There are lots of things to be gained besides political office: positions on boards, speaking engagements, book contracts, and the ability to shoot arrows at officers whom you dislike.
I am not saying that any of these is his motive. He may, in fact, be sincere about his criticism. That does not make him correct, however.
Are you sure a democrat nominee hasn't offered him SoD?
LOL! The only qualification of his you like is he disagrees with the President.
I don't believe the above is what people are arguing with you about. Look towards the top of the thread . . . where you show you're not "open-minded" and are only willing to listen to opinions when they coincide with yours . . . when you claimed the Administration is spinning things.
You can't call one side of a debating team "spinners" or liars, then claim to be righteous and open-minded. Hence, FReepers are taking you to task.
By the way, I actually considered Zinni's opinions for a nano-second or two . . . until I remembered how well he'd done in the Middle East.
Good Generals are, thank God, damned reluctant to go to war. They know better than most about all the horrors entailed. But they're looking through military tunnel-vision and are as comfortable outside their regimented worlds as Pee Wee Herman is in St. Catherine's Nunnery.
When you need brain surgery, I suggest you not hand the scalpel to a dentist.
Some wars are necessary. I give you mass graves, torture chambers, a terrified populace, a dominated region, 9-11, WMD's that either still exist or did exist at one time, gazillions of oil-dollars in the hands of an anti-Semitic madman, and a world full of terrorists who thought they could murder innocent Americans with impunity as proof of that necessity.