It occurs to me that "retired generals" would imply old men, steeped in military tradition, trained in the army way and maybe resistant to change. Maybe they don't grasp or trust the new fangled gadgetry of the "army of one".
But then I thought, being generals with years of experience they would appreciate the value of not expending anymore soldiers than necessary. Accept technology that would let them keep as many as possible out of harms way.
The administration has bought the military contractors sales pitch, lock, stock and barrel. They're sold on the gee whiz, high tech, systems and their promised results, whereas the old generals have to be convinced these improvements are really improvements and not bullshit.
They way things have been going over there, the reticence to give up lots of depth in the front line may be justified. It's hard to judge the effectivness of the new systems when the people using them, or at least their bosses, don't have a plan.
