Retired officers have always expressed their opinions.
What is unprecedented is how many, and how strongly they are doing it.
But what exactly are those opinions? You say "blasted this administration" which makes it seem like they - all retried officers - are suddenly stepping forward to proclaim total and universal fault with all we've done. That's not at all the case! There are a few who claim their input wasn't considered or taken.
And there are many others, like Shinseki, who are reluctant to say so, but clearly believe it.
Shinseki must be a saint. He warned the administration that it was going to be a mistake, and got publicly ridiculed for it, by people who had resisted serving, and who had no idea what they were talking about. I'd be tempted to rub their noses in it, if I was him.
I'm not so sure they were all in the position to offer than critic.
It's clear that these guys are just the tip of the iceberg. It's more than just Rumsfeld's lack of tact. It's his lack of competence, and his failure to listen to people who know better than he does.
Barbarian observes:
Bush and Rumsfeld did that, not me. They were running the show. They botched the war, and now we're bleeding with no end in sight. There's no point in trying to blame me for what Bush did, or what all those generals have said.
Blame for what? There's nothing to blame anyone about except maybe those that take news like this and try to make something out of it that's it not. The war was the right thing to do and, all in all, it's gone well. The grumblings are worth considering because of whom they come from but they're not conclusive of any wrong doing and, in most cases, are very vague statements mostly expressing opinions that input wasn't solicited or accepted and that more troops should have been committed. No of that has been proved. In fact the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - a person who should definitely know the score - says the opposite is true.
He has to. He's still working for Bush. So he's recruited to give an endorsement. The war is killing about 60 good people a month, and has made us militarily, politically, and economically weaker. And we have one more country in which terrorists are free to operate.
What are we getting for all this?
Barbarian observes:
How many general officers retired and then blasted Clinton? How about Bush Sr. How about Reagan? That's perspective. Can you put it into perspective?
You've got a great deal of denial, but you must know that it's not realistic to deny what's so obvious.
There's nothing to deny! What you're proclaiming as fact is very very far from being "obvious"!
Show me. How many general officers blasted Clinton for his use of the military? Bush Sr.? Reagan?
Barbarian observes:
As you know, but for some reason attempted to hide, I've said we can't just quit now that we're in this mess.
I honestly never expected that sort of thing from you. I have to say I'm disappointed.
I'm sorry you're disappointed and I certainly don't mean to be offensive at a personal level to you or anyone else but, for some of this, there's just no way to get around tough words.
So why the "quitter" accusation, when you knew it wasn't true?
You have said that we should "finish" the war but I'm not sure how you want to accomplish that.
I don't know. I'm praying that someone does. These disasters are easier to start than to get out of.
I think a lot of people have developed a "quitter's" attitude about the war.
Including a lot of the troops. And it bothers me. A lot. Rumsfeld and Bush lying to them didn't help matters. The last time the troops lost faith in a war, it was the only one we ever lost.
I think this latest news is all part of that agenda and, right or wrong, I think you've bought into it.
Even when I've expressly said the opposite. This is why I'm disappointed.