Fisking the Brass

Analyzing our self-proclaimed "National Security Leaders’" 2020 Presidential endorsement reveals their lack of expertise and reliability.

To great fanfare, some 230+ retired generals and admirals have jumped into the political wars to advise us that we should vote for Kamala Harris (and other Democrats) in the upcoming election. These military politicos are now members of a group that proclaims itself to be “National Security Leaders 4 America” (NSL4A).

As I have previously written, one of the greatest dangers facing this country is the politicization of the military. Because of this concern, this is my third article in a series analyzing this group of military politicos and the validity and improprieties of their political endorsements.

Although NSL4A’s members include intelligence operatives, ambassadors and State Department employees, as well as retired military, this article shall focus on the military members’ endorsements. It shall do so by looking at their endorsement for the 2020 Presidential election, to see whether their own announced criteria have been met by the man they then endorsed, Joseph R. Biden.

When we do that, their lack of proficiency as political experts trying to predict who will be a good President, becomes apparent. That lack of a winning track record is reason enough to take their 2024 endorsements with a large dose of skepticism.

“National Security Leaders for America” Is a continuation of “National Security Leaders for Biden.”

Although its membership has been and still is evolving as members come and go, the nucleus for today’s NSL4A was a group of self-described “National Security Leaders” who got together to oppose President Trump and endorse Joe Biden for the 2020 Presidential election. In 2020, they called themselves “National Security Leaders for Biden” (NSL4B), even though its members had not yet formalized the structure or applied for tax-exempt status. They published a letter endorsing Joe Biden for President. It is that letter that this article will analyze below.

That core group of military politicos has now joined with others and has evolved to become NSL4A.¹ They just changed the “B” in their name to “A,” to became known as NSL4A. They launched NSL4A in 2022 as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) entity. The top of its webpage touts that its membership includes “230 general and flag officers, including 15 retired four-star generals and admirals.” They claim that their professional backgrounds and training have conferred special talents on them that should cause us to accept their advice to elect Kamala Harris as President.

Thus, many of these self-proclaimed “National Security Leaders,” have been political opponents of President Trump for years. This year, their endorsement of Kamala Harris was authored by NSL4A, which can fairly be regarded as a successor to NSL4B. It therefore is both fair and accurate to impute NSL4B’s 2020 endorsement of Biden to the successor entity, NSL4A, and to test the accuracy of their current endorsement by examining how well that 2020 endorsement has withstood the test of time.

Testing the validity of opinions from “experts” offering opinions outside their area of expertise.

These military stalwarts are not offering their opinion on military matters. For example, if a group of experienced generals had offered their opinions about military issues such as the botched troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, or the necessity, say, of not scrapping a sub-sonic aircraft designed for close air support such as the A-10 Warthog, then their military experience might be sufficient reason to defer to their professional judgment. But this group is asking us to accept their judgment and direction about a political matter — for whom we should cast our ballots in the Presidential election. Most of them do not claim to know either candidate personally or to have worked closely with them. But they want us to accept their judgment on this electoral issue because they are generals and admirals and because they assure us that “We are trained to make sober, rational decisions.”

So, the question is whether we should accept and defer to the opinions of these retired military personnel on purely political issues? To answer that question, we need to do what we would do with any other claimed experts who want us to accept their opinions. We must consider if the “authoritative” opinions they are promoting are supported by sound analysis. I have done that in part, for Harris’ candidacy, in Fall in Line, You Proles. That analysis showed that NSL4A’s endorsement of Kamala Harris was a “fraudulent joke.”

We also should consider whether their opinions should be discounted because they have a political bias. I addressed that in “The National Security Leaders of America Expose Themselves as Partisan Agents.” There I showed that their endorsements in 2024 Senate and House races favored Democrats by a 38-0 margin. This blatantly partisan record shows that they are not just well-meaning, non-partisan public servants as they attempt to portray themselves.

But there is another way to evaluate their expertise — by asking, “What is their track record in Presidential endorsements?” The analysis below will evaluate the track record of these military “national security leaders,” based upon their 2020 Biden endorsement letter. It will look at how Biden has performed when measured by the criterial they used in that letter of endorsement.

The 2020 Biden Endorsement

NSL4B’s 2020 endorsement letter has disappeared from the web. All links to it in the 2020 articles about it (linked below) yield only a “403 Forbidden” error message. But those same articles include descriptions and quotes from the letter.

Only Biden could deal with a nation and world in turmoil and “on fire?”

