Revolt of the Generals
An excellent piece from the San Diego Union-Tribune on the unprecedented (at least since the Civil War) number of general officers publicly denouncing a President's foreign policy. While I tend to agree with the critiques, I'm not too sanguine about the underlying motivations of those who suddenly feel compelled to speak out, nor am I sure how I feel about the overall effect. Is this a threat to civillian control (however incompetent) of the military? What would Democrats have thought if 20 retired Generals blasted Bill Clinton? Any of you currently serving in uniform, what do you think?
Labels: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Iraq, Military
posted by The Local Crank | 10:15 PM
1 Comments:
Well, one thing's for sure: civilian control of our military is NOT in jeapordy, and I doubt it ever will be barring a near-apocalyptic disaster for the U.S. (i.e., D.C. being wiped out by a nuclear bomb).
In some cases, I think the motivation of certain generals is suspect: many are seeking to clear their tarnished names of any complicity for the problems in Iraq. On the other hand, blame for Iraq does ultimately rest first with "the Decider" himself, and second with the incredibly arrogant and naive Rumsfeld, who disregarded the advice of every general officer courageous enough to warn him that Iraq would require several hundred thousand soldiers to maintain stability after Saddam was gone.
Post a Comment
<< Home