General McCrystal will get his butt kicked today.  He may even be fired although, that is doubtful.   Its just too complicated.  Could be wrong about that but the point remains the same, regardless.

General McCrystal was politically moronic.  What he did was outside the traditions we all depend on related to civilian control of the military. Is Richard Holbrook a pain in the ass?   Is Ambassador Eikenberry a butt covering bureaucrat” Yes to both.  However, to General McCrystal we must say “Can’t stand it, resign!”  Say what you want to say, but not in uniform.   This is a leadership failure on your part, correct it if you can.   

I agree with Robert Gibbs, it’s should be about the people on the ground fighting the war,  about what’s best for them.  I hope he means it, this time Mr. Gibbs is right; 100% right!

There is, however, a deeper question here.  In advance of the question the writer discloses that he is not and never has been a warrior in the militaristic sense.   The writer also admits a deep sense of gratitude and undying respect for those who are warriors in our defense.  

Disclosures aside, the question remains; will we tolerate true warriors? Will be embrace them  knowing full well that absent warriors, we are in jeopardy!  Stan McCrystal is a warrior’s warrior; a high ranking General likely as not to show up on the battlefield next to a platoon leader.  He ran the op that got Zarqawi in Iraq.  No doubt, al Qaeda knew exactly who Stan McCrystal was, considering they were getting their butts kicked by him.     

Came across a Rush Limbaugh quote discussing the difference between Warrior Generals versus corporate generals, he’s right there is a difference. Bill Clinton tilted the scale in favor of corporate generals.  The message went down through the ranks, as it always does, political correctness took hold of a significant percentage of the military brass. 

Guys like Stan McCrystal maintained a warrior ethic and a warrior’s commitment in spite of the obvious liability……..politically.  Stan McCrystal probably does not care much for …..….politically correct behaviors meaning that to climb the ranks he must have been exceptionally effective. He probably just cares about winning.  Is that not a good thing in the guy charged with executing an excruciatingly difficult military operation?    

Like it, or not; aren’t those the guys that win wars.  Aren’t those the guys we count on when things get ugly; aren’t those the guys we count on to do whatever is necessary on our behalf?  There is, for instance, a lot to dislike about George Patton; he won!  Against long odds, he won.  We liked him well enough when he won, didn’t we?  

The famous “you can’t handle the truth” line delivered by Jack Nicholson is, unfortunately, not far enough from the truth.  We would prefer to avert our eyes from guys like Stan McCrystal, pretend that we are oh so much more highly evolved than” that”.  We’re not!  We remain closer to the caveman than the spaceman if the truth be told.  

Guys like Stan McCrystal deliver our security.  Corporate generals deliver bureaucracy.  Guys like Stan McCrystal kill bad guys.  Corporate generals deliver analysis of extremism absent identification of the actual source. 

There is, the world as we would like it to be and there is the world as it is.  Warriors see it as it is; they have to!  Their lives depend on it.  Don’t pass by that statement, dwell on it; lives depend on it, lives depend on them! Your life may depend on them.

If it’s your life at stake, who would you rather have running the show, Stan McCrystal or corporate general version 4.0?