According to USA Today, the 2020 endorsement letter concluded by saying that

The next president will inherit a nation -- and a world -- in turmoil. The current president has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small.

The letter then added,

Joe Biden has the character, principles, wisdom, and leadership necessary to address a world on fire. That is why Joe Biden must be the next President of the United States; why we vigorously support his election; and why we urge our fellow citizens to do the same.

So, these so-called “national security leaders” warn us that a “nation and a world in turmoil” and “on fire” require new leadership in the White House? If the situation is to be resolved, Joe Biden “must be the next President of the United States”? If the world was “on fire” in 2020, then it is a raging inferno now, with wars in Central Europe, Israel, Lebanon and Gaza, and the Houthi piratical attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, which we seem unable to prevent, whether through lack of will or capacity. Biden has prevented none of this.

Three years after their endorsement of Biden, do we now have a “a nation and world in turmoil” or “on fire”? Judge for yourself:

Forgive me, but it looks as though the candidate that these “national security leaders’” endorsed without reservation in 2020 did not do much to quell the flames. Give Biden and his military endorsers a gentleman’s “D-.”

Biden’s “sound judgment” and “fundamental values” made his election necessary?

Forbes quoted the endorsement letter as saying,

“While some of us may have different opinions on particular policy matters, we trust Joe Biden’s positions are rooted in sound judgment, thorough understanding and fundamental values."

It seems that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates knew something that these finely honed military minds missed. Six years before their 2020 Biden endorsement letter, Gates wrote that Joe Biden “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” He reiterated that on a 60-Minutes broadcast in 2021.

Apparently when vouching for Biden’s “sound judgment, thorough understanding and fundamental values,” these generals and admirals missed the many warning signs that were obvious to the man who many have described as “the best secretary of defense the United States has ever produced,” and by even left-leaning Slate, as “the most effective cabinet secretary of our time.” Another “D-,” and that’s being generous.

Empathy, honesty and integrity?

CBS echoed the “world on fire” theme and then added that the

retired military leaders praised Biden as the "leader our nation needs" for his empathy, honesty and integrity, and wrote his "positions are rooted in sound and judgement, thorough understanding, and fundamental values."

Let’s look at those three markers.

Empathy?

Biden and his military politicos get an “F” on this one. Here is one reason why:

Biden’s exhibition of empathy at the Dignified Return of the 13 Americans killed at Kabul Airport in the botched Afghanistan retreat. Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Did they say really say Biden had “empathy?”

And while we are considering Presidential empathy, why not ask the families of the 13 American heroes killed in Abbey Gate terror bombing. They have somehow missed the outpouring of empathy from the President. During a House Foreign Affairs Committee roundtable, family members voiced their frustration over being “lied to” about the circumstances surrounding the attack and the U.S. relationship with the Taliban. Greg Page, father of Marine Cpl. Daegan Page, criticized the administration for not providing clear answers and accused the administration of lying about the events surrounding the attack and their relationship with the Taliban. Christy Shamblin, mother-in-law of Sgt. Nicole Gee, expressed disappointment that Biden did not publicly acknowledge their sacrifices. Mark Schmitz, father of Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Schmitz, expressed his anger by stating he is now a “pissed-off, fed-up American patriot” due to the administration’s actions. He also described feeling “knee-deep in bulls—” due to the lack of accountability and transparency.

No, my dear esteemed Generals (and Admirals), contrary to your endorsement letter, Biden’s phantom empathy for the families of Americans killed because of his decisions was not a reason to vote for him. That demonstrates the foolishness of relying on any other ill-conceived endorsements you may make, including this year’s endorsement of Kamala Harris.

Honesty?

They also laud Biden’s “honesty.” Seriously? This is another issue that would swell this article to War and Peace length if we discussed it thoroughly. If you want a short specific example, what about Biden’s testimony that no one in his family ever took money from the Chinese? And that Trump was the only person ever to profit from the Chinese? Other examples are detailed in two articles I have published, that describe his false testimony given under oath to Special Counsel Hur. Joe Biden’s Interview with Special Counsel Hur Is Worse Than You’ve Heard. (Part 1), and "The Only Time I Ever Lied" -- Joe Biden's Interview with the Special Counsel Is Worse Than You've Heard (Part 2). Another “F.”

Integrity?

