April 15th, 2006
| | No, actually, I'm not. I'm active duty, I'm quite aware of the UCMJ and the military culture and the consequences that often come from standing up and staying something is wrong. I'm also of the firm belief that my men come before my career. I can count on ONE hand the number of GOs that practice this same belief. In OCS/OTS up and coming officers are taught to fight bad leadership interally, and if nothing can come of it, resign in protest. You may support their moral cowardace, to stand by and allow bad decisions to put men's lives at risk. I will NOT make excuses for it. It's funny how they've just NOW found the courage to take a stand and go public. They could have resigned in protest awhile ago and done the same thing. Also, you can't preach to me about Iraq, you don't have to tell me about the decisions that have been made and how they impact the guys on the ground, I've experienced them first hand, a few times. This isn't about who's right or who's wrong, in fact, had you read my post you would see that I said I do not necessarily disagree with their opinions, but on the same coin, I will not call these men admirable for what they're doing simply because it reflects on what they didn't do when they should have. Amazing how these strong convictions weren't worth their careers. You want to make it about politics but it isn't, it's about leaders that put themselves before their men.
Originally Posted by Chief Bones
Are you out of your cottin pickin mind?
If, a Commanding General were to speak out while he was on active duty, and criticize those appointed over him (or) those who planned (or) implemented an operation, he could kiss his career goodbye almost immediately. If he criticized the President, he could pack his bags that very same day, and start looking for a job in the civilian sector that very same day.
Convictions or lack of convictions have nothing to do with speaking out while in an active status ... the Uniform Code of Military Justice has so many 'general' articles that can be thrown at a person that runs his mouth, that it's a wonder that they even talk after 'retiring'. It is understandable why they are NOT forthcoming while still actively serving.
A vindictive President (or) Secretary of Defense (could), very well put into motion various agencies that could cause a mouthy general officer a slew of problems. It could be as simple as forcing retirement at a lower pay-grade, up to and including, the arrest and prosecution of an officer for disclosure of classified information.
Any person that believes that there are no active duty personnel in Iraq that are upset or disturbed by the incompetence of Rumsfeld is NOT from planet Earth ... they are living in a military (or) civilian world that never was, where you can speak your mind and never have the roof fall on you because you stepped on the wrong persons foot (or) said the wrong thing
I believe that if every active duty General Officer (or) line officer who has the same opinion of Rumsfeld as the ex-generals were to all speak out, the newspapers would run out of paper printing their names and their critical statements about Rummy.
Ut ceteri vivant.
Last edited by PJ24; April 15th, 2006 at 00:03..