There is indeed a problem with retired general and flag officers speaking publicly, but it is not their discussing national security affairs. Military officers bring a useful perspective to the public debate about national security, especially when only a small percentage of the American public has seen service.
Where they do have substantial “normative power” and “unwarranted influence” is when they engage in partisan politics. For some time now, retired generals and admirals have “chosen sides” in partisan politics. It began with Bill Clinton and has exploded since then with general and flag officers endorsing political candidates, and indeed appearing as speakers at party conventions. This trend is troubling for several reasons.
First, it undermines a pillar of American civil-military relations: that members of the U.S. military remain nonpartisan in the performance of their duties. The fact that these retired officers were introduced at party conventions as “General,” or “Admiral” implies that they are speaking not in their capacity as private citizens but as military officers.
Second, the U.S. military is highly respected by the American people. If the public begins to perceive the military as just another interest group vying for power though partisan politics, that respect will wither.
Third, partisanship undermines the claim of the U.S. military to be a profession, the essence of which is service to the American people as a whole, not just Democrats or Republicans.
It is worth noting that the idea of a non-partisan military is a recent phenomenon. The Revolutionary War generation of officers was largely made up of Federalists such as Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Henry Knox who sought to create a permanent military establishment. Thomas Jefferson successfully purged the army of Federalists. One instrument for doing so was the establishment of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The result was that, up through Reconstruction, the Army was largely a Democratic institution.
During the Civil War, Maj. Gen. George McClellan, a Democrat, resisted fighting the war that President Abraham Lincoln wanted him to fight. It was not that McClellan was incompetent — he wasn’t — but that he, like most other Democratic generals, preferred to leave slavery alone.
Under the influence of Progressivism, both the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy transformed themselves into professions during the latter part of the 19th century. A cornerstone of military professionalism is nonpartisanship. A soldier or sailor was a servant of the state, regardless of the president’s party.
Of course there were anomalies. In 1920, Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood, a former chief of staff of the Army, actively campaigned for the Republican nomination in 1920 while still on active duty, indeed while wearing his uniform. But the officers who fought World War II were largely nonpartisan. Indeed, Gen. George Marshall refused to vote. And Dwight Eisenhower never actively campaigned for president. He was courted by both parties.
This should be the norm. It is in the interest of both the military as an institution and the country as a whole that the former — including retired military — reject efforts by either party to turn it into a partisan prize. Trust is the cornerstone of healthy civil-military relations. Military partisanship undermines this trust.