Honorable to a fault?

Frank Schaeffer has a great piece up on the Huffington Post today about the danger that a military man's sense of 'honor' would bring to the presidency (read McCain). Schaeffer argues that from a historical perspective, military men have not served their country well as president during wartime because military honor does not easily translate into good policy making or civilian leadership.

"...the reason we have civilian leadership of our military is that the military code of honor is great for the military, lousy for the world of civilian decision making. It is even lousy for the military -- if the military code is adopted by the nation's leaders."

Schaeffer formerly supported McCain but now argues that American needs to deviate from the Bush legacy, and a fresh start with new leadership. Despite the heroic sacrifices that McCain made for his country in Vietnam, his military honor and and personal experiences will not serve him, or that same beloved country, very well in position of civilian leadership. His personal experiences with war and the military have instilled a determination to win, but as leader of our nation, a determination to win in Iraq at all cost, is simply not good policy and not in America's best interest.

"Until McCain admits that the war he wants to "win" was based on mistakes and defended by lies the mere and endless repetition of the word honor will ring hollow. We need a new Truman for president, not today's version of MacArthur. The next president needs to guard the interests of the United States of America, not the abstract principles he lives by and his own sense of wounded pride. There is nothing more out of place than a great man at the wrong time, especially an old man living in his past who seems to have forgotten that lasting honor must be based on truth."