Replies

Excuse me, sir, but the “gotcha” was meant as a “I see what you mean” kinda “gotcha”...you are wound rather tight...
I understand how these general officers find themselves in positions of direct reaction to whomsoever in occupying the white house...and the examples of officers you give are STILL on active duty...Gen Jones answered the call from a questionable, uncommitted, onerous ROE type of administration where he COULD have just been supportive of those still on active service, including and especially the BOOTS ON THE GROUND! This admin DOESN’T understand how to wage a war ...and the good GEN doesn’t seem to be helping them (and THE COUNTRY) out too much...the joke was exemplary of his attitude, I think...oh, and by now, he has apologized - wonder why....?

"and the good GEN doesn’t seem to be helping them (and THE COUNTRY) out too much"

I misunderstood what you meant by gotcha. Sorry bout' that. As for helping them out. You don't think we're winning in Afghanistan now? You don't think we're continuing to win in Iraq? I'd say that by ensuring that plans are implemented in helping us win in those two theaters of war that the General is helping out the troops.

As for those two active Generals vs. this retired one. If you look at the role of National Security advisor, it has a long history of being filled by former Generals/Admirals (Scowcroft, Powell, McFarlane and Poindextor). As I said, when you are talking about Generals, if they are asked to serve by a President for the good of the country, they tend to look past politics and serve. They are interested in the good of the country and are not getting entangled in the politics of the administration.

We could do worse with a team of Petraeus, McChrystal, Odierno and Jones as the overall ones in charge of National Security. No matter what you think of Obama, this is a good team to have in charge of combatting the WOT. Our problem is the Commander in Chief. Not the lieutenants below him.