Retired Military sign seditious letter

Post Reply New Topic

A day after 124 retired generals and admirals released a letter spreading the lie that President Joe Biden stole the election, current and former military officers are speaking out, calling the missive a dangerous new sign of the military being dragged into the trenches of partisan warfare.

The open letter on Monday from a group calling itself Flag Officers 4 America advanced the false conspiracy theory that the presidential vote was rigged in Biden's favor and warned that the nation is "in deep peril" from "a full-blown assault on our Constitutional rights."

Under a Democrat Congress and the Current Administration,” they wrote, “our Country has taken a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government which must be countered now by electing congressional and presidential candidates who will always act to defend our Constitutional Republic.”

The broadside also raises questions about “the mental and physical condition of the Commander in Chief" and sounds the alarm about a host of hot-button issues, such as the border wall. It goes on to accuse congressional leaders of "using the U.S. military as political pawns with thousands of troops deployed around the U.S. Capitol Building."

The group's website claims that "we are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776."

As news of the letter spread, it set off a round of recriminations among current and former military members. One serving Navy officer, who did not want to be identified publicly, called it "disturbing”.

Jim Golby, an expert in civil-military relations, called it a "shameful effort to use their rank and the military's reputation for such a gross and blatant partisan attack," while a retired Air Force colonel who teaches cadets at the Air Force Academy, Marybeth Ulrich, labeled it "anti-democratic."

"I think it hurts the military and by extension it hurts the country," said retired Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describing it as replete with "right-wing Republican talking points."

Several experts said it reminded them of the current crisis in civil-military relations in France, where dozens of retired generals were recently sanctioned after warning in an open letter in a right-wing magazine of civil war for the "protection of our civilisational values."

The American letter was striking for several reasons. It is not unusual for retired officers to take sides in electoral politics and endorse candidates. But its fiery, even angry, language and conspiracy-mongering struck multiple long-time observers as particularly out of bounds and dangerous. Coming outside the campaign season was also seen as rare if not unprecedented.

The letter, mostly signed by ex-military leaders who have been out of uniform for decades, was organized by retired Army Maj. Gen. Joe Arbuckle, a Vietnam veteran who retired in 2000.

Arbuckle, in response to questions from POLITICO, acknowledged in an email that the partisan nature of the effort is not normal but defended it as necessary, given what's at stake.

”Retired generals and admirals normally do not engage in political actions," he said, "but the situation facing our nation today is dire and we must speak out in order to be faithful to our oath to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

"We are facing threats greater than at any other time since our country was founded," Arbuckle added. "Aside from China, many of these threats flow directly from policy positions and actions of our own government. It is critical that the threats to our national security be brought to the attention of the American people and that is the main purpose of the letter. To remain silent would be a dereliction of duty.”

But the missive alarmed fellow officers in the halls of the Pentagon and far-flung bases due to its strident tone and for using the stature of the nation's generals and admirals to spread misinformation.

It also sent shock waves through the community of experts who train military officers on the long tradition of the U.S. military staying above the political fray.

The Pentagon declined through a spokesperson to comment on the letter. But others clearly took notice.

“That was way worse than I was expecting,” said Ulrich, a retired Air Force colonel who teaches civil-military relations at the Army War College and Air Force Academy. “They are perpetuating the big lie about the election. I think it is outrageous. Some of it is very anti-democratic behavior.”

She said she plans to use the letter in her classes to demonstrate to young military officers the extent to which the military's apolitical tradition has eroded in recent years and why that is dangerous.

“They are absolutely violating the norm to be apolitical,” she added. “They are being used for partisan purposes. They are going against their constitutional oath.”

Both parties have increasingly relied on the endorsements of retired military leaders to lend credibility to their campaigns and support for their national security views.

In some specific cases, highly regarded retired officers have staked out singular political positions

The growing practice has raised concerns about blurring the civil-military divide and injecting politics into the armed forces. But the new attack on Biden and the Democrats is seen as in a class of its own.

I've seen a lot of these letters, but this one really is something," said Golby, a senior fellow at the Clements Center for National Security at The University of Texas at Austin and an expert on civil-military relations.

only positive sign," added Golby, "is that most of the retired officers who signed this letter have been out of the military for almost two decades, and that no recent retirees joined this shameful effort to use their rank and the military's reputation for such a gross and blatant partisan attack."

Mullen also pointed out that no retired four-stars signed it and only a handful of three-stars. "It's not very senior," he said. "In our world it's not very significant in terms of people."

But others were less sanguine. Peter Feaver, a scholar in civil-military relations at Duke University who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, called the letter "an appalling breach of military professionalism and the norms on which democratic civil-military relations depends.”

What is The Conclusion?

Are you "Copy and Paste" things you have not made yourself?

So where is Bryan Bender's evidence that these officers are spreading misinformation?

Glenn Ellmers said it very clearly, "most people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term". They don't want people who disagree with them to be able to express their disagreement in any meaningful way.

Should be the gallows- even in the UK, high treason is still a capital crime.