Like Lincoln, Gates is mild-mannered, and has relieved generals left and right. A far cry from Rumsfeld, who was all bark and little bite.

Generals usually possess an attitude of self-importance that only they fully comprehend how to wage war. It reminds me of Napoleon’s famous observation that “both in war and prostitution amateurs are often best”.

Though the story is true, I am reciting it from memory in part: Abe Lincoln, upon hearing that the Gray Ghost, John Mosby had captured a Union general officer along with the officer's mounts, was heard to say he could spare the general, but the horses cost money.

The problem today, as pointed out a few years ago by a serving military officer, whose name escapes me, is that modern presidents seem to believe they don't have sufficient personal expertise to override their military subordinates and demand the relief of a nonperforming or underperforming commander in combat.

How ironic that you would put up a picture of Lincoln standing next to general John A. McClernand and one of those 'despicable' private contractor guys--Allan Pinkerton. lol

History repeats. While the civilian leadership hire and fire generals for winning wars and elections, private industry has always been there, waiting patiently for you guys to get organized.

Left to Marshall and most of the Army's top generals, we probably would have landed in France much earlier than June 44. FDR made the final call here, averting likely disaster..

Yes, he was influenced by Churchill, as opposed to the desires of this miiltary advisors. His signing on to the North Africa invasion also went against the Pentagon's wishes. Later on, in Tehran, he then endorsed the Soviets' demands to open a Western Front, to the great distress of Churchill. I don't think FDR was in anyones pocket when the final decisions had to be made. It was his call for unconditional surrender that sealed the Third Reich's fate.

That is Allan Pinkerton and Gen. John McClernand with Lincoln in the picture.

Walt

This reminded me of Lincoln's famous quotes;

"If General McClellan isn't going to use his army, I'd like to borrow it for a time."

and

"Sending armies to McClellan is like shoveling fleas across a barnyard. Not half of them get there."

As far as McChrystal goes, Lincoln's other quote;

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

seems appropriate.

Can you imagine, Hairysteve20, any President today being able to state such thoughts as Lincoln did about his generals? No way.
Everything has changed. Not the least of which is that we are no longer fighting a Civil War on our own citizens, who know because THEY are the ones being involved in the everyday way of war, what their generals are actually accomplishing.
Today it is all filtered through opinions of this or that person who "reports" to us what is "really" happening.
That being said, this President has made his own comment on those generals who believe that their contempt for civilian leadership gives them permission to undermine his policies, publically and privately.

Yes, but the 'generals are disposable' logic can be turned around to suggest Obama has made a mistake in making Petraeus now seem absolutely necessary - and if this has been done for PR's sake, which appears to be the case [after all, isn't the message here that there are so few generals in the US military capable of running a COIN that we we're forced to demote our 'best' general out of CENTCOM?] then it seems to me the table is being set for some serious troubles down the road. Did Obama give Petraeus assurances re withdrawals, troop increases, Eikenberry, putting a muzzle on Biden etc etc? What if he did but Obama backtracks? Or he didn't but Petraeus, now the 'necessary' general whose reputation hangs in the balance, has no choice but to act as if he has the latitude?

Much of the press want to see calling on Petraeus as a clever move by Obama - but seems to me you can just as easily characterize it as an expression of weakness and shallow, short sighted thinking.

I was a big fan of Cohen's book but it is a bit tainted by the reality that he served in Rumsfeld's Pentagon, where Generals were ignored. It is one thing to fire Generals who are incompetent, but it is another to ignore them when they provide inconvenient yet sound military advice.

Yes there are times when Generals and Colonels need to be replaced. What about today? When was the last time someone from State was replaced? When do we see the leadership of Lincoln or even FDR? So far, the military leberated Afghanistan once and toppled Sadam and then told that they need to build nations. Isn't that the work of the other foregin focused Department? Isn't the military there to flex the political muscle?
So Generals are disposable but what happens to a nation whose military can destroy anything it wants but the political component can't find its way out of a paper bag?

Actually, the recent relief of McChrystal is much more mundane than high level conflicts between President s and Generals. The real comparison is with GW Bush's firing of Adm Fallon when Fallon blathered about his fabulousness in an interview in Esquire at the time the surge was playing out. Bush fired him, correctly, and as I recall, there wasn't a lot of admiration, not to say puppylike leg-humping, from the "media" for Bush.

Show me I'm wrong. Show me where you compared Bush to Lincoln and Truman and celebrated his Presidentialness. I don't have to go to the internet to know you attacked Bush as a cretinous moron and evil genius who unfairly fired the brilliant, truth-telling Fallon yada yada. So predictable, yawn.