All Intensive Purposes

Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird and retired Air Force lieutenant general Robert Pursley take to the Washington Post's op-ed pages to say that the retired generals are too late: "while their advice and the weight of their experience should be taken into account, the important time for them to weigh in was while they were on active duty."

This is true only if you think that the criticism of Rumsfeld is motivated by the mess we have made of Iraq rather than the gathering storm that is Iran. Maybe the "important time" to talk out is now, before it's too late.

Actually, Laird and Pursley make it clear that "weighing in" is OK only if it's kept secret:

[C]are must be taken by those experienced officers who had their chance to speak up while on active duty. In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.

In other words, reasoned public debate harms the war effort. Laird and Pursley say they "do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq," and yet that is exactly what they want. I cannot believe that the Sunni insurgency gives much attention to the Washington Post, but apparently the effort to bring democracy to other countries requires that we stop acting like one at home. If democracy means much of anything -- perhaps more of an open question than we might like -- it means that debate over important public issues must be open and vigorous, not reserved to high government officials and active-duty military officers behind closed doors. Laird and Pursley ought to be ashamed of themselves.