He (General Downing) resigned as we were taught how to resign .... quietly. I agree with you on that one. Every time I have seen him speak it is on something like what the military will do next and how best to accomplish the task. He doesn't appear to be grinding a political axe as so many others. Men that reach the ranks of Generals and Admirals know that the time to express dissent is before hand, if your viewpoint isn't the one agreed upon and action commences, you get in the boat and row with the rest of the team or you quietly retire. General Downing and the others dissenting publicly may ultimately be proven correct, however, public dissent during the crisis does nothing but increase casualties and costs. Another thought along this same line is that these men held true to this unwritten boat-rowing law of warfare. Until the war was over that is! Now all the ranting and raving is for mere political gain. Just a thought mind you. |
Point taken and well understood
The Downing / Rumsfeld debate will be one of the "What -Ifs" in history. Downing is positioning himself to be a future player for something .... But the real Rumsfeld question is General Jay Garner. Why did Rumsfeld fire Garner? Did Garner ask for more troops?
Rumsfeld has been good for the "Merc World" ... questions should be asked about how much money is being spent on mercs vs expanding the army? I think the true answer would stun America and could have been far bettter spent.