We support the troops when they support OUR politicians

This attack is a foul piece of work. It is one thing to disagree with Lt. Gen Greg Newbold. It is another to label him a quitter, a loser, and a disgrace because he disagrees with George Bush.

This example is marvelous:

Not every Lt. General gets paid to think about Geo-politics, the broader GWOT, or why Iraq needed to be confronted and why in the end, it will prove smart. No, that is actually often above even a Lt. General's pay grade, Mr. Newbold. The way our government works, those are ultimately civilian decisions, Mr. Newbold, do you by chance wish it wasn't so?

Marine generals are supposed to shut up, but I guess it is OK for bloggers to opine. Even bloggers who built their traffic by flogging the Natalie Holloway story.

Contrary to the impression Riehl creates, Newbold does not propose quitting in Iraq.

And while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view--at the moment--is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts.

Moreover, Newbold also raises some points that hawks need to answer.

Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post.

Question: Since Shinseki was clearly right and the DSD was wrong, why was Wolfie rewarded with that plumb job at the World Bank? Does this administration prize loyalty more than competence?

Question: Rummy and his aides were successful in squelching the doubters in the pre-war debates. Is that happening now?

Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability.

Question: Do warbloggers care about this? If it is true, it makes a mockery of the idea that the Bush Administration is giving the troops all the support they need. That seems like an important issue Newbold raised. Something bloggers might want to investigate. But I guess it is just easier to write another post bashing Cindy Sheehan.

Sometimes I understand Matt Welch's frustration.