Another general against the war

It's the elephant in the room. Some of the most passionate critics of the Iraq war are those who are prosecuting it on the nation's behalf. They hold the least hypocritical, most defensible position, really. Some of us on the left preach from our pedestals while offering few alternatives. Some on the right refuse to see any flaw in what's left of the plan, blinded to the carnage by the light of their zeal. But the generals are doing what they have been asked to do with the tools given to them by the civilians in charge. That's the constitutional imperative at work.

That's also why Condy's recent statements that the war was strategically correct but tactically wrong, were so offensive to the tacticians.

In this week's Time, Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold becomes the third general after Zinni and Eaton to call for Rumsfeld's retirement:

I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship. To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

In his most brutal assessment, he convicts the entire roster of technocratic chicken hawks that dreamed up this fiasco:

My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.

That's well said.