Rumsfeld made the choice to browbeat and publicly humiliate three and four star subordinates who warned him, in private, about the problems to come in Iraq after his "transformed" conquest.
That's fine, he ranked them.
But when you choose to run your office that way, you have to always be right, and Rumsfeld was not.
He should have left a year ago.
That's not how I remember it. Can you identify these three and four starts? And tell us when he "publicly humiliated" them? Not exact dates, but relative to their own public statements critical of the plan.
As I remember it, there were some generals who made negative public
comments, and at that point, Rumsfeld called them on it.
Our millitary policy is directed by civillian elected representatives. To my knowledge, we don't elect generals. If active millitary officers conspire against our elected leaders, I cant help but see this as a coup. This is treason and should be treated as such.
As for these loudmouth do-nothing-of-significance generals like Zini, if you don't like the SecDef, elect a new president. Untill then, keep your piehole shut.