It is depressing to read posts on this thread that seem resigned to the inevitability of more small wars destined to end in failure. Why not only small wars that can be structured and resourced to succeed ?

The US military is known to generally stress a need for obedience, and also subordination of the armed forces to the political administration of the day. Both those may be all well and good but an essential role for senior military officers is to provide pertinent and objective advice without fear or favour. If unable to do that or if such advice is routinely rejected or ignored, then one alternative is to resign. That course of action is rarely followed even though every senior officer knows that another responsibility is to develop able subordinates and hence potential successors as opposed to fairly competent or even incompetent placeholders.

An alternative but less acceptable action is to go public. The last US senior officer to semi-effectively condemn and repudiate political direction as impractical and mis-directed was General Stanley McChrystal. But his reaction lacked impact because it was informal and could be depreciated because it was fuelled in part by alcohol. It would have been more effective to have resigned and later when out of uniform to announce and elaborate on the reasons for resignation at a public forum such as a press conference.

So repeating the initial question: Why not only small wars that can be structured and resourced to succeed (with an all-volunteer force) ?

And secondly: At what level are US officers required to provide forthright confidential advice direct to the political administration?

And thirdly: What is the tipping point for resignation as opposed to acquiescence or possibly brown nosing ?