McChrystal and MacArthur

I'd like to raise a point of discussion with the LD, I am not sure whether it is dissent or just a specification.

I don't think General McChrystal forgot his history. It might be he knew it all too well. Otherwise his behavior was just silly.

Thus said, I come to General MacArthur speech, that the LD so gloatingly quotes. To this line:

In war there is no substitute for victory.

Shouldn't this be valid also for the civilian Commander in Chief? How about if he is rather working to undermine victory? As it appears to be the case, for example, when he announces that by the middle of next year he will start withdrawal. Which is like telling the enemy, it is enough for you to resist until then, and you win.

This sounds also like putting the high military command as well as the troops in a "double bind", by sending them contradictory messages like: I want you to win – I don't care whether you win or not. Certainly it is not made to keep up their morale.

Duty, Honor, Country.

Together with MacArthur the LD let's these words resound. A question then: shouldn't they apply also to civilians?

Of course the POTUS had no other choice than to relieve the General. So he did and did well. He held the honor of the office. How honorable, though, is the behavior of the incumbent?

Can we really say that this is an irrelevant question? MacArthur stated that the military shouldn't enter into politics. Ok. But are we sure that we are dealing here just with politics?

To know what I mean it might be the case to revert to my previous posts on the "creeping civil war".

HP