This tells me that character, much more than political skill, should be the main criterion for achieving flag rank.

We'll always have some achieving rank merely by hanging on long enough, knowing the right people, or some other maneuvering. But hopefully this will let the military know that they have to go back to the old ways, in the old days, and start looking more at basic character.

I'd really like to know how many of these "retired" generals actually chose to retire after reaching a certain age, and how many had their retirement decisions made for them, a la Weaselly Clark.

So, let me get this straight. Any dissent just emboldens the enemy. Is that about right?

Am I supposed to give a crap about Cal Chickhawk Thomas's opinion of Iraq war Veteran Generals? Talk about meaningless.

Talk about meaningless.

Oh yeah, but if your hero, Howie al-Dean commented on the same subject, you'd quote him.

Your posts--talk about meaningless...

I find it humorous that Mr. Thomas suggested that "Anyone doubting Rumsfeld should consider the testimony of Zacarias Moussaoui."

Huh? In what sense are we to draw anything from Moussaoui's ravings as a basis to judge Rumsfeld's decisions?

"In what sense are we to draw anything from Moussaoui's ravings as a basis to judge Rumsfeld's decisions?" rerun

How about to understand the mind of our enemies whcih confirms Rumsfeld's opinions, or is that too much for you to comprehend?

While the interior workings of the military are ofen "mysterious," to suggest that the generals in question are bitter because they were forced to retire seems a bit far-fetched. Certainly, Zinni was not forced out. It is my understanding that at least one turned down a promotion in order to retire.
Two of them finished their careers as comanders of elite divisions -- I would guess that's still a fast-track to a third star.

I think the right will find these guys pretty hard to "swift boat."

"To honor one of the fort's units -- the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division -- for its service in Iraq, Cheney awarded it the Valorous Unit Award. The unit saw action in Iraq, including hundreds of engagements with insurgents."
From post below.

Gee, wasn't that Batiste's outfit?

Randi must have been talking about "chickenhawks" lately, because this is the second or third time murkyego has used the word.

Hard telling what it is supposed to mean. For a while it was someone who had dishonestly or shamefully dodged military service when others had to go in his place, and then got into a position where he could send others to war.

Then it was someone who had served honorably in a dangerous assignment (flying intercepts in fighter planes) but who had not been shot at, who then achieved a position in which he had to make decisions about sending others to war.

Then it was someone who became ineligibile for the draft before it was imposed, having deferrals for being married, a college student, and a father, and therefore did not serve, but eventually supported a military action.

Then it was someone who had an honorable term of service in the military, on active duty, who later became Secretary of Defense and therefore in a position to send people to war.

Then it was anyone who was never shot at, but who might be in a position to vote for a military action, even though this person may have been out of harm's way due to age or other circumstances.

Now it appears to be anyone who voices an opinion supporting a military action, even a reporter who is merely commenting on the fact that many in the military support Donald Rumsfeld.

I am curious about what, exactly would qualify as military service adequate to meet murky's evidently extremely high standards of NOT being a chicken? Surely he himself has met these standards, because it would oh so hypocritical to call others "chicken" if he himself has not served, and served to a standard as high as that he sets for others.

The "hawk" part is easy---it appears to be anyone who understands the need for self-defense, and/or the honoring of treaties and loyalties to allies.

phnxbmed said: "How about to understand the mind of our enemies whcih confirms Rumsfeld's opinions, or is that too much for you to comprehend?"

This is what I fail to comprehend: how does knowing the mind of Mussaoui shed any light on the questions of Rumsfeld's views on force reorganization, his people skills and micromanagement tendencies, his Iraq strategy and tactics, and his effect on the Republican party?

Acknowledging that the enemy is dangerous implies nothing about how best to organize and pursue their defeat.

phnxbmed said: "How about to understand the mind of our enemies whcih confirms Rumsfeld's opinions, or is that too much for you to comprehend?"

This is what I fail to comprehend: how does knowing the mind of Mussaoui shed any light on the questions of Rumsfeld's views on force reorganization, his people skills and micromanagement tendencies, his Iraq strategy and tactics, and his effect on the Republican party?

Acknowledging that the enemy is dangerous implies nothing about how best to organize and pursue their defeat.