“A central failing of insubordinate generals is a hubristic inclination to bypass the chain of command and take their disagreements public.”

By Jeffrey J. Matthews

THE ARMED FORCES of the United States of America are regulated by Congressional articles that expressly prohibit insubordinate behavior. In times of war, officers and enlisted personnel who disobey lawful orders can be sentenced to death. For the officer corps, especially for generals and admirals, two regulations have proven particularly relevant: the prohibition of “reproachful or provoking speeches or gestures” and “disrespect” toward civilian superiors. The enforcement of these punitive regulations is integral to maintaining order and discipline within the ranks and for preserving the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military.

In the 20^th century, the two most infamous cases of insubordination are U.S. Army generals Billy Mitchell and Douglas MacArthur.

A highly decorated pilot and brilliant commander of air combat units in the First World War, Mitchell became the Assistant Chief of the Air Service in 1921. He was an outspoken advocate of air power and labored tirelessly to prove that relatively low-cost bombers could easily destroy expensive battleships.

Mitchell’s sharp and often excessive and public critique of national security policy, especially naval power, and his advocacy for an air force independent of and equal to the army and navy rankled not only his senior military leaders, but also the secretary of war and the president.

Secretary John Weeks once condemned Mitchell for being “so lawless, so contrary to . . . an efficient organization, so lacking in reasonable teamwork, so indicative of a personal desire for publicity . . . that his actions render him unfit for a high administrative position.”^[3]

In September 1925, Mitchell seized upon two naval air disasters to amplify his ongoing disapproval of navy, army and civilian military leadership. He issued a scorching nine-page statement to the press, writing in part: “These accidents are the direct result of the incompetency, criminal negligence and almost treasonable administration of the national defense by the navy and the war departments.”^[4]

The U.S. Army relieved Mitchell and President Calvin Coolidge sanctioned his court-martial. Accused of insubordination and unbecoming conduct, he used his trial to again call for an independent and to rehash his critique of air policy.^[5] The well-publicized case lasted more than six weeks, but the outcome was never in doubt. Mitchell was found guilty and suspended from duty and rank without pay for five years. Coolidge eased the penalty by granting half-salary, but Mitchell rejected the compensation and resigned from service.

Like Mitchell’s, Douglas MacArthur’s career is a study in extremes.

There is no doubt that MacArthur possessed superb soldiering skills. His battlefield leadership and heroics during the First World War were truly remarkable, and his command in the Pacific during World War II inspired hope and confidence of an ultimate victory over Japan. Years later, MacArthur’s extraordinary amphibious landing at Inchon reversed the course of the Korean War, forcing an unprepared enemy to retreat north of the 38th Parallel.

Equally striking were MacArthur’s ethical failings. In 1933, during military budget discussions at the White House, the general was so disrespectful of President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) that he felt compelled to offer his resignation. MacArthur’s unseemly behavior continued during World War II and the occupation of Japan.

At a 1944 Hawaii conference with FDR, the general had the audacity to threaten the president with political ruin if he did not order the retaking of the Philippines. Indeed, as a theater commander that same year, MacArthur conducted a surreptitious presidential campaign to run against his commander in chief. President Harry Truman received similar abuse. In 1948, MacArthur issued a statement declaring it his “public duty” to accept the Republican presidential nomination and campaign against Truman.

Moreover, during the Korean War, MacArthur publicly criticized Truman’s policies on Formosa (Taiwan) and China. He characterized the administration’s leadership as timid, vacillating, and appeasing. After the 1950 Wake Island conference, MacArthur ignored his superiors’ instructions not to deploy U.S. forces near the Chinese-North Korean border.

When he later received permission to do so, his United Nations troops were overrun by Chinese forces. Embarrassed, the general publicly blamed Truman for restricting his army’s freedom of movement.

MacArthur became even more brazen in March 1951 when he intentionally scuttled the president’s plans for a peace initiative with North Korea and China. This extreme insubordination led to his relief from command.^[6]

MacArthur’s pattern of disobedience and disrespect challenged the precept of civilian authority over the military. In firing the vainglorious general, Truman had safeguarded a crucial tenet of the American constitution.^[7]

MacArthur’s insubordination and controversial firing cast a long shadow over the upper ranks of the U.S. military. Not until a quarter century later did another general dare to publicly challenge the policy of a sitting president.

