I know RL has no military experience. Doubtful mul does, but who knows. I do, and I also had the unpleasant experience of working for someone incompetent for a (thankfully limited) time while I served. You just don't get very far telling your superiors that they're wrong.

Jim, even in the civilian world, I never expected to get far by telling a boss he was wrong. A general already slated to retire is not looking to go any farther. I don't expect a 2LT to write a letter to the JCS chairman, whining about his XO. But someone on general staff whose last day is already written in the calendar has nothing to lose by telling the boss what he thinks, even doing so in a constructive and respectful way while he still gets regular face time with him. Doing so from the comfort of retirement and/or while trying to push book sales seems to me to undercut their credibility on some issues.

depends how far away retirement is, RL. their leaving might make you suspect, but is insufficient evidence that they are not credible.

They were informed comments.

Did he take retirement? Yes
Did he resign on the spot? No
No evidence he stuck his neck out.

No more Kool Aid for you, sir.

"Hello Mr Moran I'm General Wagner. I'm here tonight, I decided to come at 7:30. And I'll tell you the reason I came at 7:30 is because I want an answer to a letter, to a friend of ours. She wrote this letter to Mr. Murtha, where she pointed out to him that he was causing the insurgents to bring more activity against the soldiers in Iraq, just as the traitors did during the Vietnam war. I was fighting in 1972 with the Vietnamese when people were cavorting with the North Vietnamese.

Her son was killed today.

I got the message at 7:30 tonight, and I'll tell you, I wasn't going to waste my time coming here because I knew the trash that was going to be put out. But I'm really mad. Because what is being put out is being used to incite the insurgents to continue this war, just as it incited General Giap to consider the Vietnam war.

He hasn't answered her letter, Mr Moran, but I want to read a paragraph to you. I think its a little instructive:

"I have faith in our military leaders and believe that they are making the necessary steps to train the Iraqi forces and provide for our eventual withdrawal. I also have faith in our executive branch, that they are taking the necessary steps to help the new Iraqi government to get a democratic style government in place and to give them at least a chance of success. Although mistakes were made in the execution of the war and its aftermath, the goal itself is worthy, and in spite of all the negativity that we are constantly bombarded with I believe that there have been some remarkable successes.

"Although my son would surely" - and this, incidentally, this is the one that was killed today - "would surely prefer to stay home with his wife and four young children" - from 10 to 2, I'm adding that - "he is both a soldier and a scholar, he understands that we are in a vital long term struggle against a dangerous ideology, and he is willing to make the necessary sacrifices to defeat it. It is a difficult struggle and will require patience and fortitude both on and off the battlefield. If we lose our will at home, it makes the task for our soldiers all the more difficult. I believe your comments were irresponsible and are contributing to the loss of national will. If they were made to obtain political advantages I would find that abhorrent and unworthy of a former Marine."

Sir, I'm mad. Because that is happening every day when I read the newspapers. I visit Walter Reed, and talk to the young soldiers with their legs blown off. I know you do too.

I can't find one in a dozen that don't believe that they are fighting for a noble cause and are fighting to go back. And I think it's a disgrace when members of our congress, just as they did in 1975 when they sold out the South Vietnamese, are selling out our soldiers today in Iraq.

Thank you sir. (no applause)

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/004020.html

Video available here.

Extra credit video can be found here.

That's not relevant to what was posted.

Further, the list of General's calling for the worst Sec. Def in recent history is huge and growing.

See:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060412/pl_nm/iraq_usa_general_dc

Rumsfeld slapped Shinseki, hard, in the very beginning of the war effort. Had Shinseki been wrong, the legacy of his long and distinguished military career would have been forever tarnished. Who wants to be remembered as the pessimist, the General that broke ranks with the Secretary of Defense on the eve of a great battle?

That's what these guys do, that's how they will be judged by history -- as warriors. Those of you that complain about another man trying his best to follow orders, to maintain the strict and important deference of the military leadership to the civilian bosses, to the president, don't have any idea of the significance of what you are asking. These guys did the best they could with what they were given. That’s exactly what we expect of them while in service.

And more importantly, it doesn't even matter whether they should have spoken out sooner. All that matters is whether they are right that Rumsfeld is ineffective and incompetent. They are right.

Anyone can see that.

