Even if the uniformed military's respect is not returned or deserved by the civilian leadership (as in the Clinton years), it is poor leadership practice to allow the folks at the top of the chain of command to be undermined. The civilian leadership won't order the current crop of senior officers to go out and dispute these statements--they won't have to. The current uniformed DoD leadership will have to defend the civilian leadership (even if they agree with those griping in retirement about the sins of Rumsfeld and his team) in order to preserve good order and discipline. Those speaking out have not just acted to undermine the political leadership in a time of war, but their contemporaries and successors in the uniformed leadership as well.

By the way, I'm a serving military officer (in the Reserves) and have served on the Joint Staff during the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. Though my time in the Pentagon never gave me access to the senior leadership of the Pentagon's E-Ring (I used to see Lt Gen Newbold and sometimes then-Lt Gen Abazaid in briefings--but there's no way either would remember me if I bumped into him on the street), I did hear the occasional whisper of discontent. There's nothing unusual about having friction between the uniformed and civilian sides of the Pentagon. It's just not that common for the disputes to play out in public.

While McMaster's book may be required reading, I'm not so sure that people are drawing the correct conclusions from his work. And as noted above, we don't hear about anyone who is so concerned that they resign in disgust or refuse an assignment. And it's hard to estimate the influence of ego. You don't get to be a general unless you have a high opinion of your abilities and most of them are dedicated enough to beleive they can make a silk purse of of a sow's ear.

So it's hard to draw any useful conclusions from the complaints of a few generals who have opted to opine in public. And how to separate personal opinions about Rumsfeld/DoD staff "style" vice military competence? For all we know some of this angst is over "manners". Generals like to be stroked, maybe more so than the average human. Perhaps Rumsfeld had the temerity to challenge someones deeply felt belief. We have no way of knowing the motivations behind any of this.

The other challenge is separating out resentment over how DoD allocates resources and sets priorities. It's pretty clear that the current modernization trends disfavor large segments of the more traditional combat services. Unlike the 70s, we are not going to witness a rehash of the battles between conventional and "special" forces. Spec Ops has clearly got the upper hand today and let's face it, it's always been a small and insular community with not much use for the rest of the services. How many times has someone told you, "I could tell you what I do, but I'd have to kill you."

Rumsfeld has probably had the most difficult challenges a Sec Def has seen since 1947. Unlike the late great Caspar Weinberger, who was able to turn on the money spigot and basically say to all the services, make it better faster...Rumsfeld has to tell the services "here's five loaves and three fishes, go make a war and then make a peace and do it better, faster and cheaper."

To sum up, sure generals should be free to speak their minds. You never know, one might actually come up with an original thought. What I like about Rumsfeld is it appears he is not afraid to make a decision, nor is he afraid of being held accountable. Has he made mistakes? Hard to say today, much easier to judge five years from now. Unfortunately we all live on internet time now. That means no error is too small or inconsequential to be bruited about as a "disaster". It also means victory has a shelf life of about five minutes.

The more I see how things unfold today, the more I think about how patience is not just a virtue, it is THE virtue.

The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called Wednesday for Donald Rumsfeld to step down, joini...

So far we have four generals publicly spitting in the face of Bush by calling for the firing of Rumsfield.

While the old myth of the public disdain for the military was never really true, the loathing the professional military holds for Bush is up front and center and proudly on display for all to see.