If I was wrong, then it wasn't the first time. Ralph Peters believes that the retired Generals who've come out against Rumsfeld are salt of the earth, and while this flies in the face of perhaps 2 dozen emails I've received to the contrary, it remains something to take into consideration.
I still ask myself this one question when all else fails: What kind of man sides with Wesley Clark?
And really now, Ralph; Generals aren't by nature political animals? Of which century do you refer to, and what planet is this on? I'm no ardent fan of Rumsfeld, but sweet christ on a crutch, when military men DON'T complain something is amiss.
_________________________________
The retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation are recent combat commanders, veterans of Iraq and Middle East experts. They're the men who led from the front and who signed the condolence letters to bereaved families (and they didn't use an autograph machine).
Generals such as John Batiste, Gregory Newbold, Paul Eaton and Tony Zinni have something else in common, too: They're leaders respected by their peers for flawless integrity. Their reputations within their services - the Army and Marines - could not be higher. They are not and never have been political generals.
And these men have much to lose by going public with their criticism. They'll never get the lucrative defense-industry jobs in corporations whose profits depend on the favor of the Pentagon. They're not going to be offered plum appointments in any future administration, Republican or Democrat. They'll be frozen out of the Washington-insider's club. They face organized political attacks upon their personal reputations.
No comments:
Post a Comment