Again, just one quick example — Just before the October 2020 presidential debate, at the instigation of Anthony Blinken, the now-infamous Gang of 51 published their letter to the American people making the argument that the stories circulating about Hunter Biden’s laptop were Russian disinformation. At the time, the FBI already had the laptop for many months. Biden knew that the laptop was Hunter’s and that the emails, photos and other data on it were genuine. But his agents persisted in spreading the lie that it was part of a Russian conspiracy. They even promoted the censorship of the New York Post and others who attempted to tell the truth about it. Biden knew this. But he did not prevent or correct the fraud, and even embraced it by using the letter to counter Trump’s arguments in the debate. There is little doubt that the lies and censorship affected the outcome of the election. So, the confidence these “national security leaders” repose in Biden’s “integrity” to support their endorsement was misplaced, to put it mildly. This rates another “F.”

Other tumultuous events and challenges that our elite National Security Leaders tell us only Biden could handle.

Military.com stated that the signatories on the letter included 22 retired 4-star generals and admirals who said, “Thanks to [Trump’s] disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us…. Over his long career, [Biden] has learned hard lessons and grown as a leader who can take positive action to unite and heal our country.”

Those predictions are just another reason to flush their endorsement down the drain. Just this week it has been reported that Israel has cut back on sharing intelligence with us because of leaks of highly secret information that it previously shared about plans for a potential attack on Iran. The Israelis “no longer trust us” and who can blame them?

Under Biden, do our enemies now fear us? Much to our dismay, we know that they do not. Even the Houthis are not afraid of the mighty U.S. military. With impunity they sink international shipping we supposedly are protecting. They lack fear, not because they think they are militarily superior to the U.S., but because they have seen that Biden lacks the will to crush them.

Military.com further noted that the generals and admirals cited “the COVID-19 pandemic, economic recession, malign Russian influence and threats from a nuclear North Korea as challenges the U.S. president will face over the next four years, adding that Biden, who previously served as vice president, was capable of taking them on.”

So, Biden was the man to take on these problems? Let’s take a quick look at them.

The “economic recession”? Biden and Harris inherited a1.4% inflation rate when they took office. It peaked in June 2022, at 9.1% and is now 2.4%. The administration misleadingly tries to make that sound like a big drop, but even the 2.4% is still a 71% increase over the 1.4% rate in effect when Biden took office. But even more importantly, the inflation that occurred since the beginning of Biden’s term is cumulative and is piled on top of prior increases. That is because, like compound interest, the additional costs resulting from the current inflation rate of 2.4% is added to all the prior years’ increases. Every person in America (except the elite whose servants do their shopping) instinctively understands this and knows how the cost of clothing, gas, groceries and other essential goods has skyrocketed in the past 3+ years, with many such essentials up by 25% or more since Biden and Harris took office.

“Malign Russian influence”? Is any sane person arguing today that Biden has proved himself “capable of taking on” “malign Russian influence”? Russia continues its war in Ukraine, a war that is draining our military resources. You could write a book about it.

“Threats from a nuclear North Korea”? Does anyone see any progress on that front? North Korea is now providing both ammunition and troops to Russia! Those troops likely will not stay in Russia but are available to assist in the war against Ukraine.

And “the COVID-19 pandemic”? Yes, we all saw how the government under Biden lied about the efficacy of vaccinations, made them mandatory if you wanted to keep your job, fly on an airline or lead anything resembling a normal life. We saw how under his aegis schools, churches and countless small business were closed, many never to reopen again. Lives were ruined. Loyal American citizens were denied the change to be with a loved one as he or she departed this earth. We saw how the government used this “crisis” to seize yet more power, including the power to abolish any free speech and debate with which our putative betters disagreed. We saw totalitarianism in action. That is just part of what we got because too many people followed the advice proffered by these “national security leaders.” Charlatans.

These grotesque lapses in judgment by the endorsing generals, admirals, and others, merit a collective “F.” There is no point in awarding an “F-” because if they flunk, they flunk. Nothing’s lower than flunking.

Evaluate their other endorsements by the accuracy of the one they made in 2020.

Wrapping it up.

Like their 2020 endorsement of Biden, nothing these partisan military politicos have said in their worshipful endorsement of Harris has a scintilla of merit. Give their unsupported opinions the same weight that you would to those of your supermarket bag boy or any other person whom you do not know.

1. We do not know all members of the NSL4B who participated in the 2020 Biden endorsement. But we can identify some from the various articles describing the letter. Those names of the members in those articles show considerable overlap between “National Security Leaders for Biden” and “National Security Leaders for America.” The overlapping membership shows the evolution of NSL4B as it renamed itself to NSL4A and obtained tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) entity.