Following up on Josh's item from last night, it's worth taking a moment to consider how common the criticism of the White House's Iraq policy has become among generals.

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq for a year after the March 2003 invasion, believes Iraq is a "nightmare," with "no end in sight." In today's political climate, the White House and its allies usually dismiss critical assessments like this as "defeatist," and borderline treason. Indeed, when Democratic members of Congress offer criticism nearly identical to Sanchez's, the knee-jerk response from the right is that Dems are emboldening terrorists, undermining the troops, and putting the U.S. at risk.

But smearing generals like Sanchez is obvious more difficult. For one thing, supporters of the president's Iraq policy have made it abundantly clear that questioning the judgment of U.S. generals is practically seditious.

For another, the "revolt of the generals" is surprisingly broad. It's not as if Sanchez's criticism is unusual -- on the contrary, he's the latest in a long line of leaders with stars on their shoulder to break with tradition and blast the Bush administration for its failures.

The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.

What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.

In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

They can't all be "phony soldiers," can they?