Not having time to read Bacevich I would offer this, but I might change my mind after viewing that work. From what I know of Eisenhower and Ridgway and combat I will side with Ridgway for knowing what is needed to fight and win on the ground in the mud. If a leader asked me to agree to a strategy/idea before I took command of my unit and assessed the situation I would be skeptical of his leadership model. My leaders always asked me to take over a unit, assess the situation and bring them back a plan. If my views were different than theirs that leader now has the choice to trust in me and my intelligence (hey, they hired me). Or the boss can say “thanks for your views but I know better.” I know which boss I would want to work for.

So if someone accepts command of a unit that means they are obligated to agree with everything the boss believes it can and should do and to carry out the strategy exactly as the boss believes it to be? I wasn't raised in that Army. In my Army the leader is hired to ensure a unit can do what its capable of doing and make it stronger. A leader is hired to assess organizations and make recommendations to their boss about where it needs to go and what its capabilities are. A leader is chosen to assess strategies from every angle and tell their boss when the plan is flawed after they have deeply reviewed it.

Its up to the boss to decide if that hired leader is correct or let him go if they just can’t come to an agreement. I think its OK for leaders to tell the emperor he has no clothes. This world has too much nudity because of all the Yes-Men that have been hired and real leaders that have been fired.

I could be wrong.