Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
I'm thinking the top-ranking officer is making a mountain out of a molehill. Good on him, I guess
I think this is because in the campaign as a whole, and in recent weeks, you've seen a lot of competition between the candidates for the national-security credential of having that wonderfully vague generalisation "the generals" in your camp. Obama was not very subtle in suggesting his approach to Hizbollah and Hamas, as well as with Iran, is more in line with what the military thinks; and McCain's campaign revival was built on his national security resume and his claims of being knowledgeable about what the military needs (see his defense of his vote on Webb's "new GI bill.") If she stays in long enough, Hillary Clinton will claim not only that "the generals" support her, but that she and several "generals" dodged sniper fire in Bosnia.

You combine that with the always entertaining race for retired GO endorsements (Delta Air Force General McPeak always seems a popular choice amongst the Democrats, and now they're big Sanchez fans suddenly - why is my party such a bunch of losers?), and you have a perceived stake for candidates in having the overt backing of the military.

Admiral Mullen is giving a perhaps unnecessary reminder that as the crapfest that is our election cycle heats up, the "support" of the military - or maybe just that cabal of generals everybody is always talking about - will be intensely contested by all the candidates,* and it is the duty of those in uniform to remember where their loyalty lies. It's better safe than sorry.

Shame he doesn't still have jurisdiction over the retired mouth-flappers. . .

*although I don't think Nader is out for too many GO endorsements.

Regards,

Matt