Except for the Marines of course. But even they at least feel free to say "Yes sir! Three bags HOO-AH!"

(Just kidding. I love the Marines, and in any case, this is an excellent discussion.)

I was a Company Commander at Fort Leonard Mo. in 1954. I met Gen. Maxwell Taylor when he was the Army Chief of Staff. He came down to Leonard Wood to bless a new training Battalion in the summer of 1955 . I was ten feet from him as he spoke to us of the need for expert training in the early months of a soldier's career.

I vass dere Charlie, Honor Code and all.

You seem to think "publicly speaking" requires a retired officer to go on national TV and disparage men he either never served under, or served under and was overruled by those gentlemen. You know nothing of the chain of command, if this is your position, and you certainly know zip about maintaining morale and discipline in the military.

Generals have many avenues to express their opinions. These men may have availed themselves of these avenues and been unsatisfied with the response they got. I'm sure the Generals who served under Mr. Rumsfeld and did not get their way were personally affronted by their treatment, and may feel they have no other way to "get what they want or think is correct".

So what? You dissent before the decision. After the decision is made you execute without recrimination or excuse. To do otherwise is to be a bad leader.

They have now proven they do not respect the civilian leadership they are required to follow, even as retirees. They have proven they will place their opinions and desires, whatever they may be, above the orders and opinions of the officers and civilians appointed over them, contrary to the oath they took as officers, and which you never renounce, even in retirement. And they have proven they care not for the Men who once served under them, as their comments are used to undermine the integrity and command of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and further render the service those Men have been ordered on, illegitimate in the eyes of the people whom the troops care about the most --- the American people and their families.

These Generals have now crossed a line which Honor and Integrity demanded they not cross. They should complain all they want to their Congressman, their President, the SecDef, and their wives and families. But they should NEVER have gone to the press. To do so means they care not how the public disputes over the chain of command and the legitimacy of civilian control of the military affect the Men they once served with. I am deeply ashamed of each of them. But I am not surprised, as I have some familiarity with the egotism and ambition and power-seeking behaviors of some of them.

The Men who served these folks once know that from some of these gents, this is par for the course. From others, a mystery. All of our leaders have feet of clay. None is perfect. But the Man who presses on, who fights his way through, despite the obstructions of his enemies and the hangers on of careerist ambitions, is a True Leader, nonetheless. In this case, they even defy the Office of the President, as he has said plainly and forcefully that he intends to keep Mr. Rumsfeld, and that should be the end of the discussion amongst all officers.

You should take your comments somewhere more sympathetic to your cause. Here only Victory counts. Because Defeat is too horrible to contemplate, and the loss of 2500 Men and Women will pale in comparison to the lives lost in the abandonment of this war effort.

Press on to Victory.

Subsunk

Boyd: The idea here is that military officers have a duty to obey legal orders, as well as a tradition of speaking up before a final decision is reached. Afterwards they are obligated to execute the orders given to them.

The only way a senior officer can publicly speak on his own is if he is retired. Then he has the right, just as you do, to say what he thinks about the war he was ordered to fight. It is not cowardly to wait until one is retired to speak; for a military officer it is required, if his truth is a criticism of his political superiors.

What you and James are saying is that corrupt, or incompetent, public officals, and their blunders, are forever off limits from critical remarks by a former military officer.

But the comment wasn't to disparage those who don't have a military background just to note that the movies give most people the wrong impression.

Here it is, friend. They did exactly as you say they should, and you call them renegades.

Yeah!! we’re travelin’ down that lonesome road. Feel like I’m dragging a heavy load. Don’t try to turn my head away, I’m flirtin’ with disaster every day. Flirtin’ with disaster, baby, Y’all kn...

1) You fix things that are broken in an organization while you're still a part of it, not after you leave.

2) Flag and General Officers are in the best positions to influence the shapes and missions of the various military departments. While still on active duty, I mean.

3) The retirees getting all the press for bitching either couldn't make the changes they desired while on active duty because they couldn't get the support of their peers at the time, i.e., they were (and still are) in the minority, or they may be cowards who didn't say squat before they retired and are only now making their opinions known.

Dispute any of those points if you will, but don't throw out your own crock by misrepresenting the post and saying how bad it is. At best, it shows you have reading comprehension problems. At worst, you're a manipulative liar. Take your pick.