Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Vicomte13
Most flag officers promoted during the Clinton years is an incompetent suck-up? Is that the way we should look at them all, including the ones still in the forces? I don't like the inference. The President doesn't really pick generals.

Competence is generally (no pun intended) assumed in Flag Officers, excellence is another matter. Some senior military officers have genuine partisan political loyalties, often based on family history. Others (e.g. Wesley Clark) are simply opportunists (in their military and post-retirement endeavors), who will conform to the prevailing winds to get ahead. Many, in the best tradition of Cincinnatus and William T. Sherman, avoid politics in and out of uniform. To say that there weren't more than a few flag officers who didn't "conform" to get themselves noticed during the Clinton years is a bit naive or disingenuous.

23 posted on 05/25/2006 2:09:03 PM PDT by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: pawdoggie

"To say that there weren't more than a few flag officers who didn't "conform" to get themselves noticed during the Clinton years is a bit naive or disingenuous."

Well, sure.
Generals are military politicians, when you get right down to it.
Still, I didn't like the inference that BECAUSE these generals became generals during the Clinton Administration, that they were therefore incompetent pantywaists. I think that's not true.

They may have been quite competent generals, even, some of them anyway. But they're partisan hacks now that they're ex-generals.


25 posted on 05/25/2006 2:11:48 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson