So President Donald Trump pulled John Brennan’s security clearance. The former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has been a cable television mainstay since January 2017, parlaying his career in intelligence into a career as a pundit. For better or worse, the White House reacted.

Free Speech is the Right of All Americans…but Holding a Security Clearance Isn’t

A common refrain is that the government cannot revoke a security clearance simply for exercising First Amendment rights. Nonsense. Of course it can.

I’ll let the lawyers fight over this, but from my perspective, you have the constitutional right to stand on a soapbox in Lafayette Square and yell at the White House, “Down with America! Al Qaeda forever!” You can do this until the cows come home. But if you do, don’t expect to hold your clearance much longer.

Brennan wrote that this move is “part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics.” Punish critics, perhaps, but it’s hard to see how revoking his clearance has anything to do with Brennan’s free speech. “The first rule of Fight Club is, ‘You don’t talk about Fight Club.’” Brennan is as free to criticize the president today as he was two days ago.

He’ll just be doing it without access to classified information. But it’s the reaction of some of Brennan’s colleagues—and the lack of a reaction to it from others—that resurrects another issue, one that I really want to talk about.

Former Leaders take a stand for John brennan

A bipartisan group of 12 former intelligence community leaders, including Gen. David Petraeus, Leon Panetta, and Porter Goss, released a statement taking the president to task for the move. The group wrote, “We all agree that the president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances―and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech.”

More bluntly, retired Adm. William McRaven, the genuinely badass former Navy SEAL and commander of the Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, wrote to the president in the Washington Post. “I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.”

I will not criticize McRaven for taking this stance. While I think the whole reaction to the Brennan issue is typical of the hyperbole we’ve seen from all quarters since Trump became president, it’s the lack of a reaction to his statements from one particular quarter that I find revealing.

Should Military and Intelligence Leaders Be Apolitical for life?

There is a certain segment of the military community, a group I call the “absolutists,” who adhere to the dictum of retired Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Last year, Dempsey told an audience at the Atlantic Council that retired generals should remain “apolitical for life unless [they] run.” Retired Army Lt. Gen. David Barno wrote last September that the appointment of John Kelly, a retired Marine general, as White House Chief of Staff posed “grave dangers to civilian-military relations by injecting him directly into the divisive and bitter politics of our times.”

Army Maj. M.L. Cavanaugh, who is one of a small group being groomed as the Army’s next big thinkers, has written on this topic several times. He has said that “public endorsements from retired military officers are legal, but are nonetheless inappropriate and harm both the military and country.” The core of his argument is that professional military officers serve the nation and not a political party, so in order not to confuse the public, retired officers ought to surrender their free speech rights in the name of the greater good.

I eagerly await essays from these gentlemen that urge McRaven to get back in his box. But I doubt that will happen… and it shouldn’t happen. Retired general officers have every right to participate in the political process. While a career in military service does not bestow any greater moral agency than any other lifelong endeavor, it does provide a unique perspective that most of the country does not have.

More speech from more experts, please

Not to sound like a broken record, but only around 10 percent of Americans have served in the military at all. Fewer than one percent have served since September 11, 2001. And of those, only a tiny fraction get to breathe the rarified air of a general officer’s perch. Former generals, freed from the constraints of their service, provide a unique and important perspective on matters of national security. The public debate is richer with the input of senior officers whose differing perspectives lead them to different conclusions.

Just as the answer to hateful speech is not to restrict it, but to allow more speech in order to expose and counter it, so too is the answer to our national divide not to restrict general officer participation in the political arena, but to encourage more generals to share their perspectives.

Naval War College professor Tom Nichols published a book last year (which I have not yet read, but promise to get to) called The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters. Nichols argues that technology has “helped fuel a surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates on any number of issues.” We are living in an era where everyone who has read one Wikipedia article and watched a few hours of CNN considers themselves an expert. Why then would we actively seek to keep a person’s genuine expertise out of the debate?

What Was Trump’s Goal in Revoking Brennan’s Clearance?

I don’t view Trump’s action yesterday as an attempt to silence Brennan. If that was truly the president’s intent, it failed miserably. If anything, it will increase it. Brennan will continue his cable appearances, he will continue to find editors eager to publish his writings. That’s a far greater level of influence than most people can expect to have.

We ought not be actively seeking to silence Brennan or anyone else with expertise that can help the average American citizen reach his or her own conclusions. Even if they previously wore stars on their shoulders.

Related News

Tom McCuin is a strategic communication consultant and retired Army Reserve Civil Affairs and Public Affairs officer whose career includes serving with the Malaysian Battle Group in Bosnia, two tours in Afghanistan, and three years in the Office of the Chief of Public Affairs in the Pentagon. When he’s not devouring political news, he enjoys sailboat racing and umpiring Little League games (except the ones his son plays in) in Alexandria, Va. Follow him on Twitter at @tommccuin