This article marks the opening salvo against the spate of retiring Generals who are calling for Rumsfeld's head. Naturally, his opponents have siezed on these statements and joined the chorus. They use the Generals' experience as unimpeachable proof that they are right. Further, they believe that officers are apolitical. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There's an old saying in the military that nobody makes it past O-5 without being (or becoming) a politician. That's where turf wars begin. Flag rank spends more time with money, budgeting and programs than anything else. They are warfighters but they are strategic, not tactical ones.

Absent any context for the departure of the various Generals, we don't have the ability to judge the case on its merits. Are all of them on point and apolitical conclusions or are they all just a bunch of whiners spewing sour grapes. Like most things, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. I have no doubt that the Secretary is due for criticism and quite a bit of it. Even before the Iraq war and before 9/11 Rumsfeld was talking about "transformation" as central to his vision for he Armed Forces. He wanted to sharpen the tip of the spear and make it smaller.

For additional perspective there's a long list of bloggers (most of them former and current military guys) who agree with the thrust of the article.

See here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here and here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

For Gerard

So....the autism thing