In May 1977, President Jimmy Carter relieved John Singlaub as the U.S. Army’s chief of staff in South Korea after the major general told the Washington Post that the administration’s policy of gradually withdrawing U.S. ground troops from the peninsula would lead to another war in Asia. A year later, Carter had little choice but to force Singlaub into retirement after the insolent general publicly characterized the president’s national security policies as “ridiculous.”[8]

Such brash contempt did not surface again until 1993. In May, Major General Harold Campbell, a highly decorated Vietnam War pilot, then serving as the deputy chief of staff for plans and programs of the Air Force Material Command, gave an address to American military personnel and their spouses at Soesterberg Air Base in the Netherlands. In his speech, Campbell disparaged President Bill Clinton as a “draft-dodging,” “skirt-chasing,” “gay loving,” “dope smoking” commander in chief.^[9]

Word of the major general’s astonishing rebuke reached Washington and the Air Force launched an investigation. On June 19, only four weeks after the speech, the Air Force announced that Campbell had committed a military crime by “uttering disparaging remarks about the President.”^[10] The major general escaped a court-martial but was issued an official letter of reprimand, docked $7,000 and forced to retire.

In the 21st century, American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan included the forced retirement of several outspoken senior military leaders.

In January 2004, Lieutenant General John Riggs, leader of the Army’s Objective Force Task Force, became “a persona non grata” after granting an interview to the Baltimore Sun in which he warned that the Army was being stretched dangerously thin and needed to be expanded substantially.[11] Riggs’s public warning contradicted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s position on the appropriate force size. The newspaper interview infuriated Rumsfeld’s senior deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, who proceeded to chastise General George Casey Jr., the Army vice chief of staff. Riggs admitted to seeing the “ on the wall” and submitted his retirement papers. In April, the day before retiring, Casey informed Riggs that he was being demoted to brigadier general. It was common knowledge that Riggs’s punishment stemmed from his public criticism of Rumsfeld’s policy.[12]

Four years later in March 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the resignation of Admiral William “Fox” Fallon, who was leading U.S. military operations in the Middle East. The CENTCOM commander’s recall and early retirement stemmed from a series of statements made on television and in print that suggested he opposed the Bush administration’s hardline approach to Iran and China and slow withdrawal from Iraq. Fallon’s candid comments created the “perception he had a different foreign policy than the president.”[13] The straw that broke the back of the admiral’s career was a lengthy, fawning profile in Esquire magazine, which noted that President George W. Bush “is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon.” The article depicted Fallon as a wise, courageous, and patient diplomat-warrior who served as the bulwark against the rash, hawkish, and ill-considered policies of the Bush administration.[14]

Army General Stanley McChrystal failed to learn from Fallon’s experience. In spring 2010, as commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan, McChrystal allowed a freelance journalist, Michael Hastings, to embed himself with the general’s staff. Reflecting their commander, the self-named “Team America” possessed a “can-do attitude” and a “disdain for authority.” In June, Rolling Stone magazine published Hastings’s article, “The Runaway General.” The profile documented “Team America’s” open contempt for many senior officials in the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden.^[15]

Hastings’s article ignited a political firestorm in Washington. When McChrystal learned of its damning contents, he called Biden to apologize. The general also apologized to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who shouted through the telephone: “What the fuck were you thinking?”^[16] Obama summoned McChrystal to the White House, and while the president had come to respect the commander’s “rebel spirit,” he thought the generals and his staff had shown “atrocious judgment.”[17] The president understood that accountability and discipline in the military were vital to a representative democracy wherein civilian authorities must have unfettered control of the armed forces.^[18] On June 23, in the Oval Office, Obama unhappily accepted McChrystal’s offer to resign.

