I am not certain whether the comments made in the article apply to the argument made by Yingling. Whether officers ought to have a special voice in policy making (from the standpoint of them speaking as citizens) is not the same as what they have to say regarding the standards and policies governing generalship in this country.

For example, it is very much the purview of an officer to question the practice of ignoring peer and subordinate review in such matters as promotion and command screening. That is, the policies created to govern the institution are matters for which they do have a particular and special voice.

When those policies, furthermore, influence foreign policy decisionmaking, then there is a need for officers to speak up, because they are the only ones who understand the implications of such things. Your average civilian Schmuckatelli doesn't spend much time paying attention to the big picture -- you can be certain that they don't understand much about such intricacies as what goes into such issues as officer promotion generally, and general selection specifically.

At the end of the day, Yingling's article was about a subject of professional concern, and therefore one about which he is qualified and entitled to comment.

JSR