Some reflections....

It has been interesting to read about Gen. McChrystal the last few days; and as is always the case we'll never know the complete story until its immediate significance is long over. Some of the articles have been by reporters, who obviously have their reason for writing about it and others who had or do serve in the military. There does seem to be some irony in the fact that McChrystal was hired by the President, then released by him, despite the fact the General was not insubordinate in following the President's orders. I believe firmly in civilian leadership, but I also recognize the pitfalls when our civilian and military leaders fail to communicate and place the well-being of our country as top priority. I do agree with George Will in that this little fiasco comes nowhere close to the seriousness of McArthur & Truman, and to try to make is so weakens both civilian and military leadership. I am amazed at the foolishness of a 4-star general in popping off his mouth, and even more so at allowing his staff to publicly do so .... what was he thinking? Even as a specialist 4 in the Army, though there were times when I disagreed with my Captain, I never voiced that disapproval, either to his face or in any channel where it would get back to him; it wasn't just about military honor, it was about a personal code of obedience. I believe that the General lost sight of priorities, somehow someone on his staff, or in the military media, convinced him that spouting off the public media was a wise thing to do. Most military leaders shun the public media like the plague, and wisely so. On the other hand I'm not so sure the President handled it correctly; firing someone does not always signal a strength of character, often times it takes more guts to carry on. Severe reprimands can have positive consequences, and second chances can result in greater achievements. Time will tell us whether firing the General was a wise move, or one that should have been more properly handled ..... guess I could follow the President's lead and require that all the spiritual leaders in my church must never voice any opposing views to the ones I have? yah, right. ONe more note then I'll close because probably some of you are convinced I'm way off base, somewhere between the bases, or on this issue should never have entered the park. Since when can you have 'true debate' without 'division?' That's a good one, wish I'd thought of that, for in my intellectual meanderings I always though 'debate' was a result of differing, or divisive thoughts ... and then when a decision has been reached, it doesn't mean everyone agrees, but it does mean that there is unity of action; and as far as I know the General was following the President's orders. Sometimes it's almost an unbearable burden wanting to be seen as loved by everyone!