Posted on 04/24/2006 9:16:20 AM PDT by Diver Dave
The Defense Department waves away the protesting generals as just a handful out of more than 8,000 now serving or retired. That seems to me too dismissive. These generals are no doubt correct in asserting that they have spoken to and speak on behalf of some retired and, even more important, some active-duty members of the military.
But that makes the generals' revolt all the more egregious. The civilian leadership of the Pentagon is decided on Election Day, not by the secret whispering of generals.
We've always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Hussein's Iraq, Pinochet's Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including the United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.
That kind of dissident party within the military is alien to America. Some other retired generals have found it necessary to rise to the defense of the administration. Will the rest of the generals, retired or serving, now have to declare which camp they belong to?
It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent.
Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret.
...Charles Krauthammer
These generals should be clapped in irons, or at the very least, lose their pensions.
Exactly. I think though, that they don't WANT that. I believe that is one of the reasons the press has become so "anti-embed"...they think that they are losing their "objectivity".
Well, no $hit $herlock. They can't HELP but admire the military when they actually see what these young people can do...and THAT is a BAD thing for the press. Wouldn't want them to lose their "objectivity".
Sheesh. I better stop now.
If the standing orders prohibited certain things, then I don't blame him for following those orders. But there may have been other things that he could have done, but didn't do, that might have made the ship safer. I suspect if they found that he could have done more, they were referring to something other than violating his orders. I'm just saying that the Kirk Lippold I knew was not a lax guy. Maybe he screwed up a bit, maybe not. But he would not have run a slack ship, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.