From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in message news:44421641$1{at}w3....
> Mark wrote:
>> "John Beckett"
 wrote in message
>> news:p6a342thgbelan9oo69o8rnmlcdjup4194{at}4ax.com...
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news::
>>>> This I do know, we have a civilian in control of our
military and it's
>>>> out
>>>> of line for active or retired generals to call for his firing in the
>>>> press.
>>> That's a great point, and normally I woud totally agree. But suppose the
>>> unthinkable: What if the central claim from the retired generals is
>>> true?
>>
>> Odds are against that, given their extremely small numbers. But even if
>> so,
>> it is still not their place to call for a resignation of their former
>> boss.
>>
>> Listen, we're at war, we're in the middle of the same war that they claim
>> to
>> have better ideas for, yet their ideas were weighed, while they were
>> active,
>> against those of many other generals and their opinions didn't hold sway.
>> Perhaps they were right on this point or that, perhaps not.
>>
>> No one ever seems to explore what the potential downside consequences
>> would
>> have been had we gone in with double the footprint as they seem to have
>> wanted, not now in the press anyway, but obviously those concerns were
>> bandied about at the time privately during the planning -- these guys
>> lost
>> their argument, either they didn't make it effectively enough, or the
>> others
>> were more convincing.
>>
>> That the press and opponents of the Bush Administration are more willing
>> buyers of what they're selling is certainly not a surprise to me.
>> Speaking,
>> as they are about the ongoing war they retired from, rather continue to
>> press their opinions about in theater and in private, is not ethical
>> IMHO.
>> If they're so anxious to opine in retirement, they should instead
>> critique
>> or write books about the first Gulf War and criticize Bush 41, or pick
>> another conflict that's already been determined, or write novels, but
>> they
>> shouldn't be second guessing this war in the press, especially not from
>> the
>> starting point of "Rumsfeld should go."
>>
>>
>
> Nah it's a political debate. Nice to see you're starting to have them.
> Here in the UK we've had this right from the start, but then our mil
> assume that some civie who's experience has been in teaching, lawyer,
> doctoring, etc.etc. would have little knowledge or experience of mil
> matters. The problem with "Rummie" is he considers himself an expert.
> Remind me again which unit he served in?
>
> Adam

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

"Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC
scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an
aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve
and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as
a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when
he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the
rank of Captain in 1989."

it was Cheney who never served.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5