Rob at LGM links to an article by one Lt. Colonel Paul Yingling, saying "It's surprising and impressive to see an LTC aim the guns at his superiors." Writing in the WaPo, Thomas E.Ricks links to the same article, and comments "An active-duty Army officer is publishing a blistering attack on U.S. generals, saying they have botched the war in Iraq and misled Congress about the situation there."
It's too bad that neither Rob nor Ricks can be trusted to discuss the Yingling article accurately. Rob is another one of those LGM posters whose first name begins with a consonant. Sigh. And Thomas E. Ricks? It's the Washington Post, and they all hate the preznit over there, so they can't be trusted.
No, to really appreciate Yingling's article we must venture into the comments over at Red State, where we can trust that it will be interpreted sensibly.
And they don't disappoint! In a post about how Jack Murtha needs to resign because he called all American soldiers "liars" in a quote that actually says that if you squint a lot, a Horrible Troll (probably Murtha himself using a sockpuppet!) cites Ricks' piece. The always stable Moe then jumps in to tell us what Yingling was really saying in the article:
I've read it and you haven't:
"The general staff consists of idiots who are fighting the last war instead of this one, and we need to boot them all out. Oh, yeah, Congress should pay more attention to what the Hell's going on."
It was not:
"There was a time when I had confidence in the military, but these guys have lied to us so much. They’re so intimidated by the White House."
Don't ever use an article to bolster your argument that you haven't read first. Do you understand, or do I need to use smaller words? Answer in your next post, unless you'd like it to be your last one.
Feel the lash! It's especially useful to have Moe around to clear things up, because otherwise we'd be in danger of misunderstanding the meaning of the following bits from Yingling's essay:
While the physical courage of America's generals is not in doubt, there is less certainty regarding their moral courage. In almost surreal language, professional military men blame their recent lack of candor on the intimidating management style of their civilian masters....
For more than three years, America's generals continued to insist that the U.S. was making progress in Iraq. However, for Iraqi civilians, each year from 2003 onward was more deadly than the one preceding it. For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq....
Neither the executive branch nor the services themselves are likely to remedy the shortcomings in America's general officer corps. Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem.
Nope, nothing in there about executive branch failures. Don't you dare pretend there is, either, or you'll be BANNED FROM RED STATE! And who would ever want to endure being excluded from the company of such delightful drooling maniacs? Hmmmm?