One year later, in November 2011, the Army fired Major General Peter Fuller, deputy commander of the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan. His offense was not criticism of the Obama administration, but rather a public disparagement of the Afghan government, particularly President Hamid Karzai. Fuller retired the next year.[19]

Three years hence, Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, a McChrystal protégé, was relieved as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and forced into retirement. Flynn’s leadership was erratic, autocratic and divisive, and his uncompromising attempts to radically restructure the large agency were resisted by subordinates and superiors, alike. In the end, the hard-charging three-star was terminated for “insubordination” and the “erosion of morale” at DIA.[20]

It is important not to conflate flagrant disobedience with appropriate dissent. All leaders, including presidents, benefit from independent-minded subordinates who have the moral courage to voice reasoned concerns and objections. For example, MacArthur’s many divergent views had received fair hearings from his military and civilian superiors, and he often won them over to his side. Such debates were evidence of loyal dissent and merit commendation. But a central failing of insubordinate generals is a hubristic inclination to bypass the chain of command and take their disagreements public. This type of dissent is disloyal and intolerable. If generals and admirals believe their superiors are making shockingly dangerous decisions—ones that they cannot execute in good conscience—they should retire.

Jeffrey J. Matthews is the author of Generals and Admirals, Criminals and Crooks: Dishonorable Leadership in the U.S. Military. The George Frederick Jewett Distinguished Professor at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington. He teaches American history and leadership and has written or edited four books, including Colin Powell: Imperfect Patriot (University of Notre Dame Press, 2019), winner of the Foreword INDIES War and Military Book of the Year Award and finalist for the Army Historical Foundation Book Award.

[1] The Articles of War, 1920, articles 62 and 90; Uniform Code of Military Justice, 2018, articles 88 and 117.

[2] U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2.

[3] Thomas Wildenberg, Billy Mitchell’s War, 126.

[4] Wildenberg, Billy Mitchell’s War, 137–38.

[5] Wildenberg, Billy Mitchell’s War, 137.

[6] Geoffrey Perret, Old Soldiers Never Die, 558.

[7] Harry S. Truman, Memoirs, 2:444.

[8] George C. Wilson, “Gen. Singlaub Agrees to Retire after 2^nd Attack on Carter Policy,” Washington Post, April 29, 1978.

[9] Eric Schmitt, “General to Be Disciplined for Disparaging President,” New York Times, June 16, 1993; Art Pine, “General to Retire over Clinton Flap,” Los Angeles Times, June 19, 1993.

[10] Pine, “General to Retire over Clinton Flap.”

[11] Tom Bowman, “3-Star General Says Army Is Too Small to Do Its Job,” Baltimore Sun, January 20, 2004.

[12] Tom Bowman, “Unceremonious End to Army Career,” Baltimore Sun, May 29, 2005; Margolick, “Night of the Generals,” Vanity Fair (March 5, 2007): 46–80.

[13] Thom Shanker, “Mideast Commander Retires after Irking Bosses,” New York Times, March 12, 2008.

[14] Thomas P. M. Barnett, “Man between War and Peace,” Esquire (March 11, 2018): 144–53.

[15] Michael Hastings, “Runaway General,” Rolling Stone (June 22, 2010).  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runaway-general-the-profile-that-brought-down-mcchrystal-192609/

[16] Robert M. Gates, Duty, 487.

[17] Barack Obama, Promised Land, 578.

[18] Obama, Promised Land, 578.

[19] Rod Nordland, “General Fired over Karzai Remarks,” New York Times, November 5, 2011; Tim Mak, “General Ousted for POLITICO Quotes,” Politico.com, November 4, 2011; Tim Mak, “General: Afghan Leaders out of Touch,” Politico.com, November 3, 2011.

[20] Barton Gellman, “What Happened to Michael Flynn?,” The Atlantic, July 8, 2022; Robert Draper, “Michael Flynn Is Still at War,” New York Times Magazine, February 4, 2022; Glenn Thrush and Michael Crowley, “Flynn Decision Imperils ‘Rule of Law’ Obama Says in Call with Backers,” New York Times, May 10, 2020; James R. Clapper, Facts and Fears, 331; Greg Miller and Adam Goldman, “Head of Pentagon Intelligence Agency Forced Out, Officials Say,” Washington Post, April 30, 2014.