I don’t think the PResident needs to have a regular discussion with his generals.
But I think the President NEEDS to hear his General SPEAK to him every month or so, so the General can be sure that the PResident is getting the truth of the war, unfiltered by political hacks.
Bush LISTENED TO the Generals. That’s what I want from any President.
As a command model, I'd call that one "Listener in Chief." I want my president to be the Commander in chief, which means that the president is engaged in a two-way conversation.
At the very least, the president is responsible for making the large, strategic decisions, and to do so he needs to be asking questions and giving direction ... not just "listening."
Perhaps my view on this is skewed by the fact that I'm currently reading Churchill's WWII memoirs. He was -- rightly so -- deeply involved in what his generals were doing. The lesson one takes away from Churchill's approach is that there's a delicate balance between being the Commander in Chief, and letting the generals do their jobs.
Only a president who is intimately involved could possibly have the insight to distinguish between matters he must handle and decide on himself; and matters that are better left to the generals.
Obama, of course, has absolutely no context or background from which to draw -- he's lost and naive, as his egregious UN speech so forcefully showed.
So, in effect, we're presently without a real Commander in Chief, no matter if he begins to take notice or not. Longer term, however, even a president as inexperienced as Obama must play the game; it's the only way left for him to gain the necessary insight.