No-one likes a military leader with a confidence problem.

The moral of the McChrystal story is you shouldn’t open our mouth within earshot of a reporter. The fact that the General knew he was complaining to a reporter makes his lapse in judgment ever more egregious. Yes, military leaders have the right to their own opinions, but not to their unhindered expression. Sad but true. For a general to let off steam pubicly is to invite unrest among those lower down the military food chain, disrupting his command. He must lead by example. For McChrystal to let fly as he did cost him his job because he forgot that basic rule. In deriding members of the Administration and questioning his mission in Afghanistan, McChrystal undermined the authority of the office of the President, and President Obama was perfectly justified in removing him.

And yet some have grabbed McChrytal's lack of confidence in the government's plan for the war in Afghanistan as an opportunity to push their political agenda, denigrating our President as unfit to act as Commander-in-Chief on the basis that he never served active duty. You know, “it takes one to know one.” What a load of utter horse shit. Many Presidents have had to lead in wartime -- whether they started such wars or, as in Obama's case, inherited them from a previous Administration -- without benefit of first-hand battlefield experience; Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush, come to mind -- so an argument that such an individual is of necessity incapable of commanding effectively is specious. Frankly, I think Lincoln and FDR did a pretty good job, but what do I know. It is ignorant and short-sighted to dismiss Obama’s potential military acumen out of hand. We don't yet know the answer to that question.

Americans want to believe a President has it all at his finger tips; that he is perfect and all-knowing, and possessed of magical powers. Newsflash! Presidents are human, not gods. They cannot be all things to all people, no matter how much we want that to be the case. Americans have to get over themselves and realize that we elect fallible individuals with their own unique sets of talents, and both respect them for their skills and powers of discernment and resist the urge to annihilate them when they need to rely more on others' advice for a complete understanding of a situation. That's why we have a cabinet, and a host of national advisors and committee leaders. No-one governs alone.

At the root of our recalcitrance lies the fact that, though many vehemently deny it, our attitude toward government is paternalistic. We love to vaunt ourselves as a group of individuals, ultimately responsible for ourselves, but in truth we are more likely to expect the other guy to pick up our slack. Let the government take care of it, but woe betide any perceived failures. Government should intuit all of our wishes and then grant them, one by one. Yes, Teabags, this means you, too. Blah, Blah, individual and blah, blah big government - bull -- you aren't interested in small government, just in having a government of whatever size it takes to cater to your peculiarities. “Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare” indeed.