Posted on 04/29/2006 12:35:18 PM PDT by No Longer Free State
Only in public. There is a chain of comand which can be used to far better and immediate effect than a reporter's mic. That is sound military policy. It helps keep the military focused on military matters rather than debates on ideology and philosophy.
"If we also say it is innapropriate for retired military then we have eliminated everyone with any military experience from criticizing military policy."
No we haven't. What we ARE saying is that they had the chance to criticize military policy especially since they were helping to make it, and several set it. They didn't when they should have. It's inapproproate and counterproductive for them to whine about their mistakes and perceived slights now.
It's our right under the same amendment to express this opinion. They opened the debate with statements others feel are inappropriate and very counterproductive to the military in which they spent their careers. We're the other side of that debate. A debate doesn't last long when it's completely one-sided.
That is what burns the butts of some of these retired generals, is that they were passed over for chief of staff and higher positions and a retired general is brought back to be chief of staff.
No five-star generals?
"More than just having first ammendment protection, here is my concern. People currently in the military can't criticize military policy. If we also say it is innapropriate for retired military then we have eliminated everyone with any military experience from criticizing military policy.."
Can you show a link to where the generals are criticizing military policy? Everything I have read, they are criticizing Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration's policy.
"I'm in this debate because some of the reactions to these generals have troubled me. It's already (correctly) difficult for military people to criticize civilian leadership. This is good - we want to to continue to live in a Republic, and to have strategic military decisions made by civilians.
But it is critical that the people with operational military experience have some means to speak out. They have to end their careers to do it but once they are retired I'd like to see their arguments rebutted on the merits or have their suspect motives pointed out rather than saying that retired Generals shouldn't criticize the secretary of defense and/or his decisions."
I see what you are saying. I agree that I would like to see more of the counter arguements, rather than that the generals can not speak out.
I do think these generals are speaking out more for politics than any true conscience. To me it seems they are complaining about the old boss (before they retired). I don't see any reason to give credence to that. That is a matter that does not change anything in my mind.
>>I do think these generals are speaking out more for politics than any true conscience. To me it seems they are complaining about the old boss (before they retired). I don't see any reason to give credence to that. That is a matter that does not change anything in my mind.<<
The way they went about practically guarenteed Rumsfelt would not be fired which is why I think this about the election cycle.
Did you think your CO was lying to you about the certificate? After all he is your friend and he said it wouldn't be presented.
But they also have a duty-bound responsibility that comes with the honor of the position they held to exercise their freedom of speech in a manner of integrity and honor. That is where the 8 generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation have overstepped the limits of honor. They dishonor themselves and their title of General with their childish tantrums.
There are consequences, and one consequence of these retired generals PUBLICLY rather than privately airing their concerns is that it undermines the confidence and morale of the military in its leadership and another is that it emboldens our terrorist enemies (as if they needed any further emboldening).
These generals have the right to speak freely, but that doesn't make the way they went about it right. Just like I have every right to fart loudly in an elegant and expensive restaurant, but that doesn't mean that I will choose to do so.
"There are consequences, and one consequence of these retired generals PUBLICLY rather than privately airing their concerns is that it undermines the confidence and morale of the military in its leadership and another is that it emboldens our terrorist enemies (as if they needed any further emboldening)."
First of all, I agree that there are consequences to what people say, both privately and publicly, and publicly is worse.
Second, I am not convinced that what these generals are saying is harming military moral. It is a very small number, with a whole lot more saying nothing or contradicting these generals.
Third, our enemies are emboldened at everything, anything and nothing. I don't think we can entirely stop that and still live in a society with free speech.
You are correct that these generals do not need to say this at this time.
Let me ask a question....Is the problem that these few generals are speaking out, or that the opposing views are not being played in the media to near the extent of these few generals.
I have heard story after story about what these few have said, I have had to come here to hear the opposing views. I have more a problem with the media's bias than what these generals are saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.