When I wrote my Memorial Day diary letter, I wrote it so I wouldn't have to bother using gendered pronouns.

Women have been serving in combat roles and in support roles since we've had those roles. And before we had them, other countries had them. And before countries had them, tribes had them.

So it was only a matter of time before women were officially allowed increased function in the military. A matter of time before this country realized it could get women to serve in support roles and thus put more men on the front line. Only a matter of time before the leadership exercised in those support roles, where women came under fire and had the their fellow veterans' lives in their hands, was recognized.

So when I saw that June 11, 1970, was the date on which the first two American women officially became generals, that just told me I shouldn't look for any from any other day, because it wouldn't then be news. It would be "Oh, yes, she was promoted to general." Just like that.

And just like that, on June 11, 1970, Col. (Anna Mae) Hays became Gen. Hays, and Col. (Elizabeth P.) Hoisington became Gen. Hoisington.

It's good to see that famed war reporter Joe Galloway is hitting back at attempts to embroil him in the Pentagon's "media  generals" propaganda scandal.   Former Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita earlier this week mentioned, in a note to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com,  that Donald Rumsfeld didn't just deploy known backers of the Iraq war to all of the TV networks - he also called on critics such as Galloway.

Now Joe (who used to call DiRita a friend) has shot that one down, as I knew he would. In his usual colorful way, he has also labeled that spin promoted by the Pentagon pure "horse manure."

I've known Joe for a few years now, and he has written often for my Editor & Publisher site.  A true legend, he has covered seven wars going back to Vietnam,  won a Bronze Star for valor and co-wrote "We Were Soldiers Once and Young."  I chronicle his battles with DiRita and Rumsfeld in my new book--and he wrote the foreword for that book, where he hit the Rummy Pentagon once again.  

As noted in previous posts here, the shocking New York Times article last month by David Barstow exposing the Pentagon's use of retired military officers to carry their talking points on the Iraq war in the media has received relatively little follow-up--or response--from the news outlets involved, principally TV and cable networks.  One popular blogger who has kept the issue alive is Salon's Glenn Greenwald.

The Pentagon, earlier this week, released dozens of documents that Barstow forced out by his inquiries, including transcripts of some of the meetings with the "media generals" (who are further compromised by working for companies with defense contracts) and even some audio.   Greenwald, yesterday and today, has been going through some of it and offering some startling quotes about the collaboration.

There's a reason why witnesses called to testify in a court of law are required to pledge to

Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Things left out or embellishments stuck in pervert the truth and turn it into a lie.  We recently saw that happen with Hillary Clinton's sniper fire in Tuzla and it's also been apparent in the stories told by the twenty-two dirty pensioners--perjurers in the court of public opinion--who spread half-truths and snippets of mis-information about the invasion/occupation of Iraq to deceive the American people and enrich themselves.

And yesterday Secretary Robert Gates joined them.  Or maybe he just decided to do his own dirty work. Because the dirty pensioners were a Department of Defense operation.

Thanks for your interest yesterday in my early take on the bombshell New York Times probe of the "Media Generals"—how the Pentagon deployed, and TV networks happily used, a cabal of former military officers (with links to contractors, to boot) to sell the Iraq war.   Here’s my update for today, which I will add to over the next few hours.

First off, the networks still have not responded much to their complicity in all this, but the general line of defense is that "hey, everyone knew where the military guys were coming from, nothing to see here." This ignores, among others things,  that some of the Pentagon's puppets  say they were fed false information – and spewed it anyway;  and the inherent conflict in pushing a war tied to their own potential  profits.  But there’s much more, as will become apparent below.

This breaking article, Message Machine by David Barstow, is a must-read.

The substance of the story is a massive reveal of the Bush Administration's coordinated Pentagon campaign to use ostensibly "impartial and trusted" retired generals to push Pentagon talking points.

Tuesday could prove to be a historic day in this campaign....

Will our Democratic candidates in the Senate  call for withdrawal on a much sooner date than they have in the past?

With over 4000 dead soldiers, countless dead Iraqis, and the economy tanking, why not use this time to ratchet up the call for the end to this sad chapter and introduce legislation to make it happen?

Backbone up, Obama!  Courage, Clinton!  Now's our big chance?  Or not...

Petraeus to face all 3 presidential candidates

More below the fold...

I'm not sure if you've heard, but George Bush likes to listen to generals and admirals and guys with lots of ribbons and medals (until they retire).  They give him all kinds of super advice that he always listens to - even if he doesn't agree (Eric Shinseki got promoted, right?). In fact, he says this all the time to the press. Indeed, one of his favorite phrases in this regard refers to the "commanders on the ground."

He really, really likes them (especially since they're responsible for actually blowing things up, something he kind of missed out on in the early 1970s), so much so that he's publicly referred to their judgment at least 280 times in the last 5 years, according to LexisNexis.  Google gives me boatloads more results - 71,100, to be exact. Matt Yglesias wrote a succinct piece the other day on three of everyone's favorite Village Elders (the Awesome Triumvirate of McCain, Lieberman and Petraeus) where he rightly questions "The Cult of the Commander." But here's the problem - Bush is openly defying the leader of our armed forces at this very moment.

