Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
There was a time for these retired generals to speak up. And this isn't it.
Melvin Laird and Robert E. Pursley have an editorial in today's Washington Post arguing that these generals who are criticizing Rumsfeld now had the opportunity to do so while in the service. That is what our system of civilian control of the military depends on. But they are creating an extremely dangerous precedent by criticizing after they retire.The retired officers who have criticized Rumsfeld have served their country with distinction. The military -- active duty and retired -- has a wealth of intelligent, articulate and motivated people. Their sense of duty, integrity and patriotism are of the highest order. But each of them speaks from his own copse of trees and may not have a view of the larger forest. In criticizing those with the broader view, they should be mindful of the risks and responsibilities inherent in their acts. The average U.S. citizen has high respect for the U.S. military. That respect is a valuable national security asset. Criticism, when carried too far, risks eroding it.Read the rest.
We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. But care must be taken by those experienced officers who had their chance to speak up while on active duty. In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.
The Washington Post, while very critical of Rumsfeld and wishing that he'd been replaced years ago, still recognizes the precedent that has been created here.Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime. If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?
0 comments
Comments:
Melvin Laird and Robert E. Pursley have an editorial in today's Washington Post arguing that these generals who are criticizing Rumsfeld now had the opportunity to do so while in the service. That is what our system of civilian control of the military depends on. But they are creating an extremely dangerous precedent by criticizing after they retire.
The Washington Post, while very critical of Rumsfeld and wishing that he'd been replaced years ago, still recognizes the precedent that has been created here.
0 comments
Melvin Laird and Robert E. Pursley have an editorial in today's Washington Post arguing that these generals who are criticizing Rumsfeld now had the opportunity to do so while in the service. That is what our system of civilian control of the military depends on. But they are creating an extremely dangerous precedent by criticizing after they retire.
The retired officers who have criticized Rumsfeld have served their country with distinction. The military -- active duty and retired -- has a wealth of intelligent, articulate and motivated people. Their sense of duty, integrity and patriotism are of the highest order. But each of them speaks from his own copse of trees and may not have a view of the larger forest. In criticizing those with the broader view, they should be mindful of the risks and responsibilities inherent in their acts. The average U.S. citizen has high respect for the U.S. military. That respect is a valuable national security asset. Criticism, when carried too far, risks eroding it.Read the rest.
We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. But care must be taken by those experienced officers who had their chance to speak up while on active duty. In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.
The Washington Post, while very critical of Rumsfeld and wishing that he'd been replaced years ago, still recognizes the precedent that has been created here.
Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime. If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?
Comments:
Post a Comment
