A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Once upon a time, when generals spoke out against the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, they were lauded by all and sundry as great and noble figures with the courage and the military experience to speak truth to power--or tyranny, if you prefer.

Now, General David Petraeus has come to the United States, said that the surge can work and is working, and he gets this:

Howard Zinn, a leftist scholar, said debate about Petraeus's role is not surprising: "When I listen to Petraeus, I hear the generals of Vietnam assuring us that they are winning. Generals are not independent thinkers. They serve the political goals of the administration. We can't expect independent, honest assessments of the situation."

Most of the article is like that, quoting the Zinns of the world with very few counterquotes backing Petraeus. Generals and admirals will surely take note and realize that their military expertise, greatness and nobility will only be lauded as long as they hew to a party line preferred by the bien pensant community. If they stray from that party line, woe unto them. Their names, their learning, their reputations and their experience will be trashed beyond all recognition.

This is "supporting the troops." This is "caring about the military." I wonder then what it means not to care.