I don't disagree with you Steve. You don't become a 4 Star without brains at the very least.

But as you state, they were completely subserviant in a position where they shouldn't have been. We are paying for their lack of moral courage, at least from their public personas.

To answer your question, I think the answer is no, as long as political leaders continue to use the military as the primary instrument of foreign policy. Because of the political pressures derived from military force, these 4 Stars in the future will be even more scrutinized than they are today. If a future President shifts foreign policy back into Diplomatic or Intelligence spheres of influence, then its possible that a 4 Star who questions authority may indeed rise. But I remain skeptical...


Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
I believe they are both men of tremendous honor, personal integrity, and intellect. It's just that both held a view of civil-military relations that stressed complete subservience. That combination is precisely why they were selected but, from an historical standpoint, they were the wrong guys at the wrong time. --the nation needed frankness, not subservience. To some extent, I'm withholding judgement because it is at least possible that they were brutally frank with Rumsfeld in private but felt their duty was to be subservient in public. But that remains to be seen.

The bigger (and more important) question is whether our system can generate senior leaders who do NOT fit this mold. Can one get four stars without being totally subservient to civilian leaders?