OK, more on the headline in a minnit, but first...
Yesterday I said this:
It would have been irresponsible to speak out about what they thought at the beginning of the occupation.
Even though most of them have forgotten more about history and geopolitics then GWB will ever know or care about, and knew and knew that a long term strategy was near non-existent
First of all it was too early in the game to start criticizing. Once things got going, a senior military officer has to show support and withhold criticism. Also remember the political climate at the time. The Republicans were a monolithic force who were invincible.
Also remember, military people don't have the same freedom of speech that you and I do. If you're in the military you can't say just anything you feel politically. It doesn't matter if you say it on tv or radio or just among a bunch of guys in your unit. If you get called on the carpet by your superiors, you risk a black mark on your record, same as if you were caught with drugs or involved in a brawl. Sucks, but that's the rules.
However,
it's even rougher than I thought according to this letter in the Washington Post today (Sorry no link; unless I missed it, they don't post the letters online)
If Melvin R Laird and Robert E. Pursley really wonder about the reluctance of general officers to speak out against Rumsfeld while they were on active duty, I suggest they revisit Section 888 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It says:
CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
To impugn the integrity of these officers by implying that their current expressions of outrage and contempt are disingenous or self-serving is to ignore the legal realities of our civilian-military system.
Rather than question the generals' motives, we should heed their warnings and petition President Bush to install a more capable defense secretary.
David Eike
Springfield
I didn't know it was verboten to say ANYTHING against a civilian leader.
Of course it can be argued that the criticism or questioning of a specific course of action or policy adopted by an administration hardly constitutes "contempt" in the classic definition.
Of course, then again we're talking here about Bu$hCo, where questions to their authority are about as welcome as a certain DVD would be during breaktime at NFL summer camp.
If a general had begun talking up in late 2003, early 2004, I have no doubt Rove's slime machine would have been all over that person without a doubt. Others would have been cowed into submission. These guys have pensions and benefits and their kids to think about, and I have to respect that.
Even retired, they open themselves to criticism, but the fact that its a flock of no-nonsense hard-assed, career military guys makes it harder, if not impossible for BushCo to slam them. I mean, haven't they been telling us for the last four years how Repubs are the only ones who "Support the Troops" Now what? You're going to slime a group of Four-Star Generals. (Its Dubai all over again: First we told that only the GOP will safeguard 'mericans, and then we're told "Arabs controlling the ports? What's not to like?")
Which brings me back to the headline. I'm not one of those guys who's always making all-or-nothing-definitive statements, but I will say that without a General or Colonel on the roster in '08, it's going to be an uphill fight. Put one of them on the ticket and coasting to November is a very real possibility.
Any of the names being floated are intriguing - Warner, Bayh, Clinton, Richardson, Feingold, Kerry, Edwards and Gore - I would go for any of them. But they're all governors and senators and while they know how to play the political game, many of them might still be seen as too wan to invoke the "Big Daddy" that too many idiot swing voters seem to need.
I'd like to see a moderate like Zinni run, but generals rarely have an appetite for the dog-and-pony show that modern day politics has become. Also they're lacking in the charm factor -- these guys kick ass in war exercises and the real thing. They're not likely to want to yuck it up with Jay or Jon on late night.
But if you have them on the ticket, the lead man becomes the face, the charisma, the politician, the baby kisser, and the officer becomes "big daddy", the "bad cop" or the enforcer, if you will. He'll be involved in many of the diplomatic situations, especially where Iraq is concerned. (After all, it'll be right on his --or her-- plate when Jan 20, 2009 rolls around)
I believe the Pubs are going to play the security card non stop in 2008, even though, as Robert Scheer tells us, that's like saying Michael Jackson should open a kindegarten facility. So it's time for a preemptive strike.
My personal choice at this early stage of the game? Mark Warner for the top of the ticket, and see him choose former chief of staff General Eric Shinseki who was an early critic of Rumsfeld while in uniform, while on the JCOS.
And also, wouldn't it be juicy if Anthony Zinni was brought on as Secretary of Defense?
I know most Kossacks do not have any overwhelming love for the military. And indeed there are caveats to having retired military personnel in public office. On the one hand you could get another Eisenhower. On the other, you could get McArthur, who, while brilliant in WWII, threatened to start WWIII with China
But I feel a general on the ticket makes perfect sense both politically and for governing in these times. We can't expect the Repubs to keep tripping over their own feet forever so we need to cut their legs out from under them on the security issue, posthaste.