In an April 18 editorial, The Washington Post drew a false comparison between the recent calls by several retired generals for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign and the “pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve.” The current controversy differs in at least one crucial respect from the military's criticism of Clinton and his proposal on gays in the military: All of the generals who have publicly called for Rumsfeld's resignation are retired; conversely, a March 13, 1993, Post article described active-duty -- not retired -- troops' overt hatred for Clinton's intention to lift the ban on gays in the military.

On April 18, the Post's editorial board wrote that the generals' “analysis strikes us as solid”; but the Post called the “rebellion” “problematic” because "[i]t threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty." The Post continued, “Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime.”

However, unlike with the current controversy, many of Clinton's public critics were, as the Post noted, “uniformed military.” The Post's 1993 editorial described the situation then as an “open conflict between the military and the president.”

A March 13, 1993, Post article described troops' hatred for Clinton's intention to lift the ban on gays in the military:

In the military world, perhaps even more than in the civilian one, a president is the most distinguished of all possible Distinguished Visitors, and the 6,000 sailors and Marines were never less than polite. Many said they were glad to see President Clinton aboard.

But there were Hillary jokes and Chelsea jokes. There was the one about the protester who threw a beer at the president. (Not to worry: It was a draft beer. Clinton dodged it.)

While preparing a weapons display for Clinton's visit, one Marine sniper donned a shredded burlap wig and began mincing around the deck. Another sniper wrapped him in an embrace. What with Clinton's visit, they said mockingly, they were thinking of declaring their love.

It has been a long time since a president had so rocky a start with his armed services. The troops hated Jimmy Carter's amnesty for Vietnam draft evaders, but not the way they hate Clinton's intention to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. Carter at least had served in uniform.

“Maybe we can call this his military service,” said Cmdr. Bill Gortney, executive officer of one of the Roosevelt's strike fighter squadrons, alluding icily to Clinton's brief visit here. “Three hours is more than he had before.”

Another March 13, 1993, Post article reported Marine Lance Cpl. Ryan Vaught's comments:

The trip supplied television footage of Clinton in a green flight jacket watching fighter jets catapult off the carrier, of Clinton saluting a guided missile destroyer as it sailed by, of Clinton in a USS Theodore Roosevelt cap addressing the crew on the hangar deck. It also gave the White House a chance to blunt persistent and repeatedly denied rumors about the allegedly anti-military feelings of Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But one part of Clinton's tour -- viewing the triple-decker berths in the crew's sleeping quarters -- was shielded from reporters' view. “Hope he learns something from it,” said Marine Lance Cpl. Ryan Vaught. “It wouldn't be good, not out here,” he said of Clinton's plan to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military.

Vaught, describing the “sacrifice” he was about to make in spending the next six months at sea, was sarcastic when he talked about Clinton. “It's a sacrifice he's never made before to his country,” he said. But, camera in hand, he also expressed some admiration for Clinton's willingness to brave such reaction. “I didn't personally think he would ever do something like this,” he said.

In addition, on June 8, 1993, the Post reported that Maj. Gen. Harold N. Campbell was being “investigated on charges that he ridiculed President Clinton as a 'gay-loving,' 'pot-smoking,' 'draft-dodging' and 'womanizing' commander in chief at a [May 24, 1993] banquet for U.S. Air Force personnel in the Netherlands.” According to a July 8, 1993, Associated Press article, Campbell “retired after he was reprimanded and fined about $7,000 ... for his comments about Clinton.” The Air Force investigation's report, according to the AP, also concluded that Campbell had “planned the remarks.”

