military DUers-what is the REAL significance of the ret.generals' ...

[w8liftinglady]

...speaking out against the Bush administration.Are they echoing the general opinion of the active duty military strategists and troops?

[CatWoman]

1. You have to understand that for a sitting, active duty general to

criticize his commander in chief borders on treason.

Therefore, I think it's a huge significance.

[Sal316]

2. Typically, yes.

Officers of that rank are a very close knit group. AD officers generally cannot speak out on military issues, like Midori said.

[CatWoman]

3. Hey Baby

:hi:

:*

[MADem]

6. There is ONE exception to that rule

Every so often, you see an OP ED piece in the NYTimes, or the WAPO, or even Parade Fucking Magazine, written by a Service Chief. Your first instinct is, quite properly, to ask, "Why is this asshole piping up over a political issue?"

The reason, in these cases, is that the space for the OP ED was solicited by, and cleared by, the administration. Once they get the go-ahead to run with it, DEFENSE usually handles it (to include vetting through other agencies) all the way up to the final draft; then some dipshit at the WH puts red ink all over it.

[tabasco]

4. It means there are still some good generals out there ...

who have not been bought off by the war-profiteering corporations.

One of our biggest problems is generals getting hired by big war corps after they retire.

Republicans support the insane defense (pork) budget so a lot of generals end up shilling for the republicans / corporations. Not always the best thing for the country.

So I think it's great to hear these guys speak out. I have enormous respect for the people I served with and I know there are still a lot of good people in the military. Clark and Zinni are great examples of men who put their love of country before love of money.

[MADem]

5. Flag and general officer promotions ARE political

Politics are not the ONLY thing that goes into the equation, but they can make a difference. In this administration, my sense is that difference is HUGE.

Above the two star level, there are no written performance reports. It's all "word of mouth."

Look at the quality of the senior leadership that has LEFT under BushCo--the Sestaks, the Shinsekis, the Zinnis. You don't promote, or if you are a four star, if there is no job for you, you leave.

Now look at the assholes who stay in despite misconduct; e.g. the Sanchezes and Boykins.

At the senior levels, the White House vets every name on the list, personally. It may not be the Monkey, but if there is a favorite of his, his team of munchkins (the Harriet Miers set) knows who must stay and who should go. Each WH does it slightly differently, but trust me, it is done. It is political--not necessarily (under reasonable regimes) along party lines, but along philosophy vis a vis use of force and power projection.

This is not speculation, it's fact. That list gets scrubbed better than dirty linen on a convent washday.

[Shipwack]

7. Not to be too cynical...

I think the only reason they would make rumbling noises is that they are afraid that if nukes start flying, they feel that they will get put on trials for war crimes at best, and lynched by an angry mob at worst. Or at the very least, have their pensions and careers in the civilian world put at risk. It's a matter of self preservation, not new found morals. As others have said, at that level of the game, it is all about politics and and ass-kissing

(Yes, I do hate officers in general, and rarely have seen any above the rank of 0-3 that is worth a damn. This is probably a character flaw on my part, but oh well...)