The Pentagon and White House are apoplectic, and the general's comments are roundly condemned. But in the end, the soldier is proven right. Even so, he's forced to exit, stage left.

Here's hoping that what happened to Gen. Erik Shinseki won't befall Stanley McChrystal.

Back in 2003, Shinseki, Army chief of staff, clashed publicly with the Bush administration, most notably Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld wanted a limited ground force in Iraq, while Shinseki urged something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers for the reconstruction period. His suggestion was rejected and he eventually retired after 38 years of service.

Many conservatives criticized Shinseki for speaking out. But anti-war types, mostly Democrats and liberals, praised him as a voice of courage and reason crying out in the D.C. wilderness.

BUT ONE man's courage is another's insubordination. Gen. McChrystal, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, has followed in Shinseki's footsteps by saying publicly that it would be folly to follow the policy promoted by many high-profile Democrats, including noted military strategist Joe Biden.

That policy, to severely limit troop levels while opting for missile-armed drones and strategic strikes, prompted McChrystal to warn of creating a "Chaosistan." Asked by a London interviewer what he thought about substituting the drones for increased troops, the general said: "That's a very fair question . . . the short, glib answer is 'no' . . . a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy."

That's when the poo hit the fan. Critics acted as if McChrystal was a "birther" challenging the president's legitimacy. The Democrats ganged up on him in their own inimitable way.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a vet and ex-secretary of the Navy, said that "at a time when people were meeting in the White House discussing Afghanistan, he was giving a speech in London. I thought that was pretty odd."

But perhaps McChrystal thought it odd that he'd had only one meeting with Obama since taking command, and figured that if his boss wasn't interested in his opinion, he'd give it to the British, who apparently were.

And then you have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is all about respect (except when it's a Democratic congressman accusing the GOP of wanting people to "die quickly" and spouting nonsense about "holocausts"). But, in this case, she was all courtesy, saying, "Let me say this about Gen. McChrystal, with all due respect. His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command. They shouldn't be in press conferences."

Pelosi made it seem as if McChrystal had completely sidestepped the chain of command and gone AWOL on Obama.

Not true, as he himself said during that same interview: "I'm certainly not going to circumvent any political leadership, because at the end of the day the political leadership are the people who I work for, and I'm proud to do that." Not exactly the words of a rogue operative.

And I find it interesting that those who so strongly supported Shinseki when he clashed with Rumsfeld (and by implication, Rummy's boss, the president) are now criticizing McChrystal for making a similar argument:the importance of keeping a significant presence on the ground.

Of course, they argue that any such disagreement ends "at the water's edge" and that the NATO commander was wrong to dis his boss on foreign territory. But these are the same people who had no problem with Obama trashing his country during his diplomatic forays abroad and apologizing for every mistake, real or imagined, this country has ever allegedly made.

There is a double standard here, and both sides are guilty.

Those like me who believe McChrystal hasn't done anything wrong must then admit that Shinseki was right, along with other generals, like Westmoreland and MacArthur, who had public disputes with their bosses. If we don't, we're no better than Pelosi and her ilk.

On the other hand, if you think McChrystal is out of line, you'd better not have pumped your fist for Shinseki.

In the final analysis, the boss should welcome the counsel of his chosen advisers, no matter how it's delivered.

And if he doesn't, he should fire them.

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer.

E-mail cflowers1961@yahoo.com.