Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point.First, it might be true that Assange has unwittingly put people in harm's way, and then again, it might not be.
Second, it's undeniable that the USA and NATO have deliberately thrown people into harm's way. From the USA's initial meddling in Afghanistan back in the Carter years, to now, over thirty years later, there's been a lot of harm for a lot of people, undeniably caused by the governments of the United States of America.
But, third, ... isn't it just such total bullshit that Mullen can pretend that he's cool with people disagreeing with him, taking issue with the policies, challenging the generals on their decisions, when for over ten fucking years these goddamned incompetent, immoral cry-babies have shrieked and pissed and moaned if anyone anywhere criticized them.
And, lastly, what Mullen is saying is that critics of the war CAN say critical things about "the mission," be smeared as "traitors" who savour the blood of NATO troops and who desire the enslavement of Afghan women by the Taliban, and continue to be totally ineffective in stopping the war. You get it? In a round-about way Mullen can handle some expressions of disagreement. What he positively loathes is any attempt to actually influence policy. Protesting uselessly is fine. Fighting back? Not so much.
Whatever Mullen. If it makes you happy to send US soldiers to die fighting for a corrupt government of drug-lords and pedophiles that's your business. But if other people disagree they don't have to keep their disagreement within the bounds you decide are acceptable.