[bradclark1]

First let me make something clear. I don't know if the generals are right or wrong in their thinking. I was/am backing them in that if they think something is wrong and they felt strongly enough about it and they had the courage to speak up.........

Rumsfeld's crusade to "transform" a Cold War-era military into a fast and lean fighting force has met tremendous resistance within the Pentagon.

This stuff going on in the middle east proved that this thinking was a mistake.
This could be a thread all of it's own.

was the necessary overriding of a hidebound bureaucracy by an innovating civilian on a mission.

This shows who's camp this guy is in.

In his most recent broadside, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste accuses the administration of "radically alter[ing] the results of 12 years of deliberate and continuous war planning" on Iraq. Well, the Bush administration threw out years and years and layer upon layer of war planning on Afghanistan, improvised one of the leanest possible attack plans and achieved one of the more remarkable military victories in recent history. There's nothing sacred about on-the-shelf war plans.

War plans are made for a reason. If "A" happens we go by this plan.
If "B" happens we go by this plan. Everything is planned and trained to support these missions. Seeing as I don't know what plan "A" was it's impossible to make a comparison.
If I was a betting man I would say that plan "A" had us reacting with a much larger force. The Army Chief of Staff that Rumsfeld fired was probably fired over this.

There's nothing sacred about on-the-shelf war plans.

No there is nothing sacred about them but a lot research and planning went into them. No plan is lock step but it serves as a template.

Well, the Bush administration threw out years and years and layer upon layer of war planning on Afghanistan, improvised one of the leanest possible attack plans and achieved one of the more remarkable military victories in recent history. There's nothing sacred about on-the-shelf war plans.

Their was nothing remarkable about this action. A well organized modern fighting force went against a disorganized rabble. If I follow the news right the real battle is just going to begin now and I guess the UK forces are going to bear the brunt of it in the beginning.

Some of the complainers were on active duty when these decisions were made. If they felt so strongly about Rumsfeld's disregard of their advice, why didn't they resign at the time?

You will not find an American leader alive who would abandon their command in time of need. This shows how ignorant of miliary life this writer is.

Why did they wait to do so from the safety of retirement, with their pensions secured?

Again, Ignorant of military life. I covered this earlier in this thread. Their pensions were secure anyway. You retire at the highest rank held. So even if they were busted they would have gotten the same retirement anyway.

That kind of dissident party within the military is alien to America.

No it isn't. It is always there but in this case it's in the open.

It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent. Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling said chicken little.

This writer is unqualified to even write this kind of article.