Rummy's Officer Trap

There has developed in the public discussion regarding the denouncement of Secretary Rumsfeld by retired officers a paradox that no one seems to address.

1. Retired officers are saying Rummy messed this up from start to finish (ok, that's a simplification).

2. The common criticism of these officers is one of two:
a. Why didn't you say something at the time? (i.e., it must not have bothered you then)
b. You're retired, what do you know? (i.e., you're not here now so you don't really know what's going on)

3. People from the military (whether they are experts familiar with military culture, the retired officers themeselves, and even current Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace) explain that if you don't like an "order" (by which I mean the handling of a situation by anyone above you) your choice is to either suddenly get behind it and carry it out, or retire.

So you don't like Operation XYZ, and you try to tell your COs that, politely and saying, "With all due respect..." a lot, but in the end they are going with Operation XYZ. They tell you, "Either shut up and do it, or retire and say whatever you want." So because you have a high moral character and can't leak the news or lead your men into disaster, you retire. Then you stand up and publicly say what you believe, and the Pentagon responds, "Well, you weren't publicly complaining at the time, so you must have been fine with it, and besides, you're out of the loop now so what do you know?"

Does anyone else think that is patently unfair? Your bosses give you an option and then attack you for taking it?