Melvin Laird (Secretary of Defense under Nixon), and Robert Pursley (who served as Laird’s aide) write an op-ed in the Washington Post about the six or so retired generals now speaking out against Rumsfeld and calling for his resignation.

Laird and Pursley’s thesis is summed up nicely in the title of their piece: "Why Are They Speaking Up Now?"

Perhaps Laird and Pursley should have talked to General Shinseki, who did speak to Rumsfeld during the Iraq War run-up, and warned him about what would be required to occupy Iraq.  For that advice and counsel, Shinseki was "scorned" and his career marginalized.

Or perhaps Laird and Pursley should have talked to Lt. General Gregory Newbold, who voiced his dissent about the Iraq War to Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld respects the delicate balance between military expertise and civilian control, but in the end the decisions are his to make. Our democracy is designed to favor civilian control of defense decisions. The problem is that when military advice is considered and then rejected, officers are likely to feel sidelined.

Well, that explains it.  Next question.