I don't know any of them. But I spent 27 years in the Navy and can well imagine the caliber of the men.
If not, I fail to see why you are defending them so unless you have a beef with Rumsfeld also.
Nope. Rumsfeld was SecDef when I was in ROTC.
For them to go public, but not care if Rumsfeld stays or not is something I can't buy.
They are men who earned the right to espress their opinions. They paid for that right with a lifetime of service to their country, usually some blood, and personal experience over in the sandbox. If they say that it's screwed up over there then they should know.
The article doesn't go into beefs that it's screwed up over there. There is the broken record common complaint that we should have had more troops in Iraq after we invaded, which is old news that doesn't need to be rehashed. Other than that, their resentment seems to be rooted in the fact that Rummy is a civilian and they are resistant to change. That's fine, but again I think the way they've publicly complained is selfish, harmful to the war effort and our President and I resent it. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
UCMJ, article 2, section (a): The following persons are subject to this chapter: subsection (4): Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
However, DoD directive 1352.1, outlines the ways retirees can be brought back into service and they cannot be brought back just to institute a court martial.
So they're only violating their own honor, not the letter of the law.
I heartily agree...but if you look at the details - that they are very, very few and rather than being a sampling, are selected for their opposition - and further recall that most of those complaining still dodge their having been clearly wrong (and misrepresent their previously stated positions)about the initial invasion being doable without several hundred thousand troops beyond what was used, their statements have a bit less credibility than they might.