There is much to disagree with here. Yes, having retired military officers line up behind one or other candidate is problematic.

But so too is it problematic that the folks with the most military experience, especially the most politico-military experience, might be silenced. Retired generals and admirals have much expertise. If they cannot provide it to the public and the government, then they can only help who? Defense contractors?

And MG Mattis is clearly wrong on one part of civil-military relations. If an officer feels a policy is so destructive to the country's national interest that he or she feels compelled to resign, then that very costly act should not have to be a private one. Otherwise, there is no real signal sent.

Yes, there are delicate questions of civil-military relations here, and it takes both "sides" to make it work. But eliminating the experts who have less at stake from the field is a mistake. The case of General Myers demonstrates that, as his inability to provide an independent voice from that of Rumsfeld testifies to the need for experts who are not tied by career interests/mind-melds.

Personally, I am very keen on freedom of speech and association. If a retired general wants to tout his horn and lend his credibility (often questionable) to a politician that is really his affair. My impression is that most of these retired stars are not really critical thinkers but highly successful office politicians more skilled at navigating the tangled web of Pentagon politics than possessing any particular unique insights. The public always has the right to ignore these retiree’s blatherings.

Yes, they do have expertise, but when it comes to politics, they have it in a narrow area, military, and to a lesser extent foreign policy. Additionally, it is only expertise at the national level (exception NG Officers who know their state).
Talk to members of military who have worked on the legislative side, it opens an entire new world, my guess is most retired flags can not talk energy, education, the economy etc..
The most successful in recent time (post Ike) have sayed in that foreign policy relm of, (Brzeinski, Powell).

@Tom: Your most recent book, "The Gamble" seems to suggest that retired flag officers may offer up the best advice (e.g. The Surge). Did I mis-interpret your book?

Retired multi-stars have been involved in politics for a long, long time. A lot (12) of them became President (Washington, Jackson, Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower) and even more wanted to. (Think McClellan in '64 or MacArthur in '52. As a geezer, I can't remember the names of more recent ones, but I think George Wallace had one on his ticket, as did Ross Perot. Remember Seven Days in May (though that wasn't a retired type). And below those are a much larger number of people who were or are involved in politics.

A query though--why 12 generals and no admirals?

Steady there LtGen Mattis, it seem you have forgotten Marine Corps history and overlooked the fact that MajGen Mike "Red" Edson had “qualms over policies,” and upon recognizing that he could do no more in uniform, by law, to address the fight for the Corps' survival after WWII, resigned his commission (and in so doing may have given up an eventual appointment as CMC) to continue that fight and speak more openly.

I am sure in retrospect Mattis is glad this storied legend of the Corps didn’t stay on the farm.

I am of two minds on this topic. I knew some of George C. Marshall's kin and they said he never voted until he had left the Army. Same for guys like Eichelberger, etc.

On the other hand, the Army - and the military in general - have, in the past 40 years - evolved progressively while the civilian population has regressed on many fronts. I think those with military experience have a lot to teach society and society has a lot to learn from the military.

How many Iraqis and Americans died serving under the 'no insurgency, no civil war' lie, because active duty officers lacked the political cover to speak truth even within the chain of command? Instead of uniformed political neutrality, we had uniformed PAO's acting as Republican advance men, handing out 'voting records' in advance of skeptical congresspersons in 2005-06.

Let's face it, the Republican party counts service families as a solid core constituency, one of huge symbolic importance. That's how Rove got the bit in his teeth in 2002. Team Bush had to screw the war presidency for consecutive cycles before the hooah demographic began to reconsider their support. Zinni, Wes Clarke etc. were leveling the field, not tilting it, in 2004 and 2006.

When our wartime national command authority is lying ( as occurred 2004-6 in Iraq and thru 2008 in AfPak) about 'everything is under control', and 'field commanders and line infantry are getting what they need', then citizens with command experience need to speak up and hold our President's team accountable.

Not only do retired flag officers need to restrain their activities in partisan politics, but our politicians need to realize the detriment they serve to the officer corps by using retired generals to serve their political ends. Politicians need to keep from using them as window dressing, and need to call out others who are. If we see the professional credibility of our senior military leadership being questioned by such activities, we as the citizenry must also demand from our elected officials that they keep their hands away from those retired generals.

It's a deep issue which I've not thought about, but I wish to offer two glosses on Moten and Myers:

First, their goal is to protect the military from becoming enmeshed in the partisanship overtaking politics. It seems they have a valid concern.

Second, a potted plant serves a rather debased role - it is deprived of a voice. I think that retired officers deserve a voice. Making the servant of politics debases the voice as well as voiceless support.

So perhaps the best course is for officers to speak on defense policy and operations, without subordinating that role to a particular campaign or party, unless they trade the military identity for a political one.

"Myers said the thinks that "we probably need" some sort of "guidelines for senior retired officers,".....

This plus the other two private citizens' comments to restrict the rights of other now private citizens makes one wonder what criteria was used to select these people to be flag or general officers in their previous careers.

The Constitution expresses no need for such restrictions so why should these men think they are so endowed to be separate from the Congress or Courts in creating laws. In the past administration they may have assumed powers to violate laws, abridge treaties or suppress the private citizenry but I think with retirement they may longer hold such sway either here or across the archipelago of gulags they formerly managed.

The voice from the bunker no longer controls you, former admirals and generals. You are now free. Pump your own gas. Collect your entitlements. Place your children in defense jobs. Speak to boards of profiteers.

Use your voice with conscience or however else you care. Most people neither know you nor prefer to.

Just don't try to suppress the rights of former colleagues.

Given that Myers and Giambastiani were impeccable order takers for the GOP and provided a vernier of integrity for a manipulation of the nation to war, could their ideas to suppress the voices of other retired general officers be nothing more than a GOP tactic to defend against a Powell reappearance on the democratic side of political affairs?

Or is their motivation to be sphinx-like in politics more in the tradition of von Hindenburg or Petain and become a readied and respectable puppet able to surrender the nation to the Animal Farm's next Napoleon or vengeful corporal or sign a peace treaty with the handing a sword at a new Versailles in Minnesota or Alaska or a GOP convention? Phillippe Giambastiani or von Myers, nice ring.

This is the silliest discussion in many moons.

What retired flags do is what retired flags decide to do. It has something to do with freedom of expression etc., that First Amendment thing that so confuses so many in the military.

The idea that political life is a.) somehow tainted or b.) somehow improved absent an important experience, well, that's just plain nonsense and has no place in serious discourse. If you believe in the system, then use it. If you think it has flaws, improve it. But if you think politics is naughty, well go hide under your bed.