[SprCForr]

There can be an emotional connection with your subordinates, to a certain extent that is part of good leadership. You're allowed to care for your people. Where the error comes in is it was likely used in providing context for the romantic/sexual aspect which is most definately a big no-no.

F.O.G. covers the why pretty well. Proc is sort of off the mark. It's not politics (yes there is a political aspect to the rank but not for this), it's a function of leadership. He has to be the example not just look like one. It's a crucial difference.

If this turns out to be true, his days of leading soldiers are over. The troops'll respect the rank of course, but they'll fuck with him in the thousand ways that they have.

Edit: Yeah, like they said. Friggin slow fingers...

[gonavy47]

He compromised his position as a leader. He lacked the personal integrity to control himself. He thought with the little head which distracts the big head. A general in theatre has (or should have) enough to do to fill a 25 hour day, let alone time to wine and dine personnel under his command. Career over, and for what? Was it really worth it? I don't think so.