Military Subordination to Civilian Control

Is it just me, that finds it completely Ironic, that retired Generals are speaking against the civilian leadership (or lack thereof) about a war that was conceived by the civilian leadership?

The fear that military folks get upset about the civilians they take orders from is valid during peacetime. It is a valid consern for the fairly obvious Strangelovian reasons. However, in today's world. The military didn't necessarily want to get jiggy with Iraq. It was the neocon civilians in charge that were drawing up the plans. It was the civilians in charge that were clammoring for war. It is the civilians in charge right now that are clamoring for a war with Iran.

This turns the Strangelovian idea upside down. Military brass calling for peace or for at the very least some competence in recieving what they have asked for to keep the boots on the ground in Iraq as safe as possible.

For all the talk about "supporting the troops," and giving the "Generals whatever they need," it seems pretty obvious that it hasn't happened.

In this case, what has become a threat to our national security is not the fact that the Military has subdued the civilians in charge. Rather, the subjugation of the military by the civilians in charge has led to thousands of deaths overseas. We have a military that would rather not fight this war, or at the very least would have rather fought it on their terms. Perhaps if the civilians brainstormed the idea, then let the military brass run with the plans to do it, we would not have the quagmire we have today in Iraq.

Letting the military take over the military aspect of the military invasion of Iraq doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. After all, it would free up more time for the civilian leadership to plan for Iran. You know, cuz dreaming up and selling wars is the part they are good at.