Retire Admiral Mullen

My original timetable called for President Obama to retire Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest ranking uniformed military commander) on Jan 20 at 12:01 pm -- as quickly as possible after the new president took his oath of office. I then considered that one must first find a suitable replacement. President Obama should make it clear that he will not tolerate military officers publicly denouncing his policies, not to mention undermining an agreement the United States and the Iraqi government just worked out of after agonizing negotiations.

Mullen told reporters on November 17 that that the withdrawal must be driven solely by conditions on the ground, and that the soonest all US forces could be safely withdrawn from Iraq is "two to three years." (The next day Mullen indicated that he would carry out any directions from the new president once he takes office.) Officers like him need to be reminded of a basic lesson of democracy -- that the military is there to carry out the civilian authority's orders, not to publicly pressure the president to follow the Pentagon line.

Wait a moment; I am not saying that if the generals have professional reasons for holding that a given policy or order about to be issued is best not followed, they should keep mum. In such cases, they should surely inform the president of their views, but through meeting with him and his staff, not via the press.

Admiral Mullen's speaking out of turn is especially offensive because instead of taking his misgivings first to the president, he went first to the press and the public, calling on the people to oppose a newly elected president even before he took office.

If the president issues an order that truly violates an officer's conscience, he should resign. Then he will be free to protest it all he wants, but not while in uniform. One may say that serving in the military does not negate one's citizen rights, including freedom of speech. This is true in all matters but those concerning the military. Here, the officers' duty is to carry out orders, not to seek to sabotage them.

Obama would hardly be the first president to be undermined by the generals. President Truman had to fire General MacArthur when he repeatedly publicly disagreed with the president's Korean war policies. Clinton was weakened from day-two of his first term when military leaders let it be known, to one and all, how unwise, and, in effect, dangerous they found his suggested policy on allowing gays to serve in the military. Clinton's timing was surely off, and the policy that was actually implemented is a sort of mind boggling compromise, but that is for the electorate to judge. Nor is there any shortage of voices, from retired generals to Rush Limbaugh to Fox News, expressing contrary views. Thus, there is no danger if the military will keep its place, the issues at hand will not be properly aired.

The overwhelming majority of Americans now think that most anything that President Bush has done, whether overseas or at home, is wrong-headed, and they have plenty of reasons to judge him so harshly. However, regarding the matter at hand, he got it right, and set a good example: in early 2008, after public statements highly critical of the President's policies on Iran and Iraq, Admiral William "Fox" Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, was resigned this post, ending his military career early.

The fact that President Obama does not have a military pedigree only enhances the point: he needs to establish early and firmly who is in charge, and who is to follow orders.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com

Comments

[Berettasskeeter]

Mr. Etzioni, perhaps you missed the fact that Obama is NOT the President, but rather the President-elect. As such, nothing that he says or does is sacrosanct from comment by military personnel. When he becomes President, on the morning of 20 January, that will change.
You probably also do not know, and why would you, being ignorant, that the President cannot "retire" an officer. He can demand resignation or retirement, and it will be given, but short of Court-Martial, he cannot just "do" it!
Semper fi

[DougNTexas]

Try a little reading comprehension Pal. He never said President Elect Obama was the President . The guy said that stuff in a attempt to box President Elect Obama in before he is even sworn in. Generals give advice to President's, but Presidents set policy. As the article said, that General needs to be fired @ 12:01 p.m. January 20, 2009. I whole hardly agree, he needs to be fired asap.

