Only in your imagination; all I originally observed is that you claimed Macgregor's opinions are rooted in bitterness, per your quote here: "He is bitter towards his own country because he thinks he got short shrift because he was not promoted to Brigadier General. He is a spiteful, vindictive little man."
I asked for evidence that his opinions about Russia-Ukraine are rooted in being bitter over not getting promoted, which you've yet to actually substantiate in any meaningful sense. Even when you cite an ostensible feud between Macgregor and H.R. McMaster, the 2015 article I cited shows that there were people within the Pentagon saying his criticisms were, at the very least, not unfounded (“Doug Macgregor is a pain in the ass,” retired Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt notes, “but that doesn’t make him wrong. Serious people take him seriously.”); with even McMaster himself stating on the record that rumors of a feud with Macgregor are exaggerated.
With that being said: it's quite possible that his mentality and temper were reasons he didn't get promoted; I don't know for certain.
That still doesn't substantiate your claim that his opinions about Russia-Ukraine are due to his bitterness over not getting promoted, much less that he's vindictive or spiteful against his own country.
And after the sterling results we've "achieved" in the past 20 years with Afghanistan and Iraq, much less the extent of the current infiltration of wokeness in the ranks, I don't think it's spiting America to say that getting involved in an armed conflict with a peer competitor is a poor decision.
And, did you forget that Macgregor was the insufferable Wesley Clark’s go-to guy for the Balkans campaign? Did you forget that Macgregor drew up the game plan for it? How did that work out?
Irrelevant to my original question, but thanks for asking.
“Only in your imagination; all I originally observed is that you claimed Macgregor’s opinions are rooted in bitterness, per your quote here: ‘He is bitter towards his own country because he thinks he got short shrift because he was not promoted to Brigadier General. He is a spiteful, vindictive little man.’”
Hey, his contemporaries have said that he is petty and vindictive, and a hot head. He was passed up for promotion three times, which basically ended his military career.
He has not said anything positive about the US military since he retired in 2004. And, what was going on in 2004? The GWOT. And the War with Iraq. He was hardly complimentary about the US military at that time, or since.
And, who is one of the biggest publishers of his positions?
Russian news outlets. They love him. Think about that: Just as Nazi Germany trotted out Charles Lindbergh in the 1930s as a “voice of reason” who demanded US neutrality vis-a-vis Europe (and he was awarded a medal by Nazi Germany for his position), so Russia trots out Douglas Macgregor.
Anyway, since you cited a Wikipedia article, perhaps you should have posted the entire article, instead of just a snippet. Here is the whole thing:
He even wanted to get rid of the Marine Corps:
Are you one of those who think Macgregor got a raw deal in not getting promoted? I don’t. Hell, his very involvement in the planning of the Balkans debacle should have ended his career all by itself.
“Only in your imagination; all I originally observed is that you claimed Macgregor’s opinions are rooted in bitterness, per your quote here: ‘He is bitter towards his own country because he thinks he got short shrift because he was not promoted to Brigadier General. He is a spiteful, vindictive little man.’”
Nice try, kid. My exact comment was: “He’s been very pro-Russia and overly critical of the US and NATO since he retired.” All that is true. “He is a regular contributor to RT (Russian TV network), as is the discredited Scott Ritter...” Again, all true. “...(both of whom are very, very bitter men who hold a grudge against their own country).” Again, true. “The guy has been wrong since Day One about most everything regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War.” Once again, true.
You are assuming that I made a direct nexus between his pro-Russia positions (A) and his being bitter about being passed up for promotion (B); and that that nexus results in why he has taken the positions he has (C). I never said there was such a direct nexus, let alone that they resulted in C; you assumed that. But it could very well be true; or not. But the fact is that A is true, and so is B; but I never said that A + B directly results in C. But it could explain it. Call it circumstantial, or indirect evidence.
You see, kid; you assumed facts not in evidence, jumped to conclusions, and rushed to judgment. Learn how to argue, kid.