That's odd when considering that during the Korean War Gen. MacArthur was removed for contradicting President Truman in public by demanding a full scale invasion of the North. Then later Gen Curtis LeMay was forced into retirement for suggesting that Kennedy and MacNamara and then Johnson and MacNamara oppostion to a strategic bombing campaign against infrastructure targets in North Vietnamwa, to put it politely based on ignorance. Even though the North Vietnamese, via Gen Giap's autobiography, admitted that these campaigns, Linebacker I and II forced the Vietnamese back into negotiations. And even more currently when Pres. Clinton strongly hinted to Gen. Wesley Clark that his services at NATO were no longer needed after calling for an invasion of Serbia via Romania and belittling the air campaign. Gen. Clark's incompetence at Pristina Airport almost caused a war with Russia which might indicate that Clinton was right on this issue.

But in some people's world view if a Democrat removes a senior general or admiral its because that senior officer was either a fascist or warmonger. But if a Republican removes a senior officer its because that officer is "...speaking truth to power." Even when those clamoring for that officer's sainthood don't know the difference between a squad and a division or a fourragere and a frommage

Well golly, if its OK for ben Ladin to attack the US then I suppose its all right for all those Tibetans to attack the Chinese.

bashy-Notice the modifier "if" and then notice that it was one of the Merkelettes that was excusing ben Ladin, not me. Plus, even though I fell for it again, Merkel did not stay on topic and immediately got on his hobby horse concerning the same dreary web site and the same one-sided view of Tibet.

And to quote The Who, "Won't get fooled again."

David-And you came to that conclusion because I pointed out that the removal of senior officers has a long tradition in the US? Personally I would prefer to see any senior officer indicate his devotion to the Constitution and the chain of command rather than dishonor his service with a poorly thought out screed while still in uniform at the end of his career.

Gen. Billy Mitchell was willing to give up his career for the sake of the Army Air Corps while Gen. Cody risked absolutely nothing for the sake of a few brownie points. Even Gen. Smedley Butler, even with his very strong opinions about American foreign policy maintained his honor because he didn't criticize the president or the government until after he had retired.

But I am sure that in some imagined Obama Administration a senior officer who critizes the president will be hailed as a hero by the same people that have tried to lionize Gen Cody today. Just kidding, not likely!

Nanne-But Clark like MacArthur advocated positions in public that ran counter to the stated positions of the civilian leaders, Truman and Clinton. The former not really liking the grandstanding and constant demands to extend the war to the Yalu and face the Chinese there if necessary while the latter tiring of Clark's high profile and also being concerned that the head of NATO was essentially campaigning for a type of tactic that NATO and the CINC had already ruled out.

I have gone back over some of the main reference works on Gen. MacArthur and did not find any reference to either attacking or threatening to attack without orders the Chinese north of the Yalu except via Gen LeMay's bombers but rather his belittling of the idea that approaching the border would cause the Chinese to react. Many people forget that he deliberately ignored evidence that the Chinese were indeed infilitrating division sized formations into the PDRK and when pressed denied that they posed any real threat. Also he later threatened the Chinese with an invasion if they interceded and as a result managed to destroy Pres. Truman's attempt at securing an armistace before October of 1950. Gen. MacArthur obviously had some faults in regards to the chain of command and tactics but to claim he would disobey orders is a stretch considering his speech in front of Congress, when he was probably the most popular man in the US, clearly stated that he did and would follow orders and "...simply fade away."

Yet in late November of 1950 they attacked American and ROK positions all along the front forcing the allies to retreat to the 38th parallel. Add that complete failure, the letters home and keeping Truman waiting on the tarmac at Wake Island made MacArthurs's removal a foregone conclusion. Truman had met MacArthur during the First World War where the impression the Generalissimo left on the junior artillery officer was less than perfect.

I'm not to sure that Clinton's recollection now has much weight especially as William Cohen and the JCS chief Gen. Shelton have repeatedly stated that Cohen and then cohen and Shelton had spoken to Pres. Clinton on this issue, first because Clinton brought it up and then at the behest of the JCS. Part was payback for jumping the queue for the glamour posts ahead of more senior officers, being seen as contradicting the president on the nightly news and also for complete adherence to the Powell Doctrine which has turned out to have been quite unpopular among many of the Army and Marine officer corps at that time as being ineffective against asymmetric warfare and simply to reliant on very expensive weapons systems and static defense. Even Pres. Clinton, as feckless as he was, understood this tension and increased the size of Ranger and SOF units as well as allowing the Marines to rewrite their tactical manual. A manual that predated many of the recommendations that are being currently championed by Gen Petraeus.

Quite a few American senior officers, the opposite being the outlier, take very seriously the idea that they argue in private and those arguments stay there once the president has decided. They keep their disagreements to themslves till retirement or resignation. They do not give speeches criticisng the civilian authorities while still in the chain of command. Gen. Clark ignored the lessons of Belarius, Patton and Rommel that generals often can be replaced in spite of what that full lenght mirror might show that general in the morning.

Also at the time of Gen. Clark's retirement he admitted and has not denied that he had voted a straight Republican ticket for years until 2000.

No problem!