Well that's utterly incredible. Now even our soldiers no longer have the right to criticize the war or how it's been conducted. Who's left? Oh...nobody. Which is exactly the way you want it.

Alexander,
You lost me completely there. What are you talking about?

You told the retired General to shut up. Shame on you. ;-)

Guess Alex doesn't know where he's commenting.

We have a similar issue going on in the UK at the moment. A serving RAF officer is up on court martial for refusing an order to go to Iraq. It's bad enough when enlisted men and junior NCO's diss the war but when officers start, it needs to be nipped in the bud.

An officers job is to serve his country as commanded. Soldiers aren't paid to do the politics. They are paid to do their job once the politics has failed.

G,

Nice.

f

I don't recall all the retiring Generals and Officers getting this much air play and credibility during the Clinton years! What's with these officers? Do they really believe they're hurting Rumsfeld or Bush with these antics. They are hurting those who are serving by providing ammo to the enemy.

Old Soldiers should just Fade Away. We got it covered old man. Enjoy a scotch and let us carry on.

Greyhawk, your reply was perfect. I would like to think he will somehow see it. I respect Gen Newbold's service, but he has given up the claim to be a soldier or he would realize the potential harm his words do to those in the field. Shame.

Sir,

With all due respect, thank you for your service. I appreciate and value your opinion. As a citizen I heartily disagree with it. As a sailor I am disheartened by it. In truth we are deep in the fog of war and clarity may not come for some time. I accept that. I also accept the fact that our enemy is tenacious, clever and encouraged whenever we whisper at defeat or surrender.

I will continue look after the men in my charge. I will make sure they are trained and prepared for whatever eventuality comes their way. Some are already serving in the C5F AOR, as I did for a period.

We see our duty clear and will execute it with courage, honor and commitment.

Alexander -- Here's my two cents on this kind of dissent

While I will not accuse this general of the moonbattery illustrated in the link, the criticism of the quality of thought behind his ent ... and the need for people like Greyhawk and myself to vigorously oppose it on those grounds ... does apply.

Frankly, this guy appears to be "fighting the last war" ... bringing up the conventional wisdom of more troops/more resources = success, ignoring both the diminishing returns of that approach in asymetrical warfare, and the plausible alternatives.

He also doesn't percieve the threat Saddam & Sons posed to the prosecution of this War on Terror ... including our pursuit of Al Quada ... if they were left in place.

Let me illustrate, by taking apart a quote from the article ...

Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war,

If we were distorting intel, so was the rest of the world. What we did instead, was break a taboo instituted over the last 40 years ... our leaders made a judgment call ... and on many of the issues, from terrorism support to dormant WMD programs, to the non-sustainability of containment, they were right. It was truly "everything but the stockpiles"

McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job,

I think Tommy Franks would disagree with that ... and keep in mind, more resources means a heavier bootprint in "occupied" territory, which can be counterproductive.

the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder,

General, could you really have done this any better than we did? Or ... were you going to wait around until we were capable of doing so, and ignore the ability of Saddam & Sons to further "perfect" their own defenses?

the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation,

It never has been an "insurgency", as in legitimate freedom fighters -- it is a mix of jihadis, dead-ender Baathists, and ordinary criminals ... all the anthesis of the true freedom fighter. The fact that they target innocents intentionally is proof of this.

alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq,

As in France and Germany ... Saddam's enablers?

They, and many others, were more concerned about American influence than about Saddam's brutality ... and acted accordingly. We didn't alienate them ... they chose to alienate themselves, by acting on their flawed core beliefs about America.

and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department.

Again, more isn't always better ... and we have our best in there, already.

He claims he was aginst the war - and his oath to the Constitution demands his criticism...now. So if he really believed his own #$%^ why did he wait 3 YEARS to air his brave "dissent".
Sir, we still in the fight will finish it. I am sure your book/speaking engagement contracts and such will keep you busy enough...

So we have another retired three-star defeatist publicly auditioning for the coveted CNN Armchair General broadcast position. Big whup.

What was it Chamberlain said? "There's nothing so much like a god on earth as a General on a battlefield." Or maybe he just said that in the movies.

In any event, what does that make a general in a living room?

"Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important."

So what exactly is it about the Iraq War that General Patent Leather finds unconstitutional?

It's funny, the CinC takes the same oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So we're supposed to trust unelected and unaccountable men like el Commandante Newbold to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution in place of a man a majority of the country voted for barely 18 months ago?

Nice try, Generalissimo. But I think we'll stick with representative democracy if you don't mind.