John, this is getting silly. First of all, people in the armed services are
entitled to opinions, and as far as I know, nothing prohibits the war
college from publishing those opinions, unless the person in charge of
what's published is the president's golf buddy and doesn't want to offend
him.

But, here's something more interesting to consider. First, though, let's
define a concept:

Here it is - "Enough military experience to have any business opening your
mouth on the subject of global strategy"

Perhaps I should define it by what it does NOT mean. If someone joins the
army/navy/air force/coast guard/marines for however many years is the
minimum, and sees either no combat, or just one tour, they're not qualified
to discuss global strategy. And, let's say this person never goes beyond the
first or second level in rank, and receives no high-level training of any
kind, such as the war college. That eliminates what....95% of new enlistees?

Guess who it also eliminates? George Bush.

Guess who it does NOT eliminate, based on the "training" clause, above?
Anyone who has spent a significant length of time at the war college, and
certainly most of the instructors. Virtually anyone in this category in
qualified to have an opinion that's worth listening to.