SPC123: I'll admit that my comments are badly expressed. Specifically, I spoke of "executing orders" in a context that really has nothing to do with them. The involvement of Yingling did not involve executing orders. He argued POLICY, and was able to make his case. Which, as Kaplan noted, is all to the good.

It's also fairly unusual. Consider the fate of the generals who spoke out for a larger deployment of troops at the outset of the war. They were shunted aside and replaced with generals who "knew better." This was, as I noted, mainly a decision made by civilians, not military officers, but in what other walk of life can obviously incompetent decisions be allowed to dominate the situation FOR YEARS without serious challenging from within the ranks. It seems to me, and I'll admit up front that you know far more about this than I do, that this is at least in part a function of the system of military discipline. I'd be interested in your opinion to the contrary.

But why, if what I've said isn't true, is there a cliche about "generals fighting the last war" which, according to my reading of history, is what generals tend to do? History is replete with instances of armed forces promoting the wrong men into positions of command, based upon careerism and political pull, and surely today's army has it's share of careerists. These considerations take a toll in other walks of life, to be sure, but the effect on those who must labor under incompetents is different. When I've worked for an incompetent boss, as I have, I quit and went somewhere else. Eventually, such men drive away enough good workers and suffer for it. In the armed forces, however, quitting often isn't an option, and I think it accounts for much of what history teaches us about generals fighting the last war.

It was in these very general terms that I meant to speak, and not the much more specific arena of "executing orders." If this created an incorrect impression of what I was trying to say, I apologize.