Humpday Happenings...
By now, you must have heard about the flap going on between President Obama and General Stanley McChrystal, right?
Seems we have another "distraction" to take our minds off of the OIL SPILL...which took our minds off of OBAMACARE...which took our minds off of something else.
We can debate the positives and/or negatives of what's been said until the troops come home, and I don't think we'll really get to the root of the problem.
We just keep going in circles (imho).

General McChrystal is 2 years my junior in age, and is a "fellow Leo" (born August 14th, 1954), so I think I can relate to him and his demeanor from a somewhat different viewpoint, generationally-speaking.
I know what makes ME up. I know what my strengths and my weaknesses are.
I know what makes me smile, and what sets me off like a timed IED.
If given a task, I WILL see it through until the end, even if I wind up bitching and moaning about it the whole time.
I've managed to come up with interesting approaches to solutions in my past, most all of which turned out well.
The ones that did not probably had no real solution contained to work with in the first place.
I've known how to follow orders, and how to give them, but I will not blindly follow an order, because I also have something called a conscience.
There will be times you NEED to question what you've been told to do, and decide if the result will be in the best interest of the greater number for the greater good.
And there will be times you need to make a decisive choice, even if it's not the best choice...simply because all other choices are far worse in their results.
I also know where respect needs to be given, and to whom, when warranted.
Now, when I think of ANY type of insubordination between commanders, there are a few other names that rise to the top of my (short) list:
-- General George S. Patton
-- General Douglas MacArthur
-- General Curtis LeMay
-- General James Mattoon Scott
The last name on the list you may not recognize.
General Scott was a fictional character in the John Frankenheimer thriller Seven Days in May, and played by Burt Lancaster.
This movie revolves around a plot to take over the government BY the military because a general feels the presidents in placing our nation in jeopardy with the Russians during the cold war. It's a damn good flick, even if it's in black & white.

As for General Patton, well he had a reputation for not taking any kind of sh*t...from anyone, and that included everyone in a suit or in uniform. He survived the lambasting from not one, but TWO slapping incidents (to soldiers under his command) and remained in command on the filed because he was the BEST MAN for the job. He was placed under the command of Omar Bradley, who cautioned Patton often about his "style" of leadership.
Patton's victories during WW2 speak to his leadership to no small end, whoever was running the show for the allies.

General Curtis LeMay (the first chief of the Strategic Air Command) was a "get it done by any means" kind of guy, and he even questioned president Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis during 1962. He thought we should bomb Cuba.
(loved the pre-emptive option)
And he clashed often enough with Robert McNamara.
But he also was a damn GOOD general, and the best man for the job at the time.

But when it comes to going against the grain of your commander-in-chief, General Douglas MacArthur has to be close to the top of any list. Now, this is not to say MacArthur was not a brilliant general, for he certainly was.
But, it was a letter from MacArthur, critical of Truman's war strategy in Korea that caused the ruckus.
In that letter was the following:
" It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe’s war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom.
As you pointed out, we must win.
There is no substitute for victory."
I don't know about YOU, but when I read that, and then followed the flap with McChrystal, I got this feeling of DEJA VU...all over again.
History seems be a tad repetitious in this regard.
MacArthur was "relieved" of command, in spite of several members of the JCOS (Joint Chiefs Of Staff) to NOT dismiss him, and that his tactics and strategy were sound. They did agree that MacArthur was not guilty of insubordination, although they did recommend his relief from a "military view".
As for the fictional General James Scott?
Well, his plot was foiled, and that pretty much settles the issue.
But today, we have a new general...but the same problem.
Is McChrystal WRONG for speaking his mind?
No.
But he DID speak it to the wrong people.
Rolling Stone (magazine) is NOT anywhere close to what it used to be (like during the Frank Serpico/Knapp Commission hearings, which it covered in the early 1970s)
Here's the link to the article (on newsstands 25 June):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
One has to realize that in an era such as now, replete with information availability at the speed of thought, and "ears" seemingly everywhere, some things might require a shorter tongue and a closed mouth.
When a person is in such a position with so much responsibility upon their shoulders, they are at the vanguard of those who are fair game for others to exploit. And there are people out there that are paid to exploit others.
That's not to be confused with REAL JOURNALISM...in case you were wondering.
I feel this way about General McChrystal, and this echoes the sentiments of other, more noteworthy people...
Sit him down, dress him down, but tell him he's STILL the best general we have to pursue the strategy we have going in Afghanistan.
But this is based on a premise where the person DOING the chiding is a bit more "thick-skinned", and not acting like a spoiled little kid that was called a name in the schoolyard at recess.
Our current president doesn't seem to be thick-skinned...at least not as much as I would prefer him to be.
An interesting choice would be for McChrystal to resign, and THEN go public with his views on how the war is going (or not)...that absolves him of any military/political ire from those superiors you may have.
But, that would not necessarily be in the best interest of our troops...to "change horses in the middle of the stream"...would it?
Sure, there may be some generals AS GOOD, but let's be honest...would we have replaced Norman Schwarzkopf in the middle of the first Iraq War for saying likewise?
There are those commanders that can see the BIG PICTURE - the "whole enchilada", and keeping them in command (especially when your troop morale is paramount to success) just seems the right thing to do.
Personally, I don't see the need to "fire" the general...not for disagreeing with the President's policies or handling of a situation.
The ability to speak one's mind (without fear of repercussion) is called FREEDOM.
Granted, this may have not been the "best" time to bring up bad things...but frustration WILL do that to people.
Cops get frustrated, fire fighters get frustrated, teachers get frustrated, parents get frustrated, soldiers get frustrated...and yes, even GENERALS get frustrated.
How this frustration is handled (on BOTH sides of the fence) is what determines the outcome, make no mistake.
There may even come a time where we feel a need to walk away from the situation in order to properly resolve it, because the other people cannot, or will not hear a person out or even consider their viewpoint.
If we are sincere about OUR convictions...we WILL battle through our frustration and continue whatever fight we find ourselves entrenched.
And we will come out the other end of the conflict a better person, if not a victorious one.
Be well, make a difference to someone, and...
Stay safe out there, America.