OR Dec Def Rummy could just re-call all 8 of them and put them in charge of some dank ugly office in the basement of the Pentagon reporting on their "progress" directly to him.
Is this what passes for "journalism" over at Slate?
It's the sort of thing a troll would post, basically. Next time put a "projectile vomiting alert" in brackets next to the title and we won't get any crazy ideas.
And as for the substance of the article - is Slate still talking about those two-star generals who Rumsfield didn't promote? Did their books come out yet? Has anyone brought a copy?
According to this Barracks Lawyer/Journalist.
Could Howard Dean mount a military coup?
If you hear a retired Gunny say it, it's gospel.
I'm retired USMC. On active duty, the generals can't be ignored, whether or not they are a loose cannon. In retirement, like ex-Presidents, the advice generals give should be given in private. Overt, partisan involvement in politics only serves to diminish the reputation they earned on active duty. If they choose to go public, they deserve the same fate as ex-presidents that overstay their welcome on the public stage: diminished esteem, irrelevance, and obscurity. Courtmarshalling them would provide the stage they seek. They are being ignored which, IMHO, is the proper handling of the matter.
Again, is this what passes for "journalism" at Slate?
Rum isn't going to prosecute these guys, thats a straw man propped up by a writer with space to fill.
Its a shame that guys who spent their lives preparing for war would leave the service when their supposed skills are finally required. Officers and soldiers alike are re-enlisting in record numbers to return to battle. Whats with these generals, who bail when their men are signing on to stay in the fight?
The skills it takes to rise in the ranks during peacetime aren't the same skills required during wartime; during war its the warriors who matter, and I suppose its inevitable that some of these generals will be pushed aside.
Something similar has to happen over at CIA. A peacetime CIA can't fight its way out of a paper bag, there is a lot of housecleaning to be done over there. They have done little except demonstrate convincingly that they can't be trusted in a fight.
I recall one active duty Air Force general was censured for critizing Clintoon.
FYI to the folks at Slate....the Secretary of Transportation in included with the President, VP, Defense Secretary, etc. because the Coast Guard (which is under the UCMJ) was part of the Department of Transportation until it was moved to Homeland Security.
Actually, I think he should re-activate them and then post them in some God forsaken, disease and insect infested country with little to nothing to do (without airconditioning)
More crap from Slate. Why bother?
Rummy will not waste his time on these 8...let 'em be. Besides, who is it that says he's vindictive? I don't know that that's true. Old timers are usually way passed this type of temperament.
I imagine he could call them into service again and post them to antartica. but would he? Would be fun to watch.
As long as they are drawing retired pay, they are subject to the UCMJ
No bias here.
This is NOT a free speech issue. Everyone KNOWS that when you join the military you [IN ESSENCE] give up your "BILL OF RIGHTS".
Everyone who has ever been in the Military knows that you really don't loose your RIGHTS but rather your ability to exercise those rights WITHOUT consequence.
There was a saying while I was on Active Duty when on occasion I doubted my authority to do something that I thought might be questioned....it is:
"I have as MUCH authority as I am WILLING to accept the RESPONSIBILTY for!!"
He could recall and CM them but I believe it would do more damage than good. His standing with the military would suffer. Military would view him as vindictive and think it was personnal. I'll retire from the army in 2009 and plan on doing a bit of criticism myself.