From: "Mark" 


"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."

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