Letters to the Editor
-
"Honorable Generals"? Hah!
Is anyone else going nuts over Bush's ability to make political stooges and lap dogs out of previously honorable American Generals? The Armed Services are broken and the Generals are partisan whores. Only in Bush's America...
-- El Duende
They never were honorable in the first place, for the most part. Sure, there's the (very)rare exception, but the truth is that 90% of the officers above the rank of O-3 (lieutenant for the Navy, captain for the other services) are either incompetent, self serving, corrupt, or a combination there-of. Above O-4, it's 99%, and so on.
The higher ranks are chosen by how well they contort their spine and fluff the egos of their superiors, and how willing they are to shaft those below them on a whim. Those with honor and integrity get passed over, and eventually are either forced out or quit to get properly rewarded in the civilian world.
Anyone making Admiral/General these days has long ago sold their soul for bits of sparkling brass and shiny ribbons for their hollow chests.
General Pace is the worst of the lot, a man without honor or integrity. He consciously took a job that required supporting sending thousands of servicemen and woman to their deaths in order to appease the ego and pocketbooks of Bush and his neo-con cronies. I don't demand that he (or any other high ranking officer) denounce the war, or refuse an order. It'd be nice, mind you, but not realistic. All he had to do to show a shred of decency and integrity was to refuse the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff(as it is rumored others had already done).
But hey, who can refuse a nice Pentagon office {far away from any actual danger), frequent fellatio of your ego (if not other things)from all around you, and a huge paycheck (greatly in excess of $250,000 a year)? Someone with integrity, a conscience and a spine, that's who. Which leaves out most officers in general, and Pace in particular.