By contrast, while -- as the April 18 Post editorial noted -- some of the generals have said they are also speaking for people on active duty, all of them who have gone on the public record calling for Rumsfeld's resignation were themselves already retired:

GENERAL (Retirement Date)

DATE OF PUBLIC CALL FOR RUMSFELD'S RESIGNATION

SOURCE

Gen. Anthony Zinni (2000)

4/2/06

Meet the Press

Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton (1/1/06)

3/19/06

The New York Times

Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr. (2004)

4/13/06

CNN

Maj. Gen. John Batiste (2005)

4/12/06

CNN

Maj. Gen. John Riggs (2004)

4/13/06

NPR

Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold (2002)

4/9/06

Time (4/17)

Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper (by 2003)

4/15/06

The Washington Post

Gen. Wesley Clark (by 2003)

2004

CNN

From the April 18 Washington Post editorial titled “The Generals' Revolt”:

The president's signal failure to hold his defense chief accountable no doubt has helped to produce the extraordinary -- and troubling -- eruption of public discontent from the retired generals. A couple of those who have spoken out, including retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, opposed the war all along, but three others served in top positions in Iraq. Much of their analysis strikes us as solid -- but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty. Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime. If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?

In our view Mr. Rumsfeld's failures should have led to his departure long ago. But he should not be driven out by a revolt of generals, retired or not.

From the April 4, 1993, Washington Post editorial titled “The Commander in Chief”:

AMONG the American military's many honorable traditions, the finest is its devotion to democratic civilian control. Despite the many reports of tension between President Clinton and the armed forces, we do not believe that principle is in any danger. But things are not as they should be between the military and the president.

This is not an easy time to be in any branch of the services. The world is changing, and the American military is being asked to make more adjustments than most institutions. Its budget is being slashed, career patterns are being disrupted, the United States' mission in a post-Cold War world is under sharp and necessary debate.

These changes would have challenged the military under any president. But there is no doubt that some in the military harbor less than friendly personal feelings toward their new commander in chief. Many in the ranks resent the fact that Mr. Clinton avoided military service during the Vietnam War. They are troubled by Mr. Clinton's famous declaration in his letter to an ROTC commander that he had some sympathy for those who found themselves “loving their country but loathing the military.”

[...]

It is equally wrong to say that previous military service is a requirement of those who would be commander in chief. Neither Woodrow Wilson nor Franklin Roosevelt, each of whom led the country in a world war, ever wore their country's uniform. The selection of commander in chief is rightly a matter for the voters, not the military, to decide.

Many of today's worries about the military's attitude toward the president arose from a visit Mr. Clinton made to the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. Enlisted men and women on that ship were remarkably open and candid in mocking Mr. Clinton and his lack of military experience.

In one sense, Americans ought to celebrate the fact that the men and women in uniform enjoy free speech rights and use them, as Maj. David S. Jonas and Capt. Hagen W. Frank rightly argue on the opposite page. They are also right in asserting that leaders of the military not only can but should give the president advice contrary to his own views if they believe the commander in chief is wrong. Mr. Clinton is not the first president to have disagreements with his generals and admirals.

But the issue here is neither about free speech nor about asking the military leadership to behave like automatons. It is about the respect that the American military owes its elected civilian leader and the recognition that questions such as the status of gays in the military are matters to be debated and resolved through the instruments of democracy. The military does not decide when we go to war, nor did it have the right to block the racial integration of the armed forces after World War II, which is what many in the military wanted to do.

If military leaders oppose Mr. Clinton's position on gays, they have a right to say so. What they cannot do is act publicly in ways that even appear to deny the president's legitimate authority or suggest that decisions such as this one should be reserved to the military. This sends the wrong message, especially to the rank and file who may one day be asked by their commander in chief to risk their lives.

Gen. Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seems to understand that the open conflict between the military and the president at the beginning of Mr. Clinton's term served neither the interest of national security nor that of democracy. He and others at the top of the armed forces have been sending signals recently of their respect for Mr. Clinton. We think that the highest service Gen. Powell could do his country now is to speak out clearly and openly about the military's duty to serve and respect civilian leadership. Gen. Powell has been placed at the helm during a difficult transition period. His task is to lead his troops through it.