Update III:
Retired Rear Admiral Kevin Sweeney has resigned as Department of Defense Chief of Staff after serving former Defense Secretary James Mattis for two years.
Brent Colburn, a senior Pentagon official under President Obama, explains why it matters:
In normal times, the resignation of a chief of staff following the departure of a secretary of defense would not only be seen as unsurprising, but as expected. … These are not normal times. With so many leadership gaps in the building, and so much uncertainty about future leadership, this will just add to the growing sense of instability in an institution that thrives on predictability.
Update II:
True to his five-deferments-bone-spurs cowardice, Trump went after retired four-star Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal for speaking truth to power.
McChrystal has criticized the so-called commander in chief, calling Trump dishonest and immoral (below).
“General” McChrystal got fired like a dog by Obama. Last assignment a total bust. Known for big, dumb mouth. Hillary lover!
Update I:
At midnight tonight, Secretary of Defense Mattis will turn over the Pentagon keys (and many other keys) to his temporary replacement.
Typical of this low-keyed patriot, General Mattis did not have any kind of departure ceremony.
Instead he called on the U.S. military to stay firm in its mission “to support and defend the Constitution while protecting our way of life.”
“Our department is proven to be at its best when the times are most difficult. So keep the faith in our country and hold fast, alongside our allies, aligned against our foes,” Mattis said.
Original Post:
As the Old Year is coming to a close, as are the last days of service to the nation by two of the highest-ranking and most reputable and experienced (retired) military generals, it is appropriate to review what they — and others of similar rank and prestige — have to say about the commander in chief.
In his letter of resignation, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis respectfully but effectively expressed his strong disagreements with Trump’s national security and foreign policies.
There was perhaps no subtler yet more poignant evidence of his disdain for the president’s views than Mattis’ “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.” With this he offered to end his tenure on February 28, 2019, “a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated.”
A thin-skinned, vindictive Trump “fired” the general as of December 31.
Retired U.S. Marine Corps General John Kelly, Trump’s Chief of Staff, leaving what he calls a “bone-crushing hard job” was much more discrete in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
Except perhaps for “muddying the administration’s position” on the border wall, for conceding that Trump often pressed against the legal boundaries of his role and for intriguingly suggesting that “his tenure as Trump’s chief of staff is best measured by what the president did not do,” there were no bombshells.
On the latter (“what the president did not do”),The New York Times notes, “Mr. Kelly has been credited by supporters with slowing or stopping the president from a number of his impulses, such as pulling out of NATO.”
In an interview on “This Week,” Stanley McChrystal, a retired four-star Army general and former top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, said Trump is dishonest and immoral and, when asked about Trump supporters, McChrystal said:
What I would ask every American to do is … stand in front of that mirror and say, ‘What are we about? Am I really willing to throw away or ignore some of the things that people do that are — are pretty unacceptable normally just because they accomplish certain other things that we might like?’
Just last week, one of the most highly decorated former US Army Generals, four-star general Barry McCaffrey, called Trump’s political, self-promoting, full-of-falsehoods visit to U.S. troops in Iraq “embarrassing” and “entirely inappropriate.”
After Trump went on a vindictive rampage this fall revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan and threatening to do the same to other critics, retired four-star admiral William H. McRaven, (a Navy SEAL and former head of the U.S. Special Operations and the man who oversaw the daring 2011 operation that killed Osama bin Laden), wrote an open letter in the Washington Post decrying Trump’s action.
In the letter praising Brennan and harshly criticizing Trump’s leadership and “McCarthy-era tactics,” McRaven said, “Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.” He also said, “Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.”
Of course, Trump could not resist deriding the highly decorated retired admiral who served his country meritoriously for 37 years, calling him a “Hillary Clinton fan” and an “Obama backer.” In Trump’s disturbed mind, probably the worst insults he could come up with.
Within hours of McRaven’s letter, 13 former intelligence leaders – including retired generals David Petraeus and James Clapper — also blasted Trump’s decision as having “nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances – and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech.”
Just as General Mattis expressed his concern about how Russia (and China) “want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model…” other high ranking retired military officers have equally candidly expressed their concerns about Russia’s intentions and Trump’s acquiescence.
In March 2018, General Barry McCaffrey said this:
Reluctantly I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to US national security. He is refusing to protect vital US interests from active Russian attacks. It is apparent that he is for some unknown reason under the sway of Mr. Putin.
Retired United States Navy Admiral James Stavridis concurred with McCaffrey’s remarks and said:
In terms of the current situation with Russia, our president needs to understand that Vladimir Putin is no friend to the United States, that Russia is actively seeking to undermine our nation not only domestically but our foreign policy as well…I agree with Gen. McCaffrey that our president does not spend enough time focused on the threat that is emanating from Russia today.
Less than one month before the elections, more than 50 retired general and flag officers signed a letter denouncing Trump’s candidacy to be commander in chief, “saying he is unfit because of his attitudes toward women and sexual assault.”
In October 2017, CNN reported:
It’s not organized military opposition to President Donald Trump. But day by day, generals and admirals are publicly stepping up and directly giving the American public their views in ways that don’t always match the Twitter rhetoric of their commander in chief.
Many other former military continue to speak out.
But it is not only retired military officers who have expressed their thoughts on the commander in chief or his policies. Active duty military also have — albeit they do so more discretely.
A month before McCaffrey’s remarks, Navy Adm. Michael S. Rogers, commander of U.S. Cyber Command, director of the National Security Agency and chief of the Central Security Service, testified at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Cyber Command’s posture.
The NSA chief bluntly told lawmakers that President Trump has not given our intelligence services the specific authority or direction to confront the Russian election cyber attacks and that the U.S. response to Russia’s attacks has been insufficient to prevent ongoing attacks or prevent future ones. “We have not opted to engage in some of the same behaviors we are seeing…They have not paid a price that is sufficient to change their behavior,” Rogers said.
A frequent topic of concerned discussion recently has been the president’s exclusive authority to order a nuclear attack. This in light of Trump’s temperament and perceived instability.
In November 2017, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), responsible for overseeing the nation’s nuclear arsenal, told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum that if President Trump ordered a nuclear strike which he believed to be “illegal,” he would not blindly follow orders.
Hyten said, “We don’t swear allegiance to a colonel, we don’t swear allegiance to any individual. We swear an oath to an ideal as written in the Constitution and the people of this Command take that very seriously…”
Finally, not necessarily criticizing the president, but more in contrast to the president, one month after Trump’s Charlottesville words, “some very fine people,” Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria addressed his 4,000 cadets, after an alleged racial incident at his Academy.
Referring to race issues across the country, including Charlottesville, Ferguson and the protests in the National Football League, Silveria talked about the power of diversity:
It’s the power that we come from all walks of life, that we come from all parts of this country, that we come from all races, that we come from all backgrounds, gender, all make-up, all upbringing…The power of that diversity comes together and makes us that much more powerful.
Silveria left his cadets with what he called his most important thought on the subject, “If you can’t treat someone from another race or different color skin with dignity and respect, then you need to get out.” The general repeated, “If you can’t treat someone with dignity and respect, then get out.”
Of course, there is a sizeable number of retired and active duty military who continue to support Trump, no matter what.
