A retirement check from the armed services is not a muzzle

As a retired general officer who, from time to time, has publicly expressed my opinions about political issues and candidates, I read with great interest Dov S. Zakheim’s recent op-ed opposing political activities by retired flag and general officers. His thesis is that because political polls have shown that many Americans have lost confidence in the military, the first step toward restoring it should be to prohibit retired generals and admirals from engaging in political speech. Because his opinion piece is likely to confuse many Americans and discourage many retired officers from exercising the freedom of speech for which we were willing to die to defend, I feel obliged to offer a contrary view.

Zakheim’s article focused on partisan political speech; however, the full spectrum of political activity is far broader. The important question is where retired generals can and should operate along that continuum. 

At one end, federal law prohibits us only from engaging in “contemptuous” speech against certain sitting public officials. Retired regular officers entitled to pay are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which criminalizes “contemptuous words against the president, the vice president” and other very senior federal and state officials. 

At the other end of the spectrum, the ultimate political activity is running for office. Zakheim acknowledges correctly, but only in passing, that our nation’s history is filled with examples of retired generals running for and serving in elected public office. He thus suggests that seeking political office is permissible but different from publicly endorsing others seeking political office or supporting their political views. That difference is not obvious to me. 

In the vast expanse between these ends, U.S. law already addresses all other political activity.  For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) directive governing the political activities of retired military officers allows us to publicly endorse political candidates as long as we are “not in uniform and [do] not otherwise act in a manner that could reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.” 

Zakheim’s view, in a nutshell, is that retired flag and general officers should never publicly endorse political candidates or parties, period. While such a standard would keep us on safe ground, it would put us in a bubble from which no sound could escape. 

For him and others who agree with him, it’s all about reputation: our reputations and the reputation of the armed forces. Most of my colleagues and I agree that there is no place for partisan politics in our military. However, while we understand that silence in uniform is discipline, many of us believe silence in retirement is surrender to people and events we believe would harm our nation. Respectfully, we’ve earned the right after our many years of silent service to support — silently or openly — political candidates or ideas we believe will continue our American journey without driving us into a ditch.

I submit that it’s not what we do but how we do it that ultimately will preserve or damage reputations and reinforce or undermine trust. In reality, there is no difference between expressing our opinions and beliefs on national security issues and speaking publicly for or against the candidates who share or oppose them. As long as we do both professionally and we stay within legal and policy limits, our delivery will not cast a shadow on us, our messages, or our nation.  Like many other retired general officers, I view my political speech as a continuation of my service. Those of us who served honorably in uniform can address Zakheim’s concerns by behaving honorably in retirement.

Zakheim closes his op-ed by suggesting that muzzling retired senior military officers is a “critical step” that can and should be taken because we someday might be recalled to active duty.  He acknowledges this argument is a stretch, but it’s not the first time it’s been offered in an effort to stifle political speech. In 2002, professor Richard Kohn wrote in a Naval War College Review article that four-star flag and general officers, “like ‘princes of the church,’ never truly retire, but forever represent the institution.” To extend the metaphor, “princes of the church” do not take vows of silence; monks do. Retired generals and admirals should not be expected to live the rest of our lives as monks. 

Our principles have guided us, our experiences have shaped us, and our sacrifices have helped keep this nation free. We have earned our voices and the right to raise them respectfully and within the bounds of the law to ensure that the generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians we left behind will continue to be led by men and women of integrity and character. 

Steven J. Lepper is a retired Air Force major general. He served from 2010 to 2014 as Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. He also was Deputy Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and served as the senior “crisis communicator” for the Department of the Air Force. He is president and CEO of the Association of Military Banks of America. The opinions expressed here are his alone.