So a former high level officer in the Pentagon was so disgusted by the run up to the war in Iraq that he resigned rather than take part in it. He then wrote an op-ed detailing his disgust. The only problem: he wrote that op-ed in 2006. That is a less than optimal use of his knowledge and credibility. I find it disturbing that he felt so strongly hat Iraq was a distraction from the real conflict that he quit his job but then kept his mouth quiet. When you accept a post in the United States government — military or otherwise — you take on an obligation to protect the country and its instructions to the best of your ability. This man obviously disagreed with the war in Iraq, but I don’t think washing his hands of the matter by quitting and not speaking out fits the spirit of his duty. Either he should have stayed and helped to mitigate the coming disaster, or he should have spoken out immediately and tried to prevent the coming disaster.What he did was run and hide and hope someone else would take of the problem for him. I don’t find that particularly inspiring.

UPDATE: tgirsch sez:  Confused?  Me, too.  I’m guessing it will all make more sense if you read this. I sent this to Kevin yesterday, and I assume it’s what he’s referring to.