Bunker Hill, Trenton, Antietam (Sharpsburg for you southerners), Cold Harbor, Gettysburg, Argonne , Iwo Jima, Midway, Utah Beach, Inchon, Hamburger Hill, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan should mostly be familiar to you as sites where America found glory while many of its sons and daughters gave their last full measure.
These famous battles could not have been won without dedicated military leaders. You know the guys who would lead the charge up that hill, up the beach, or across that field. It always intrigued me about how soldiers follow their leaders even though many know that death awaits. Medals are often given to those that die or are wounded, but not enough is given to those who simply follow and fight.
Much has been made of a recent Rolling Stone article featuring comments from the Commander of Afghanistan forces, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff. If you have done any reading about history and wars in particular there is often at least one scene where military officers disparage their civilian, political “leaders.” To quote Rush Limbaugh “the army’s job is to kill people and break things” and delaying action or setting unreasonable rules of engagement make their jobs more difficult and get more Americans killed.
McChrystal, who by all accounts is a battle guy, not a political guy spoke from his heart and frustration about the Afghanistan campaign. It seems that President Obama does not like it when his “team” waivers from the talking points or gives an alternate view of his world; “I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division.” Much Washington pomp and circumstance was on display as the great general was brought to the whipping post, disparaged, then fired. Okay he technically resigned, but we all know that he was fired.
Macho Obama must have felt good and his Weather Underground buddies probably chuckled when he chopped a military man. The lame stream media is in a tizzy with the tough Obama. Maybe we’ll get another cover of the bare-chested Obama. As you might expect I am not so impressed. Would it not have shown more leadership to bring in the general, LISTEN TO HIS CONCERNS, and come to some agreement or strategy to win the war. Is that not that the goal? Was it really wise to fire the guy who developed the plan for a major new offensive that is coming? Since when do we let the enemy know that we have a big new offensive?
This is not a game or political play. Read some of the articles about both men and their accomplishments and ask yourself one question.
Who would you follow up that hill?