More on Army Generals

All through this kerfluffle with the generals (including NPR counting those for & against like it was election night or something), I've been going through history in my head, the extreme criticism that fell on the head of Wilson's SecDef because of the appointment of Pershing, all the generals at Horse Guards trying to get Wellington's head even as he was winning battles, the backstabbing from various generals, active & retired, throughout WWII, MacArthur's entire career... Those are just the easy one's. But, I'd forgotten one of the biggest until I saw the picture over on InstaPunk's site.
McClellan! Lordy, the generals of the Civil War were such a political bunch that, despite LOSING battles that he should have won, McClellan went on to get the Democratic nomination to run against Lincoln in the 1864 election (where he got his but kicked, again). But to hear all the talking heads, this is the first time, ever in recorded history, let alone American history, that generals have spoken out against the way the war is being waged, winning or not.
Still, I don't want to come off partisan here (OK, too partisan). Mistakes in the execution, prosecution and follow-up to this war have certainly been made. Some of those mistakes were probably avoidable. So, some of the criticism being ladled out is probably deserved. But, in my opinion, the question isn't whether or not there were mistakes or will be mistakes, those are inevitable. The question is, how well do you deal with the mistakes as they occur. That's the difference between winning & losing. Just compare two Civil War generals that made a fair number of mistakes, Grant & McClellan. One learned from his mistakes, won the war and went on to become President. The other... didn't.
Well, anyway, read what InstaPunk wrote. It's worth a glance or three.