ROFLMAO!

Second that!!!!!!!

Tony Blair = Bush's war poodle.

and he's really screwed the pooch on Iraq

It is not funny cause it is not true.

That Washington kept the receipts? Is that true?


Wow...

One would think that they would have learned something from Nixon and his penchant for tapes....

Destroy all evidence!! Leave no trail!!!!

I think what the Muls of the world can't manage to address is how remarkable it is for even one, much less several, high-ranking military officers to publicly criticize the Secretary of Defense. So he falls back on his "leftist media" crutch.

True, hundreds of retired generals have chosen to not go public against Rumsfield versus only several who have chosen to go public. But for even several to go public is - well, I think it is unprecedented. I don't think it has happened during any previous war.

I imagine that, as we speak, the Bushies are digging up and/or manufacturing dirt on these several generals, and shortly you'll see Mul, fint, etc telling us about how they weren't very competent officers and so on.

The Bushies are willing to call McCain a traitor who gave up military secrets, Kerry a liar who invented his medals, Max Cleland a faker who didn't really lose three limbs in Vietnam. I don't think they'll have any problem smearing mere retired generals.

I personally know dozens of flag officers ...who back the President and the war.... In fact, I do not personnally know a single officer that I even suspect feels otherwise....and I know hundreds. The military does not act as a press organ and generals have a job to do. Being a publicty whore is left for quiters and retirees trying to make a buck...not military officers. There will always be two or three who hold a grudge for a promotion they did not get...or want to make a buck on the back of their comrades.

The problem is that making posts like this just glosses over the truth. As long as the left insists on these half-truths....they will continue to be the minority party...because they simply cannot be trusted. For example, no one ever claimed that Max Cleland did not lose limbs in Vietnam...they only repeated Max Cleland's story...which I have heard from his lips....his injuries were not received in battle in Vietnam (as liberals would have you believe)...but in an accident...that was his fault. He is a man who tells the truth about his "war record"...while apologists for his voting record.(which cost him reelection) choose to misrepresent the facts.

In the military, as in civilian life, to contradict most bosses, especially those with a strong conviction that they are infallible, is career suicide. Think of the few sane Officers in 1940s Germany or Russia and what happened to them when they tried to object. Demotion was not the usual option. Ask Rommel...Oh, you can't... he committed suicide to save his family....

Unless it is an issue that one cannot abide (such as being asked to break the law), it is best to wax philosophical and say nothing. Thus the sayings "being a good soldier" or "Being a team player". Knowing what the retribution might be also hhas a part to play in the decision.

Just as an aside, and said respectfully, knowing dozns of flag officers or dozens of corporate executives whose philosophies agree with your own seems quite obvious, Why would one seek out those with whom he or she did not hold the same mindset?

I am convinced that most people, to some degree, practice keeping their mouths shut as a survival technique.

"Most people live lives of quiet desperation."

I can understand why an individual, given the proper set of circumstances, would wait. As for Washington, can anyone name an official that came out against some stand of recent administrations that was not labelled by that administration as being "disloyal", "Disgruntled", or worse?

Seems as if our high ranking officials both civilian and military are in a "Catch 22" position. And that is unfortunate.

U Boyz are MORONS....cause U don't listen....

I stated well over a year ago that the Military and the Secratary of Defense are at odds with each other...

Rummy wants to control military operations and the Generals want to do their job without the WH interference.

Remembner Shinseki said it would take 400,000 men to take Iraq and Rummy came up with an obscure Colonels plan using 77,000 men and finally Franks and Rummy agreed on 150,000 men.

Rumy wanted to dismantle what Colin Powell and the other generals put together...to uuse massive force...get in, do the job and get out..Rummy wanted to par down the Military and go lean and mean...

So it boils down to who is controling militay operations the WH or the Generals...same as what went on in Vietnam.

Thats why Westley Clark became a canidate for President...to get out the military point of view and hopefully put pressure on Bush. You might say he was running on the military ticket.

So anytime U hear a General bad mouthing Rummy its part of the on going fight...I would say when the Generals who are still on duty want to make a point one of their old colleages writes an article or gives a speech somewhere.

What I think it boils down to is that Bushy wanted to go to war on the cheap by using fewer assets and the generals were saying hey this is war and this is what we think we need to be successfull.