Letter: Recalling retired generals to face court-martial proceedings sets a dangerous precedent

Submitted by Gregory Alderete, Lieutenant Colonel US Army retired.

Recalling retired generals to face court-martial proceedings, is a move that sets a dangerous precedent for both the military and the country at large. While it’s essential to maintain accountability within the armed forces, the decision to target former high-ranking officers with court-martial charges does more harm than good. This tactic undermines military cohesion, weakens national security, and sends a troubling message about how we treat those who have dedicated their careers to protecting the nation.

First and foremost, the act of recalling retired generals for court-martial proceedings serves to disrupt the long-held principle of military professionalism and respect for senior leadership. Most Generals, after all, are not just officers; they are seasoned strategists with years, if not decades, of experience in leadership, planning, and executing military operations. To publicly drag these individuals through the legal system after their retirement casts a shadow over their entire career. It implies that their judgment is suddenly in question, potentially eroding the morale of active-duty personnel who may view this as a sign that their own careers could be similarly jeopardized, regardless of their service.

Moreover, the consequences of such actions extend beyond the individuals involved. The military thrives on trust, cohesion, and a chain of command built on respect. When retired generals are called to account in the court-martial system, it risks sowing division within the ranks. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen may begin to question the stability of their own positions, uncertain whether they too might one day find themselves subject to retroactive punishment for decisions made long ago. This uncertainty has the potential to cause a breakdown in discipline and a lack of confidence in the leadership structure of the military.

This  is politically motivated. Retired officers are often seen as convenient scapegoats for political actors looking to deflect blame or distance themselves from controversial military decisions. These actions risk undermining the principle of justice, turning court-martials into political tools rather than mechanisms of accountability. When the military’s decision-making process is held hostage to the political whims of those in power, the integrity of the armed forces is called into question. If this practice continues, it could set a dangerous precedent for future leaders, whether military or civilian, to use court-martials as a means of exerting control over those who disagree with them.

Finally, the attempt to court-martial retired generals does little to address the systemic issues within the military that may have led to the very problems these officers are being accused of. Accountability cannot be achieved by simply blaming individuals and holding them responsible for decisions that may have been made in the context of a larger, often flawed, military system. True accountability requires a comprehensive review of military policies, procedures, and oversight mechanisms. Focusing on individual blame distracts from the necessary reforms that could prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.