Well, this implies that every retired general will be right when talking about 'war' as you say. That, of course, is not realistic. These generals may be right, time will tell.
But, there are something like 9,000 retired generals of all stars as reported by FNC. So, 6 out of 9,000??
Also, have you seen any reporting on retired generals that support the war, the approach and Rumsfeld? No? Does that mean there aren't any? Of course not. That means the antique media is not reporting on them.
I know it appears that hundreds of generals are against this because the lame stream media has had these 6 on camera hundreds of times. Do not get suckered into the antique media game plan.
Critics of Mr. Rumsfeld, who agree with the former generals who have derided him as wrongheaded and arrogant, may see General Pace's endorsement as fulsome flattery. After all, some officers contend that the 73-year-old defense secretary has promoted top leaders based largely on their fealty to him, his management of the war in Iraq and his ambitious plan to remake the military.
But the comments by General Pace of the Marines were more than a public plug for a boss under fire. Scholars who study the armed forces say they were a public restatement of a bedrock principle of American governance: civilian control of the military.
"This is what the chairman of the joint chiefs is expected to do by tradition and law," said Dennis E. Showalter, a military historian at Colorado College who has taught at the Air Force Academy and West Point. Short of submitting his own resignation, General Pace had little choice but to offer a public show of support, Mr. Showalter said.
"If he had not spoken out, he would have been making a very strong statement," he said.
The idea that civilian leaders, as representatives of the people, should have the ultimate say in how the country's military power is wielded dates to colonial resentment of British rule and is embedded in the Constitution.
Tensions between civilian leaders and the military brass are routine and occasionally erupt into public view. But the principle of civilian supremacy has never been seriously challenged; the last plotters of a military coup d'état in American history were disgruntled officers faced down by General George Washington at Newburgh, N.Y., in 1783.
In fact, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prescribes court martial for any commissioned officer who "uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense" or other federal or state officials.
That prohibition, of course, does not forbid serving officers from speaking candidly in private when asked for advice on military matters. Some of Mr. Rumsfeld's critics also fault General Pace and others for not being more forceful in questioning the guidelines put forward by Pentagon civilians that have kept American forces relatively lean in Iraq, and which led to the quick disbanding of the Iraqi Army.
Neither does the prohibition on "contemptuous words" apply to retirees. And the propriety of the onslaught of attacks on Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership from recently retired senior military leaders, including some who served in Iraq, is a matter of intense debate.
"It's certainly very unusual to have even retired military officers being this public about their opposition," said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University political scientist and co-author — with Peter D. Feaver, now a White House adviser — of a 2004 book on civil-military relations. "But I don't think it's improper at all. They've been careful not to violate the core tenet of civilian control — none of them has said these things publicly while on active duty."