Another point - a lot of these "dissenting generals" made general during the Clinton years. Many were the touch-feely, kumbaya types. Many got where they are not due to leadership ability and military ability, but due to suck-up ability.
"Another point - a lot of these "dissenting generals" made general during the Clinton years. Many were the touch-feely, kumbaya types. Many got where they are not due to leadership ability and military ability, but due to suck-up ability."
Well, ok, but if they made General under Clinton, then they made Colonel and probably Lieutenant Colonel under Bush 41 or Reagan. They might have made Major under Carter, but more likely it was under Ford, and were Captains and Lieutenants under Nixon.
So, where did they become the touchy-feely kumbaya types coming up through the ranks over 25 years? Was it that touchy-feely kumbaya types were promoted to Major under Carter, and then just given passes to Lt.Col. and Colonel under Reagan and Bush, just so they could finally enforce their flower-power as Generals made during the Clinton Administration?
Don't get me wrong, I am unimpressed by these ex-Generals' comportments. I think they are lying politicians with a Democratic Party agenda. But were they bad Generals? And before that were they bad Colonels and Majors, Captains and Lieutenants? Is it that every bad officer who somehow wormed his way through four or five selection boards were all chosen by Clinton?
In short: is to have been chosen as an Admiral or General during the Clinton Administration a mark of incompetence and cowardice? Should we look at when professional officers achieved flag rank and, depending on the President, evaluate their personalities and military careers?
Most flag officers promoted during the Clinton years is an incompetent suck-up? Is that the way we should look at them all, including the ones still in the forces?
I don't like the inference.
The President doesn't really pick generals.