Not too many people ever think about that. Once you do start thinking of it, a lot of things can come to mind, but one of them that usually doesn't is actually the most important quality in a general: courage.

We don't often think in terms of a general and courage. Oh, we expect that they are brave enough as far as it goes, but a general doesn't actually lead his men into battle these days.the general is going to show up on the battlefield the day after the battle, in spotless uniform, to brief reporters about what lower ranking men had done the day before. But being a general requires more courage, in a very real sense, than being a soldier at the front lines of the war.

Imagine youself suddenly transformed into a general in command of an army which has just received an order from the President to attack a particular enemy. Think about all the things you are responsible for - such a responsibility is overwhelming. Even if you win the battle, a very large number of the men and women you command will not survive.there is no way to escape the fact that those dead will have gone into battle on your orders, carrying out your plan. You'll spend the rest of your life, even if it is a victory, wondering if a better plan might have resulted in fewer deaths. It is a crushing burden, and not all men who have the rank of general can do it.

History is littered with generals who seemed to have all it took to be a great captain of war - but when the test came, they flunked. In American history, the most devastating example of this was General McClellan during the Civil War. Quite simply, he was afraid to fight - not afraid on his own part (his personal courage was unquestionable), but afraid to risk his army in battle.risk the lives of the men who, to his credit, he cared about. A fine and noble sentiment, but it resulted in the war dragging out longer than it had to, and thus far more of his beloved soldiers wound up dead than would have had he just gone straight at the enemy right from the start.

Generals such as McClellan always find reasons for their failures in the field - their troops weren't properly equipped; there weren't enough troops; too many/too few were sent too early/too late; the President interefered too much; the Secretary of Defense didn't know his job; the enemy was stronger than expected; the strategy the President choose was not the proper one.a cursory look at the complaints these ex-generals have about this war show that the whole litany of complaints has been lodged.and yet other generals are still at it in Iraq and Afghanistan, and much success has been accomplished.

I don't fault these ex-generals - I cannot imagine the pressures they had and the crushing responsibility they labored under. Still, I cannot help but say that it is better they are out - if they can't take the strain of war - all of it, including taking orders that you think not the best - then its best to be well out of it. Not everyone is cut out to lead men into battlle. Indeed, only a comparitive few in history have that supreme ability to be a successful general in war.

These ex-generals did well by their country with the gifts they had. The only regret I have is that they didn't have one other vital gift of a general - the ability to know when to speak, and when to remain silent. The war strategy is set, President Bush is in command and the task will be carried out - ex-military carping from the sidelines won't change this, and it may actually make the effort harder.



Posted by: Edwin    Source