[kalpal]

Whole heartedly not hardly

[Berettasskeeter]

What foolishness! If Obama is so weak-kneed that he can be boxed in by Admiral Mullen's statements, then you guys voted for the wrong man!
Mullen cannot be fired, in the sense you mean. Officers resign their commissions and retire. Mullen can be asked for his resignatio­n/retireme­nt, but he cannot just be "shown the door". The military doesn't work like that, and you should be glad it doesn't. The officer corps is political enough, having to be sensitive to the Congress and President in order to get their stars. You really don't want them giving potentially bad service in order to not be "fired". You guys need to stop listening to the nuts here, and start doing some research before going off half-cocked.
Semper fi

[realpolitic]

Admiral Mullen was just trying to avoid a war in Iran based on lies. He said it would not happen on his watch. He is a hero. The author suggests Mullen should have first talked to Bush. When has Bush ever listened to anyone? Besides if Mullen did reach Bush, then Cheney would have reversed the policy anyway. Mullen acted heroically to keep us out of a unnecessary war. Military leaders are not potted plants. Mullen should be rewarded for putting the interests of the country before the interests of the administration.

[woodsywizz]

realpolitic,
You got it right, except it was Admiral FALLON who was hustled out the door. I agree he is a hero!

[realpolitic]

Yes, i did mean Admiral Fallon. Thanks! I guess I am not too familiar with Admiral Mullen. My apologies to the writer of this story, Mr. Etzioni. I should have looked it up!

[aspizon]

Adm. Mullen's statements fly in the face of long observed protocol and have voided his qualifications to serve in his current position. Mr. Obama may have overlooked Sen. Lieberman's distasteful electioneering for purely pragmatic reasons but he cannot afford to ignore Adm. Mullen's posturing. This isn't a matter of loyalty but a breakdown in discipline. I suspect that President Obama will do what he knows he must do: assert his leadership and retire the admiral.

[tjboyo]

I hate to burst everyone obvious "self righteousness" but the fact is that Mr. Obama (as I believe he should be called while in between political offices) is not the President yet. Until he takes the oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foriegn and domestic.." he is not the Commander in Chief. Therefore, Adm Mullen can make any statement he wants concerning Mr. Obama's position. Yeesh people, at least have an understanding of the military before you comment.

[jotunloki]

No, Admiral Mullen is still forbidden from participating actively in politics. By attempting to put pressure on an elected official (even if not yet in office) he has violated his oath as an officer in the military.

[zepfan81]

I'm just saying we can't on one hand praise soldiers that voice concern over policies that we disagree with and then turn around and when they do the same to us we all of a sudden see them as out of line. That said I do agree a soldier, airmen, sailor, or Marine keeps their mouth shut in PUBLIC, but they should never be afraid to voice concern up the chain of command no matter who is in charge. They, afterall, are the ones that are experts on war. In my opinion we need to look at the way General officers are promoted anyway. It's too political.

[Scarllatti]

I agree with you totally. The bunch of "generals" we have now are pathetic. They are political generals who do not have the cajone to tell the President the bitter truth about war and peace.

[psipolitics]

I have met ADM Mullen a couple of times and seen him speak more times and think he is not very political for a high ranking officer. Many are far more political than he is, both in terms of personal ambition and in terms of being overtly right wing. He is a man interested in his enlisted people and in bettering their lives. He could turn out to be an ally of the new president.

[firstfreeze]

Too bad the liberal universities all kicked ROTC off campus. That is why there are few liberals in uniform

[vinny]

This comment makes no sense. Generals shouldn't be writing newspaper articles or speaking out of turn to the press on geopolitics. They need to get back in line.

[zepfan81]

I don't know. I can't think of any liberals that have ever been career military officers. It seems to go against their world view in a way.

[zepfan81]

The main reason I heard this was done was to "protest" the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. Which makes no sense. How would that force the military's hand? Would make more sense to try to change policy from the inside.

[SpoxLogic]

Huh? Make that a double "huh?". Are you implying that only "conservative" universities or colleges have ROTC programs? I know that isn't what you are saying. Since the majority of colleges are "liberal", that would mean there are only a few ROTC programs, which you and I know is not true.

Maybe there aren't many liberal generals in the Militiary because the strictness of military life is counter to the way liberals think. I have a feeling that would be more the case than a lack of ROTC programs at "liberal" colleges.

[DougNTexas]

Isn't that a great thing. It's remarkable how Conservatives like Bush and Cheney and Rummy all served so gallantly in Vietnam isn't it?

