Defense overseeing the new claims process, the question now is how fairly and timely complaints will be judged. And whether, in the long run, this new move will help growing efforts to overturn the ruling and allow active duty members to sue like everyone else.