We need to remember that these generals belonged, for 30+ years, to the most political organization there is, the military. They spent years honing their skills, both military and political, in an organization they liked and felt comfortable in; then along comes a leader with a personality that grated on many of them, and they didn't like it. Worse than that, in their eyes, he wants to change something they like and feel comfortable with. Some high ranking military adjusted it and some didn't. The ones that didn't did their jobs while they were active duty, but now feel like they need to speak out. No one likes change! We live in a different world today and the military that was designed to fight the evil empire, USSR, is not the one that works best for fighting terrorism.

Sorry, Peter's Dad, but I don't buy that the generals are whining because they didn't like Rumsfield's personality. I think it is about the thousands of American lives lost and/or damaged, the tens of thousands of Iraqi fatalities/causalties, the hundreds of Billions (!) of dollars, and the damage to the US image internationally. The generals know that we went into a war of choice (not necessity). Our leaders let their dedication to ideology dictate the plan (or lack of one) and there is no exit stategy. The generals are saying what the war critics have said for a long time, and the generals have the inside knowledge that gives them great credibility.

Nice boilerplate, TS.

Ignores the comment above and the points made in Krauthammer's column completely. The question is not whether their comments have validity (I don't believe they do) but whether these generals represent a cabal in the active duty U.S. military that doesn't like a particular leadership style and is starting to bristle against political control by civilians.

My comments were a response to the post of Peter's Dad, who also did not address the Krauthammer column.

However, the point that I would like to emphasize is that it is important to address the wisdom and execution of the war, and not some smoke screen about 'a cabal in the active duty US military'.

Um, that would be my father.

And I think there is a larger point to be made than the usual cant about the war that has been repeated ad nauseum by those who oppose it. The point my father was making is that being a general sometimes means you're only another politician - only one who wears a uniform. Which is the point of Krauthammer's column - that those who serve are trying to exercise power they do not (and should not) possess.

...the point of Krauthammer's column - that those who serve are trying to exercise power they do not (and should not) possess.

I hear the generals (retired, I might add) expressing opinions about the war. I don't see how this threatens civilian control of the military. Instead, I think it encourages a full and public discussion of the issue, and provides additional information to me, as a citizen. My personal opinion is that the Bush administration has not provided much useful information to us citizens, and has given half-truths and withheld adverse information. But that's just me.

Finally, this seems like a case of shooting the messengers since the news is bad. At least that changes the subject.

No matter how you feel about the war, while a general is on duty they are only advisors to the SECDEF and the PRES in turn. They implement the desires of the administration.

Is there a cabal that hates the administration? I think there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the recent changes (BRAC, contracting, tanker leases, Halliburton, etc) and _retired_ generals are voicing this.

Personally, I believe retired generals can do and say whatever they want - if they want to engage in the debate, fine. But trying to make the case that generals represent the feelings of the military simply because they wear a uniform is misguided, I think.

My point, and Krauthammer's, is that if these generals represent a whispering campaign in the Pentagon that seeks to undermine presidential authority, that poses a danger to civilian control of the military.

To me, this isn't simply a partisan issue - it doesn't matter who is in office. I believe the military should always be subordinate to the elected civilian leadership. Otherwise, we're in a situation where we'll see a guy with gold braiding and a chestful of unearned medals taking the oath of office, and no one wants that.

Sorry I took so long responding to T/S's comments. I was busy. I was simply stating some factors that I think play a part in this story. T/S obviously feels we never should have started the war and that it has been handeled badly. T/S, you say the generals have inside knowledge that gives them credibility, but what about an equal number (or more) of generals that feel the war is being fought correctly and is going well? We should not discount what these generals are saying when they are critical of policy, just don't jump on it to try and to say "See, this war is wrong, and these few generals say so".

"Um, that would be my father."

THWAP!

Hey how are you doing? I just wanted to stop by and say that it's been a pleasure reading your blog. I have bookmarked your website so that I can come back & read more in the future as well. plz do keep up the quality writing

Dreamin. I love blogging. You all express your feelings the right way, because they are your feeling, focus on your blog it is great.