[TheHandyman]

I agree that military leaders should speak with the President first b ut if the President continues on a course that is fool hardy and destructive then that officer has an obligation and a right to speak out. They notion that they should resign first is absurd. I look at the number of officers who held their tongue until they retired and they should be ashamed of themselves. I am much prouder of those officers who told the truth and were forced to retire. Shame on you for taking Bush's side over Fallon. Without Fallon I'm sure that there would have been an attack on Iran and that would have been even more disasterous than what has already transpired. I look at the number of Generals who counciled against an Iraq invasion and wonder why they should be retired and not the ones who went along with the President's program. The last time I checked, the President was not a dictator tho Bush and our do nothing Congress has made it seem so. I wonder if maybe you should be retired for such not knowing better?

[Rrhain]

I think you're conflating all types of resignations together. The current generals who spoke out in retirement did so after retiring gracefully, making sure they had theirs before saying anything. This is different from retiring in protest.

That is the way the military is supposed to work: Our is not to question why. Ours is to submit to the will of a higher authority. Outside of truly illegal orders, it is inappropriate to speak out against your Commander while you are wearing that uniform. The military functions on a basis of trust and hierarchy. Those at the top tell those at the bottom what to do and they need to trust that those orders will be carried out and not second-guessed at every stage along the way. If you wish to speak out against policy, you have to take the uniform off.

By all means, retire loudly, making sure everybody knows exactly why it is you're leaving your career behind, but you have to retire first. When Eisenhower sent in the Army to enforce the integration of schools in Little Rock, should the generals have been allowed to publically state opposition? Could the President then trust those generals to carry out his orders?

It cuts both ways: A Servicemember who cannot support the mission must retire first and then speak out.

[Stirner]

Agreed, but don't forget that the "military-­industrial­" complex that Eisenhower warned against is getting stronger and stronger -- check out our huge "defense" budget (no "Recession" here!). Is there any wonder that the "military" in our "military-­industrial­" economy dictates our foreign policy? It has been known as "fascism".

[DougNTexas]

You got that right. They are all but calling the shots now. The billions of dollars being spent and made by the Military Industrial Complex in those 2 wars are mostly what the entire Bush Cheney Administration was all about. Even if it wrecked the rest of the American economy.

[alicetilden]

Commander-In-Chief trumps Chairman. This should be very interesting to watch. Remember, W kept saying the military was behind him, but that was only because he got rid of any military leaders who disagreed with him. Obama works differently. As was reported from his conversation with Patreus in Iraq, he will listen to advice, but he will be the leader and the decision maker.

[Ladyrantsalot]

The officer class of the U.S. military has become way too politicized. One could point to any number of inappropriate political stunts by these men. Think of Gen. Petraeus's inane column in the Washington Post a few weeks before the 2004 election making absurd claims that the war was going well in Iraq. Gee, I wonder if he was trying to help W win the election? (judging from the amateurish way that war has been fought, I suppose it's possible he genuinely thought things were just fine). The military brass are starting to resemble the strutting colonels of the banana republics of yore. If they can't restrain their political impulses they should resign from the service.

[firstfreeze]

By "politicized," I assume your concern is the officer class is too conservatice. You ever think that the "officer class" may be more balanced or liberal if the elite "liberal" universities allowed ROTC on their campus.

[pundit27]

Right. Hey, who knows what's become of Wesley Clark??? Haven't seen him in any transition coverage. . . is he on outs with BHO?

[livinthedream]

I think the point of the Chairman's comments earlier in the brief are worth repeating. He said, in effect, the military serves one President at a time. Obama's campaign promises are not policy. When they become so, as the Chairman stated, he will follow orders. His job is to provide his best military advise to the President. Obama will not make his campaign promise a policy until after he receives such advise. An incoming President will not want to bite the hand that feeds him. Obama, throughout his campaign, has cited conversations and quoted Admiral Mullen. There is a lot of mutual respect there that will carry forward into this new administration.

[vinny]

Agreed. Chain of command, baby.