From: John Beckett 

"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?

If a civilian directly ordered a general to take an absurd action (e.g. an
attack that would kill hundreds of civilians, and would have no benefit,
and would probably kill lots of US soldiers), the general might be
compelled to resign.

But if a general got an order to take X amount of resources and go
implement strategy Y, the general is in a more difficult position and
resignation is not really an option. The general can complain that X is too
small and Y is too vague, but maybe there are factors of which the general
is unaware - they knuckle down and do the best they can.

What we are seeing from the retired generals is entirely consistent with
them having had MANY incidents outlined in my previous paragraph, given
that they now think the campaign is a disaster that will end badly.

If all the above is true, silence from the retired generals would be unethical.

John

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