The TV Battalion   

Did the retired generals go too far?

A few days into the war in Iraq, the nation's media critics were hardly saluting television news' battalions of retired military brass.

"Windbags of war," scoffed the Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik. TV analyst Andrew Tyndall told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the ex-generals, with their proud "we" references, were like "a cheerleading squad." Contra Costa Times critic Chuck Barney noticed much rah-rahing, writing, "The U.S., it seemed, could do no wrong."

That lasted up until the point that, to listen to some ex-servicemen, the Pentagon could do no right. By the close of the war's first week, a handful of former officers found plenty to fault in the coalition's battle plan, what with stalled supply lines and a slower, more deliberate pace to the fighting instead of the much ballyhooed promise of "shock and awe."

With NBC's retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey stridently leading the naysayers--former NATO commander Wesley K. Clark on CNN a distant second--the sniping was sharp enough to rankle Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers. At an April 1 Pentagon news conference, Myers pounded on the lectern with his fist, railing with uncharacteristic emotion, "I think for some retired military to opine as aggressively as some have done is not helpful."

Following up the tongue-lashing, Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, proposed a new etiquette for retired military officers--an if-they-don't-have-anything-nice-to-say, then-shut-up approach.

Yet, even with this clear rift of dissent coming from a few former officers, media critics say that overall, critical analysis from these guys was the exception, not the rule. The graying generals, colonels and majors are so immersed in military culture, have Pentagon allegiances so strong, it's almost as if they didn't even consider being anything less than supportive of the war effort.

The Sun's Zurawik says that after Rumsfeld and Myers' "Criticizing us is un-American" speech, he could literally see the retirees toning themselves down. "If they react that quick to a warning shot across the bow from the secretary of defense...and, in a way, that timidly, why the hell should we think anything they're telling us on screen is valid?"

Chris Suellentrop, Slate.com's deputy Washington bureau chief, compares the networks' bringing these ex-generals on for war analysis to "a Dallas Cowboys game where all the announcers are former Dallas Cowboys." There's nothing inherently wrong in using former officers for commentary, he says, but "news producers and anchors should be aware that these guys basically have dual loyalties."

And Patrick Sloyan, a longtime Pentagon reporter for Newsday, now retired, who won a Pulitzer for covering the first gulf war, says TV news people should do a better job at vetting the commentators. Some work for defense contractors; they all bring home pensions so huge "it would stagger you"; and moreover, he says, some have credibility issues stemming from histories of being less than honest with the public and the press.

All the while, the former officers know that if they cross their Pentagon fraternity, the leadership can strike back in ways that hurt. "They're very good at revenge, the Pentagon is," Sloyan says. "I don't know if Barry McCaffrey is on any [defense contractor] boards right now, but if he is, the company is in trouble."

In the first gulf war, Zurawik says the networks brought former generals on air as window dressing--drop a few of them around Tom Brokaw to bolster his red-white-and-blue factor. This time, the commentators were more useful, he says, because ideally they could bring context to the tight snapshots and vivid moments that embedded reporters sent home.

Most critics agree that the old generals have potential news value. Ed Offley, editor of DefenseWatch, an online magazine on military affairs, and author of "Pen & Sword," a guide for covering the military, considers it "very, very valuable" for a decorated general like McCaffrey to "stand up there and say, 'This is my understanding' or 'This is my perspective' because it puts a frame of reference around a lot of raw news."

That said, Suellentrop thinks TV anchors took a sir-yes-sir posture with the former brass, bedazzled by their stars or intimidated by their swagger into sitting contentedly on air with them, lobbing the occasional softball.

Standing in front of maps, pointing arrows, you expected the analysts to report a cold front sweeping in from the South, Suellentrop jokes, adding that if the generals were blah-blah-blahing their way through milquetoast analysis, it's the networks' fault. "I don't think generals are to blame for saying what they're saying--the blame lies with people who run the TV shows.... They want to make stars; they want people to turn on the TV and say, 'I want to watch the show with [Gen. Wesley] Clark.' "

Sloyan says that many of the analysts retired because they were passed over and had to leave the service.

" 'The troops should keep the pressure on,' that's all they keep saying," Sloyan grouses. "They give bad information, bad facts, and they assume and presume a lot of stuff. It's basic journalism--you don't presume anything, assumptions will kill you."

Aaron Barnhart, TV critic for the Kansas City Star, says the former officers' ties to the Pentagon sealed the deal for their TV gigs, but those ties also restrained them. "If they were to truly take an independent line, it would compromise their [access to] sources in the Pentagon," he says.

Further complicating matters is the longstanding tension between uniformed officers and the civilian command--Rumsfeld. Offley says that when former officers harshly assessed the battle plan, it likely stemmed directly from that bad blood.

In fact, Barnhart says sniping at Rumsfeld was about as critical as the ex-generals were willing to get. And once Rummy and Co. lashed back, the less brazen retirees retreated, becoming more yes-men than ever.

Almost unanimously, critics praise McCaffrey for holding his ground under Pentagon fire. Says Zurawik: "He didn't back down, sharing his expertise in an independent manner at whatever risk it might be for him in that culture."

"You know, at the end of the day I think they oughta value my public opinion," McCaffrey told MSNBC's Chris Matthews on April 1. "I have a right to speak and intend to exercise it." (McCaffrey and other military experts couldn't be reached for this story.)

And as far as such criticism being dangerous or unpatriotic, Barnhart calls that baloney. "We have been upfront saying we are [in Iraq] to promote and protect American values. We say that in one breath, and in the next, it's somehow dangerous to have a full and vigorous debate on how the war is being waged," he says. "That is precisely the all-American custom we would love to see around the world."