From my favorite soldier, the late Colonel David H. Hackworth, to the active soldiers in the 1960s who started the Vietnam anti-war movement on bases before civilians protested (DVD documentary, "Yes, Sir, No Sir!") to today’s volunteer soldiers who speak and act against the Iraq war, our nation has had soldiers who know and do what’s right, even if it hurts their military careers. Unfortunately, they are the minority.  

- Are other soldiers automatons who "just follow orders" or brown-nose in order to help their careers?  Are such soldiers good for America?

- Is a soldier who blindly believes everything he or she is told by superiors a loyal citizen?

Lost in the brou ha ha over the Moveon.org's ad criticizing a single misguided general's lies and distortions about Iraq, is the testimony of twenty U.S. Generals who didn't betray us, but demanded a diplomatic 'surge' and political solution to Iraq as well as bringing the troops home--not unlike Moveon.org's position.

Like Private Jessica Lynch, the now General David Petraeus has been yet another heavily- and quickly-promoted story of the Pentagon, looking desperately for heroism in failure. Petraeus has been a media darling from the first. Tom Clancy wrote about the training of Petraeus in his usual idiom of homosexual romance. He was written about in almost embarrassingly glowing terms after that.

The real heroism is easy to be find. When you walk through an airport and see young men and women serving us all, returning to a war they hate and see little point in out of comradeship and a desire to do their Constitutional duty honorably, that's heroism. Because there is nothing in it for them but a paycheck, bullets, schrapnel and honor. They are not going to be going on the lecture circuit at $25K an appearance.

The people who command these troops in an exercise they know cannot succeed have, repeatedly and cynically, failed their troops and the American people. General Petraeus is only one of the more-talented and more-skilled officers who has failed. General Petraeus has, as officers throughout history have done, traded ambition for duty.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.

5 Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower at American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953

A few of you who know me well may remember that I’ve been working on a project for the last year about Operation Anaconda.  Anaconda was the largest mission in the Afghanistan war to date and was the first incident in the "War on Terror" when U.S. troops were deployed to fight against a force with superior numbers and tactical superiority, in defiance of multiple U.S. military doctrines and both signals and human intelligence reports.  I take a strong interest in Operation Anaconda both because it foreshadows the failures that followed it, and because it is an event which flies so strongly in the face of what is known and provable about military theory and practice that I hope that by studying it, we might as a nation learn from the mistakes there and avoid repeating them in the future.  

So, perhaps you can imagine my outrage and despair when I read this post from military blogger Alex Horton, 22, of Frisco, Texas.

Are you as confused as I am as to who is running the war in Iraq?  Is it President Bush or is the Generals or is it the Congress?

Illustrating the deep divide between its editorial page and its reporting, the Wall Street Journal is running a terrific story today about the growing rift between younger and older Army officers concerning military strategy in Iraq.  Unfortunately, the story is behind a subscription wall, so I will try to summarize the article (consistent with fair use), with links to related materials that are cited in the article.  

"The CEO managers started taking over from the warrior leaders during the Korean War… The "slick and quick" replaced the warriors who knew how to win wars and inspire soldiers because they'd spent most of their careers down in the dirt learning their trade the hard, old- fashioned way. Instead, with the Perfumed Princes, connections and the right punches on the career ticket have become more important than troop leading skills and inspiring soldiers by example and tough love. "

--David H. Hackworth

General David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, recently noted that Baghdad is showing "astonishing signs of normalcy" even as American troops are killed in that city on a regular basis.  Petraeus staged the now infamous outdoor market shopping spree that featured Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and a hundred of their best heavily armed friends.  

In a recent publicity stunt, Petraeus put reporters in a helicopter and flew them over soccer games taking place in Baghdad neighborhoods.  I'm sorry: I can't help but think these sporting events were staged, that the U.S. military provided stadium security, and that the games concluded moments after the "fly by."

This is just breaking, MoveOn just sent me this:

"It hasn't hit the news wires yet, but retired Generals Robert Gard and John Johns are going public today with something big. They're calling on Congress to ban the use of torture, restore the right to trial and shut down the disastrous prison camp at Guantanamo Bay."

This is another big step for getting back our constitution and MoveOn is launching a petition to restore our liberties. Follow the generals, restore our liberties.

"As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war."

--Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling, United States Army

Part I of "Judging the Generals" generated an array of feedback, much of which spoke in defense of our senior-most military officers.  As I wrote previously, part of me wants to sympathize with the four-stars running the show.  They have a tough job.  They're involved in a war our military isn't designed to fight, they have been subject to the rule of very bad civilian leadership, and every new guy who steps up into a four-star billet inherits a nightmare that wasn't necessarily of his predecessor's making.  

But let's look at a few realities.  America, the sole superpower, spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined and yet is bogged down militarily in two third world potholes.  If our senior generals and admirals don't bear a large measure of culpability for that, who does?