Originally Posted by Ted

But didn't one of the generals, Gregory Newbold, resign due to this, thus ending his career.

LTG Newbold retired, he didn't resign.

Originally Posted by PJ24

LTG Newbold retired, he didn't resign.

Did he? It said specifically in our newspaper that he did resign and they went on to emphasize this against the others. Funny, I didn't think a quality newspaper (which is usually not far from the money) would miss such an important detail.
Could it be he resigned and therefor slid into retirement? Or was he due to retire anyway, because then the gesture of quitting is much easier.

Originally Posted by Ted

Did he? It said specifically in our newspaper that he did resign and they went on to emphasize this against the others. Funny, I didn't think a quality newspaper (which is usually not far from the money) would miss such an important detail.
Could it be he resigned and therefor slid into retirement? Or was he due to retire anyway, because then the gesture of quitting is much easier.

Nope, he retired. It was no secret that he and the SECDEF butted heads, though and that that is probably the reason he did. Out of the group, he would be the better one to listen to except when he retired he remained quiet about his objections, now all of a sudden he wants to be vocal.

Remember though, my objections to these men aren't about their opinions, but how they're voicing them and the actions they didn't take.

The real irony to all of this, and those of you with military service will know this one, is that these GOs are complaining about the very thing they, themselves have done to THEIR men. Ever see what happens when a Jr. guy trys to tell a GO he was not descended from Zeus? It's ugly. How many OIF guys on here didn't feel like they were being micromanaged by the conventional, can't think outside of the box heavy collars? I know we sure did, e v e r y s i n g l e d a y.

I have said before that I have not been deployed yet. Even in the rear it is the same. I personally am not micromanaged, but I can see it when words comes down from the top about what we are to do. . . exactly.

It is irritating and frustrating to say the least when you know what needs to be done but are prevented from doing it because you are told to do it in a certain way. By the time you get to actually doing what needed to be done in the first place, the opportunity to fix the problem is gone. Now you have the results of the problem to deal with, and have to deal with the people wondering why you let it get that way in the first place.

Micromanaging can be good in very few cases. Otherwise it is best to send down the directives and let those in the trench do what needs to be done in the manner they deem best. . . within the law of course lol.

Send him a PM...

Originally Posted by PJ24

LTG Newbold retired, he didn't resign.

I may be wrong, but wouldn't he lose his pension if he resigned his commission?

I got fascinated with General Zinni after reading Tom clancys book about him. I have great respect for the man and kinda hope he'll take rummys job one day. This adminstration or some other one doesnt matter.

Originally Posted by Missileer

I may be wrong, but wouldn't he lose his pension if he resigned his commission?

He might lose more than his pension if he spoke out of turn ... he could be cashiered completely with no pension with a BCD. They might not even accept his resignation ... the more normal procedure would result in him being reduced by at least two grades and put out on a reduced pension instead of allowing a "personal resignation". There would also be a 'for cause' charge waiting in the wings IF he stepped over the line after being told that the information he was about to reveal to the public was classified. That includes disclosure after separation.

If you don't think this happens ... think again ... I have seen it in two cases (Vietnam and Granada) ... nuff said.

I don't like getting into these f*ups.

Originally Posted by Missileer

I may be wrong, but wouldn't he lose his pension if he resigned his commission?

Not necessarily, he would have had to cause a huge stink internally (by going the external route) while still in the military to piss someone off to that level. That's why the next step, when you can do no more internally, is to resign in protest.

Originally Posted by Rabs

I got fascinated with General Zinni after reading Tom clancys book about him. I have great respect for the man and kinda hope he'll take rummys job one day. This adminstration or some other one doesnt matter.

I've always been indifferent towards Zinni, but had respect for him. Though I've never agreed with his policy on the Middle East.

He shouldn't be in the position of the SECDEF, he's shown that he isn't willing to lay it all on the line for what he believes is right. Regardless of anyones feelings on Rumsfeld, he has at least, not kept his mouth closed on what he believes is the right way of doing things in order to garner favor and keep out of trouble. In fact, there have been times when he probably should have been quiet and he wasn't.

Its been a while since I've been here - so hi to all.

I can't get over how much the dialogue has changed since I was last here just six months ago. Back then, there was a general consensus from the group, with far fewer dissents, that people shouldn't criticize how or why the war was being handled in Iraq as it didn't help the troops and was a time for unity. This came up time and time again.

Now, some of the same people criticize the retired generals for not speaking out at the time. And because they didn't speak out - dismiss them entirely. Just a thought but is it not possible that these 'soldiers', out of a sense of duty and obligation to their troops, did not speak out publicly in the media?

My other question is, how many generals does it take before we believe them - or do we prefer to keep trusting the word of elected politicans?

Just a thought......