In this essay for The New Yorker, Elliot Ackerman examines dueling letters of retired senior military officers endorsing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, and what they reveal about the relationship between the armed forces and American political life.

Dueling Letters, Notable Absences

Ackerman weighs the eighty-eight retired officers who endorsed Trump against the ninety-five who endorsed Clinton, and notes the striking absences from both lists, including Admiral James Stavridis, Admiral William McRaven, and General Stanley McChrystal, along with General Martin Dempsey's public warning that political endorsements complicate the position of those still in uniform.

A Long History of Soldiers and Politics

Ackerman traces the entanglement of American political and military life back to the 1864 election, when Union soldiers overwhelmingly backed Abraham Lincoln over the former general George B. McClellan, despite McClellan's own military credentials.

The Marines Who Choose Not to Vote

Ackerman closes with a personal reflection on the Marines he served with who chose not to vote at all, framing the 2016 endorsement battle against his own memory of the 2008 election, the last he experienced in uniform.

Read the Original Article

This essay originally appeared in The New Yorker.

Read “What to Make of Military Endorsements” at The New Yorker →