>>>>Seems like when one of those active duty generals says something that is not in step with the Administration, they become history. Next! :)
>>>
>>>And the "Army is overstretched" theme is completely worn out and obviously false. Overstretched? If there are so many disposable generals - imagine how many others are there.
>>
>>
>>The active troops are overstretched. It is unprecedented for reservists to be sent to war two and three times. These are in most cases people with families, not 19 or 20 year olds.
>
>But the generals seem to be in endless supply. Maybe they're the passive troops?
>
>(um, seeing how this goes, I really have no better attitude but cynical)

Talking of generals in action, I've noticed that the British generals serving in the same theatres as the US troops have been obliged to wear US rank insignia, presumably so that US troops can recognise what they are (everyone whose seen any US war film will know what a 3-star general is)

as in this pic:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0722-04.htm

with their British rank dangling on a label, so to speak.

They are even referred to by the US press in US military rank:
http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34764&archive=true

"It will be the first time since World War II that U.S. troops at war would be under the theaterwide command of a foreign officer, in this case, a British three-star general"

As you can see from this chart, we don't got no 3-star generals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_officer_rank_insignia

One of the mistakes in "The Omen" book was a mention of a US soldier stealing the jeep from a "British Airforce Colonel". There's no such thing.

He'd be a Group Captain, or Wing Commander (not sure which):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_officer_ranks