The following is taken from a reader response to a post over at Sullivan's. The post in question concerned a "scathing" combat journal that detailed various failures of leadership in Iraq. The bold is mine
The Daily Dish: "The debate is whether or not it is proper for a sitting general officer - whether or not he is charged with the responsiblity - to speak out when he is ordered to execute plans he knows full well may be either poorly planned, under-manned, poorly equipped, or dangerously over-reaching. The argument among many in the civilian leadership - both in and outside of the Pentagon - is that they should remain quiet, salute smartly, and simply execute the orders they are given ... and that to do otherwise is to be disloyal, to be laying the groundwork for a military coup. Others though, believe that they are indeed charged with presenting their long-studied, long-prepared-for alternative points of view. Points of view which are based upon an adult lifetime of measured responses and reason."
Colin Powell had absolutely no problem undermining Bill Clinton. I recall him approaching Congress to keep Clinton from equalizing rights for gay servicemen. Apparently, there are different standards when Democrats are president. Regardless, the thesis that our generals, with a few exceptions, failed us and our country by allowing Commander Codpiece to strut into war is correct.