I remember hearing one officer, "retired" by Rumsfeld complaining bitterly that he always did what Rumsfeld told him to do and got set aside. The folks that got ahead were always arguing with Rumsfeld. It seemed unfair to him. Lemme guess. Could it be that Rumsfeld doesn't like suckups and doesn't like generals who cannot hold their own in an argument over the best way to conduct an operation where the lives and honor of America's finest men and women are at stake?
Rumsfeld is correct to demand the best arguements against US military policy. A commissioned officer is required and ordered to voice doubts, strategic apprehension and planning problems with what is in front of him.
A very telling anecdote.
Every day I thank God for people willing to put their personal popularity on the line to make decisions that they believe are best for the country.
That is too rare a commodity these days, but it seems to me that the Bush administration has more of these types than average.
The Clinton's corrupted everything they touched. I had hoped the Military had resisted their taint. Seem 6 of the Generals did not.