Moral Courage is a hard thing to define, but we all know it when we see it.

Have many senior leaders opted to "go along to get along"? Absolutely. Actually that is prevalent across the ranks. But one has to temper that with the realization that as an institution our military really just does not understand the nature of this type of conflict. We are far too blinded by the inertia of what the force was actually trained, organized and equipped to do; an inability to adapt the lessons learned from historic conflicts that were similar in nature to the realities of our own current mission, interests and the world we live in today; and the complete subjugation of military leadership to civil authorities (there are a great number of brilliant civilians working in the Pentagon, but few have a foundation as trained, experienced military professionals).

When I listen to smart, successful military leaders justify the "success" of heavy CT approaches, or "Clear-Hold-Build," or Nation Building, etc: I don't think they are being dishonest, I think they are in large part truly baffled by why these programs are not producing the promised results. They can look at their tactical metrics and see success piled upon success, but they can look out their window and see that reality is anything but success. We focus on the wrong things. As a wise man once said, "things that count most cannot be counted, and the things one can count do not count." We love things we can count. The same wise man said "people love chopping wood, as the results are immediately evident." The military in particular loves chopping wood, and our promotion system loves wood choppers.

Bottom line is that many factors contribute to why powerful nations stumble in this way. If it is any consolation, history books are full of very similar tales.