Thoughts on the 6 Generals calling for Rummy's resignation...

[BlooInBloo]

Yesterday I got into it a little bit with military folks here on the issue. It didn't bother me at all that they disagreed with me. What did bother me though was the "oh you're not military, who cares what you think?" attitude.

It's my opinion that a military is SUPPOSED to be run by civilians and that the military, therefore is SUPPOSED to care what civilians think. Quite the opposite of the folks I spoke with yesterday on DU.

So I decided to put my thoughts on the get-rid-of-rummy-the-jackass matter down a bit more clearly than I did yesterday. Here they are for any who mmay be interested. Feel free to rip on me :)

The complete post is on my blog. Not to scam traffic, but because (a) I don't know how much DU likes long-ish posts, and (b) I'm not certain that DU rules don't prohibit long-ish copy/paste jobs.
-------------

Criticism of the civilian leadership of the military in general

There's been quite a hubbub over the last few days concerning the six retired generals critizing rummy, and calling for his resignation.

Factually, the generals are surely in the right. Rumsfeld IS an incompentent leader, allowing fantasia-style ideology free reign over actual facts. And the military, as well as the country, is the worse for it. I feel for the generals under his command - because of rummy's "war on the cheap", the soldiers have not been properly outfitted, there aren't enough of them, and there WON'T be enough of them (recruitment sucks these days).

I strongly support the generals' efforts to dislodge rummy from his imperially incompentent position, and fully believe that they have nothing but benevolent intentions for the military, and for America.

That said: were I the next President, my first act would be to replace every single active duty general involved with this "critical insurrection" - despite the fact that the generals are in the right.

http://punditician.blogspot.com/2006/04/criticism-of-civilian-leadership-of.html

[jrw14125]

1. 7 now

[BlooInBloo]

3. LOL! I'm not gonna bother updating....

[Kagemusha]

2. Um if the generals are active duty they'll do hard time.

That's why it's retired generals doing talking.

One of the retired generals retired because he no longer wished to be active duty under Rumsfeld.

Is this confusing or something?

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. I'd like to see one (or more) active Generals quit in protest of him.

That would rock the boat a bit

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. I think that's the point being made...at least one did resign because...

...he no longer wished to serve under Rummy's command.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Good for him. That takes guts - what's right is right - and he knows it.

But course the RW blabmasters will paint him as a kook or lower-grade officer that doesn't have any credibility.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. You seem confused about the status of the generals making...

...the negative comments about Rummy. These are NOT active-duty generals, they are instead RETIRED generals.

RETIRED generals are no longer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and are therefore not eligible for retaliation by Rummy.

ACTIVE-DUTY generals are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and are capable of losing rank, pay, and can be jailed and/or executed if insurrection is added to the list of charges they would face.

Did that help clear up the issue?

[BlooInBloo]

7. Sigh. Maybe I'm the only one who read the WaPo

Holbrooke cleared that up.

I referred to it.

I'm not confused on that matter, no matter how often it is said that I am.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Did you post the following in your OP, or not?....................

That said: were I the next President, my first act would be to replace every single active duty general involved with this "critical insurrection" - despite the fact that the generals are in the right.

If so, the phrase you used was "active duty general".

If we're confused, it was your doing.

[BlooInBloo]

11. I said the full post was on the blog.

No worries - you don't wanna read it, that's tolly cool.

[Neil Lisst]

9. I believe in civil leadership, too. BUT, these guys are citizens.

As citizens, they have a right to speak out, and what are they saying?

They're acting as whistleblowers, telling the world that Rummy doesn't do want the commanders on the ground suggest.

Officers are citizens first, and if they feel their leadership is wrong for the country, they are serving us by retiring and going public.

[cassiepriam]

12. If Bush ordered the Dems into concentrations camps to be gassed,

do you think the military should do it without question?

If Bush orders the military to all go on suicide missions,
should they do it without question?

And if you say no, they why should the military be murdering thousands of women and children in Iraq for no reason, without beginning to ask some questions?

Or risking troops needlessly?

I have no simple answers, but I do know that this is a time for all of us to do some soul searching. And some of us may have to start speaking out even if it is a personal and professional risk.

It is the right thing to do.

[cliss]

13. That was a good article, and I

agree with you.

Now on the issue of active duty versus retired generals, I've read in fact that the retired generals are in touch with the active duty generals. They're friends with each other.

The retired generals are SPEAKING FOR the active duty ones who can't say anything. So your posts are - right on.

[BlooInBloo]

14. Whoa - thanks! I'm just glad someone actually read it - lol

It's too much to ask for agreement... but thanks!

:)