Redstate

What some of the disgruntled generals don't like is that Rumsfeld always gives a low priority to the immediate political consideration, and a high priority to long-term military strategy (e.g. keeping a relatively small American "footprint" in Iraq--so as to look more like partners than overseers.) Ten years ago, the military's civilian leadership priorities were just the opposite, and these generals apparently liked it better that way. It's also a lot safer the Clinton way. It's a recipe for stalemate, but it's safer in the short term.

I know two of those generals could have their personal axes to grind with Rumsfeld.  Swannack got in trouble for stating (or being misquoted) that we were losing the war.  I think Eaton was running the Iraqi soldier academy that created units that fled upon first contact.  Did those events hurt their careers?  Who knows.

I also think that in the long term they will be remembered for their actions longer than anyone remembers the reasons for their public criticism.

And while I'm here, where is the recognition that the number of troops sent into Iraq was a judgment call?  Too many troops means that we're seen as occupiers.  Too few means that you will bypass remnants to fight another day.  Things could have gone worse if we went in with a million soldiers.  Has anyone acknowledged that?

Enough 20/20 hindsight.  Let's finish the job and redirect focus and energy on Iran.

One million (or even half that number) American troops in Iraq would also mean that you get the type of Iraqi recruits for their defense forces that might expect to sit on the bench, and watch the Americans do the work. That's a much different kind of Iraqi recruit than they're getting now. Iraqis who volunteer know they're not going to be sitting on the bench.

Good to see LtGen DeLong speak up.  He knows the AOR, and I thought his comments were thoughtful and well reasoned.  I really expected a lot more speaking up in support of the SecDef from the reired Officer Corps by now-why the quiet?  I hope folks don't try to discredit him or his message by calling him "Book Tour" Delong,  

you head down to the tatoo parlor and have the words" don't rock the boat" tatood on your chest.  War is rocking the boat and many of todays generals are bureaucrats.

    Compared to WW II and an Army the largest in our history how many three and four star generals do we have today?  I remember an officer on C Span who was in charge of the Army's special operations, a four star general.  Considering at the time we had one regiment, the 75th, some Special Forces groups, and the Delta Force, and that generals in WW II led corps as two star major generals, I would say a little inflation has occured.

    Sometimes the more you have the more you want to cover your butt and risk becomes a virus you want to avoid.

It was a link with an email from somebody in the working officers corps verses the beltway guys.

I think as much as we don't want the beltway military to be political, it just ends up that way, and the generals serving under Bush and Rumsfeld were coming up during the Clinton years.  I think Rumsfeld is abrasive and demanding, and this didn't sit well with the top officer corps.  The retired guys probably see this as an easy way to stick pointy knives in Rumsfeld's back-the sad thing is that they are willing to harm the war effort to do so.

from all the ones who retired early on matters of principle during the Clinton years. There had to be more than six.

and Blair.  That would be the list of supporters to my knowledge.  Shall we count stars?

what in the world are you talking about?  Just because we have an insufficient number of troops in Iraq so that Rummy can say "see... 'transformation' is working", doesn't mean that we have a "small footprint" in Iraq.  The Iraqis are not stupid.  They see that we are building 14 PERMANENT BASES there and they know whats up.  They can go to www.newamericancentury.org and read about the neocons' plan (NOT CONSERVATIVE) to invade many countries in the middle east, starting with Iraq, and they see that they are not "partners" in any sense of the word and that the invasion was done purley for so-called "American Hegemony" (though its was actually done for corporate hegemony at the expense of American lives) and that the 'liberation' of Iraq was an afterthought used for justification.  If you truly believe what you wrote, you are unbelievably naive.

Do not be fooled; what is going on here is NOT conservative!

last night I was struck by how stuck in Vietnam his commentary was. As someone pointed out in another thread, Rumsfeld is stuck in his formative conflict, the Cold War. The Generals are stuck in theirs, Vietnam. I will be glad when no one born before 1968 is in the U. S. military.

.  .  . our military is under civilian control.  If we somehow decide that military officers ought to have the determining voice in whether the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense can stay or go, does that not mean we have military control of the military?

Newbold's generation, and Powell's and Zinni's and others were very much affected by their Vietnam experience.  I have heard it over and over again, "never again".  As junior officers in that conflict they saw what they perceived as a failure of the "political generals" to speak up forcefully about the conduct and progress of that war.  They stuck it out during some very tough times, the end of the draft, racial integration, drug abuse in the ranks, and some very lean resource times.  The promised themselves and each other that, if they ever reached 3 and 4 star rank, they would not repeat that conduct.  

can you name any generals who retired on principle during that period?  Have any stepped forward?  Most of the ones I know who retired during that period are judiciously silent.

General Fogelman retired during that time based on principle.  And, IIRC, to date he has yet to come out in the public with his criticisms in the manner that these guys have.

Yes, small. The only people that want an EVEN smaller footprint are people like Murtha and Zarqawi.

Zinni is in fact on a tour promoting his new book and DeLong isn't you would be right.

did a lot of retiring. The servicemen voted with their feet about Clinton's army policies.

Clinton got to 'Balance the Budget' (by gutting the military), fiddle with social engineering (Don't ask; don't tell & Women's unequal rights.) and weaken America's military.

If people want to bitch about troop numbers... ask Slick Willy why they weren't high enough come 2000.

Two men who worked with Rumsfeld on a daily basis in the war on terror and had practically no complaints at all (specifically, Tommy Franks and Mike DeLong), or these other generals?

I'll trust Franks and DeLong.

PNACing is an offense in these parts, friend. Try to keep it to a minimum in the future.

For deliberately eroding civilian control of the military, I suppose.