As I’ve written, and as has been widely reported, General Stanley A. McChrystal was fired and replaced with General David Petraeus, the mastermind behind the Iraq War strategy. In effect, General Petraeus is taking a step down from his CENTCOM position to return to the battlefield, and he’s agreed to do so. The question is why would General Petraeus take this job? Is this a pure act of patriotism, or is a politically savvy move for a man with high political ambitions?

General Petraeus wrote in his famous Columbia University thesis that the foremost lesson learned from Korea and Vietnam is that the American people lack patience and the ability to maintain a focused consensus for very long. To quote General Petraeus, the following comes from “AMERICAN FUTURE, Marc Schulman on a world in turmoil”:

“Vietnam was an extremely painful reminder that when it comes to intervention, time and patience are not American virtues in abundant supply. . .”

Mr. Schulman makes great points on war and public opinion, fighting insurgencies, and on the problems with civilian officials. Keeping in mind the statement regarding time and patience as regards the American people, the information that follows, Afghanistan is already a difficult problem. The differences between the Administration, Ambassadors and other opinionated political know-it-alls and General McChrystal highlight a rift between the military leadership and their civilian bosses that led to the debacle in Vietnam. But, this may be just the tip of the iceberg.

General McChrystal has been pointed to by many under his command as being too loyal to the implementation of President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy. In spite of his comments in “Rolling Stone Magazine”, General McChrystal followed orders unquestioningly and without deviation, almost to a fault. As former Army Chief of Staff, General E.C. Meyer stated:

“The military want to avoid the Vietnam mistake of “putting soldiers out at the end of a string” without the full support of the American people.”

By changing and severely limiting the rules of engagement to win over the cooperation of the many but distinctly separate tribal leaders and people of Afghanistan, troops have been put at great risk of being killed or maimed with only minimal and specific circumstances that they can fight back. The net effect of this policy, though well intended and probably our only means of any type of success, is to degrade morale of the front line warriors, and as was the case in Vietnam following the Mei Lai Massacre, as morale degrades, so will good order and discipline.

No general, no matter how talented or how severe a disciplinarian he may be, cannot command the loyalty, respect, and commitment to battle by the troops needed for victory once they lose faith in the mission and the rules of engagement. Like the rest of the American people, even the most committed of troops tend to lose faith in the mission when time and patience has been stretched and their ability to protect themselves and their buddies appears to be purposely degraded for reasons beyond their understanding of level of tolerance. No general wants to find himself in a battlefield command with this type of on the ground morale, and even the most loyal and committed generals will stay the course for long without signs that the overriding policy is succeeding.

If you need another, though greatly less obvious example of the military’s dissatisfaction with their civilian leadership comes from Admiral Mullin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the most senior military leader in the United States. He is General Petraeus’ boss and the same man who said that he was “sickened when he read the Rolling Stone Magazine” article on General McChrystal. When Admiral Mike Mullen was asked what the number one threat to the security of the United States and the safety of the American people did not cite Iraq, Afghanistan or even Iraq. He said it was the soaring, unsustainable national debt and runaway spending. How is that not considered an attack on President Obama’s social policies in the same way General McChrystal’s Rolling Stones comments were considered hostile toward his civilian leaders? Why did Admiral have the courage to say directly that President Obama’s spending policies sickened him when he read about them? He didn’t say that for the same reason General Petraeus stepped down a leve without complaint…unlike General McChrystal, they are politicians who like their jobs or who have further polical ambitions after their military careers are over. As a former enlisted, I’d rather go to war with General McChrystal than these other two gentlemen.

Were Admiral Mullen’s comments just a statement of his views, or were they something else; perhaps a message to Washington’s civilian elite? At this point, we have two of the three most senior military leaders slapping the civilian authorities in the face because they lack faith in the directions they have been given. They follow up and carry out their orders, but they are also signaling in an almost unprecedented way, their dissatisfaction and their fears for the nation’s future if proper steps aren’t taken to get a grasp on runaway policies.

So, what is the point of this article? I don’t know; do you?