Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 2 of 4   <       >

Four-Star Story

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"More important, the criticisms of Rumsfeld don't have much force. Some say he is too imperious. This charge isn't hard to believe of the strong-willed Rumsfeld, but it is disappointing that generals are apparently so easily cowed that their only recourse when dealing with a muscular Defense secretary is to whine about it after the fact."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is a bit queasy over the spectacle:

"A friend of mine who's currently serving in Iraq emails some thoughts about the recent criticism of Donald Rumsfeld coming from retired general officers:

"It's very interesting to watch the retired generals coming out to speak against Secretary Rumsfeld from here. Prior to mobilization, I was a fairly vocal critic of this administration and its national security policies. But now that I'm on active duty, I have to stay mute and neutral, especially in front of my soldiers.

"It's also difficult to weigh the value in having these generals speak out now, versus the harm they're doing to the principle of civilian control over the military. But I guess most of all, I have to ask the question 'why now?' It would've been one thing for these generals to fall on their swords in 2003 or 2004 -- to literally lay their stars on the line when it counted. But now that they're comfortably retired, and we're three years into the war. . . . .I don't know what to make of these acts of dissent.

"Should the generals have spoken up earlier? Should they have spoken up at all? Regardless of whether or not we agree with the generals' criticism, I think it's wise to be uneasy about something that has a bit of a sense of a palace revolt against the current civilian leadership of the military. But has mismanagement of the war become so extreme that the usual rules simply don't apply anymore?"

McJoan at Daily Kos, citing a NYT story, laughs at one argument advanced the former military leaders:

"General Richard Myers, newly retired former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, apparently got his Pentagon 'fact sheet.' He says it is very rude of former generals to criticize Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

"General Myers, who has emerged as one of Mr. Rumsfeld's chief defenders, repeated his comments from late last week that generals speaking out against the defense secretary are inappropriately breaching military etiquette that dictates officers only air complaints with the civilian leadership privately.

"Oh my goodness! How can we survive a breach in military etiquette! I'm sure the families of our dead soldiers would be appalled at this rudeness. That's undoubtedly what is motivating General Myers to speak out so strongly about the this incredible threat to national security, rude retired military personnel."

Speaking of war critics: Thirty-five years after "Four Dead in Ohio," Neil Young is coming out with an album about Bush and Iraq, with one track called "Impeach the President."

But the former No. 2 general at CENTCOM is backing Rumsfeld.


<       2           >


© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive