Ever since the first gulf war...major parts of the Army and...to some extent, some of the other services...were losing relevance. They were still trying to fight WW2...and to some extent...the cold war and Vietnam. They saw Afghanistan and Iraq as opportunities to increase their power. Rumsfeld kept them irrelevant. Feelings were hurt.

Radical ideology isn't the easiest thing to understand.

Your are right about the transformation plans. Blame is someone else's deal.

Change is hard, especially in the Pentagon where mulitple factions (political, military and business) reach confluence. His charter as SECDEF is to execute the will of the President...his transformation effort has been the apex of change, needed change. The hard part is still being debated.

Senior officers ALWAYS have differences with policy from SECDEF, which is natural given the political, miltary, and, last, but not least, the financial stakes central to every SECDEF whim and memo.

But the interest and influence of senior military officers absolutely pales in comparison to the political angle...which is why Rummy is often villified. Again, the story remains the same, and he doesn't care.


.

the only political angle I can see is that the Dems will support anyone who trashes Bush & Co and the officers might be pissed off that the military is under control of civilians.


What I don't understand is why anyone in the military, especially senior offices, would support the M E wide spread belief that Americans have no stomach for a prolonged engagement.

Ronin,

Contrary to popular belief, the military is not monolithic...it's a big tent, populated with every stripe (weighted in some leanings, of course).

We have the stomach (with the requisite detractors) for prolonged engagement, but do the rest of you?

And, yes, I've been to the ME, many times, etc., etc.