General discontent...

Currently, there are about 4,700 living members of the retired General Officer corps, most of whom left active duty between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Last week, .13 (that's point one three) percent (or 13 ten-thousandths) of them decided to help write the Democrats' '06 midterm-election playbook. Six retired officers (seven if we're to include former Demo presidential hopeful Wesley Clark) issued public indictments of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's (read: the Bush administration's) conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

It is worth noting, because the Leftmedia hasn't, that the six complainants are all alumni of Clinton's Pentagon Cabal. Nor has the Leftmedia mentioned the support Secretary Rumsfeld has received from more consequential retired generals such as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers or former OEF and OIF commander Tommy Franks.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with criticism of an American president and his administration; as readers of this column well know The Patriot has written extensively about President Bush's domestic policy failures. But the disingenuous, politically-motivated accusations by Democrat Party leaders like Kennedy, Reid, Durbin, Kerry, Pelosi and their ilk are something else entirely. As we have noted before, their use of the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for partisan political gain is nothing short of—and we don't toss this term out lightly—treason.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with former military officers declaring their intent to run for public office or their support for a political party. At least retired Marine colonel, Rep. John Murtha, had the integrity to do that. But the six officers in question have made no such declaration—insisting that their attack on the Bush administration is non-partisan. In this respect, they are either duplicitous or dupes—and one should fairly conclude that they are not the latter.

When retired general officers are recruited by Demo Party leaders to join in a chorus of dissention in time of war, the consequences are the same: Deadly. Their actions embolden our enemy and endanger our troops on the ground.

Military officers recognize that unity of command is cardinal to the maintenance of effective war-fighting capability. As General George Patton said, "I am a soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." However, that doesn't mean our military leaders need always agree on strategy and tactics. Genuine disagreement and debate are essential at all levels and in proper forums if we are to one day achieve victory in the Long War against Jihadi terror. Of such debate, Dwight Eisenhower noted, "The world moves, and ideas that were good once are not always good." Or, in Patton's parlance, "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

Indeed, it is clear that Secretary Rumsfeld has made mistakes—given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. "There are things that in retrospect I wish had gone differently," he concedes, "but no war plan remains intact after first contact with the enemy. Our combatant commanders fashioned a darn good war plan and we had plenty of plans for the post major combat operations. As things evolved, those plans were revised."

It is not the civilian defense secretary's job to win uniform popularity among his subordinate generals. In fact, there is something to be said for the value of tension between the civilian constitutional officer overseeing national defense and military commanders. But when such disagreements depart appropriate military forums and become political fodder, especially in time of war, the consequences for military unity and constitutional authority are threatened.