Agreed! Again, a little perspective here. There are still qualified leaders in the armed forces, and a joint operations perspective has made them better than any of past conflicts. Had jointness requirements been required during WWII, Nimitz probably would not have killed so many Marines and Soldiers during his operations. Hackworth was good, but there are probably better that are in uniform today. All i have said is that one cannot dismiss this guy's experience just because he has some character flaws. Grant was a drunk, remember?
Hack's got great insights, and every now and then he'll come out with an article blasting away at the idiocy of the modern leadership (incompetent officers and foolish policies especially) that gets emailed across half the military because he's dead on the money.
What doesn't make the rounds is his 'pre-game analysis' or his operational insights. He's an old warhorse, and we love him for that. He's a glory hound, sure, but he's stuck his neck out and earned it.
What he is, is an old rock star (like Ozzy, except that he's not a brain fried, burned out lunatic) who doesn't realize that he's no longer cutting edge, and no one wants to tell him because they loved his work, back in the day.