Rummy And The Bets

I wouldn't bet on Donald Rumsfeld going anywhere anytime soon. Even still, the Washington Post calls for his head today in a strange sort of acknowledgement, yet dismissal of the six generals who have came to the public with their thoughts on Rumsfeld.

The next to last paragraph of the editorial contains three separate things I would like to address. First this From the Washington Post:

Much of their analysis strikes us as solid -- but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty.

This is just wrong. It is, in fact, the essence of the democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control. These retired generals are simply speaking what they see as the truth to the public, ie. the electorate. If anything, with this administration being so secretive, this strengthens the citizenry's control over the military because ultimately, an informed electorate can more effectively use the power of the ballot to decide what direction the military takes.

Military officers take an oath to the Constitution, and in that sense the people, not their superiors. If those superiors, who serve at the public's leisure are thought to be incompetent, we deserve expert opinion as to what to do about it.
Secondly, this from the Post:

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.

Think what you want about gays in the military, but I don't equate intolerance with incompetence in wartime. The stakes are too high here. One is a social issue, the other one gets Americans sent home in bags.

And lastly from the Post:

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?

Ask former general Eric Shinseki, this administration already chooses its commanders that way. That doesn't mean future, more competent, administrations will.

One further thing about this last section. If the Washington Post is worried about these generals being successful in forcing Rumsfeld out, why do they pile on him at thus time as well?