First it was Wesley Clark. Then Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni. Now the New York Times reports on Paul Eaton, Gregory Newbold, John Batiste, John Riggs and Charles Swannack.
What do these former generals have in common?
Well, they are all criticizing the Bush administration and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
But what else do they have in common? Clinton's politicization of the military.
I've blogged about this issue before, citing Jed Babbin's American Spectator article.
PowerLine has an entry about this politicization citing Dafydd ab Hugh and Victor Davis Hanson.
But what isn't mentioned is the detectable pattern with Clinton, first with the judiciary, then with the military. Certainly, we have always had contrarian generals.
But Dafydd makes a point:
"These generals appear to be mostly from the Clinton era.
Why is that important? Because, while progression through the
rank of Colonel is more or less based upon military performance,
elevation to flag rank is by direct presidential appointment.
They are, in a sense, Clinton appointees."
So, if Dafydd and I are right or wrong about this Clintonian politicization of the military, it ought to be clear from documentary evidence such as who recommended each of these men to become a general and what assignments they received during the Clinton administration.
If you have any information on this, either to confirm or deny this line of reasoning, please post!