[temujin77]

There's always a flip side to the story, of course.

At the time the Pacific War opened, the American military intelligence in Asia was almost zero. MacArthur was the only senior level commander in just about the entire US Army who had some understanding of the geography and culture of Asian peoples. That made him unsackable.

His immense political capabilities also kept him in power there. For one, he was good friends with Filipino leader Manuel Quezon, and that association gave US the political influence she needs to continue to maintain Filipino cooperation; Quezon almost declared Philippines neutral had it not been MacArthur who talked sense into Quezon (though it is doubtful that Japanese would honor that declaration of neutrality, anyway). He was capable diplomatically, too. He crossed the military-civilian line by cabling Washington, recommending Washington to enter talks with Russia. That, too, made him unsackable.

Finally, MacArthur's own brand of "hit 'em where they ain't" island hopping strategy saved countless American lives. He had lost about the same number of men the entire campaign from Australia to the eve of the Philippines invasion as the single Normandy campaign; another comparison noted that his campaign from Australia to the Philippines cost fewer men than what Eisenhower had lost at the Battle of the Bulge defense. For the remarkably low casualty rate, Roosevelt should be thankful that he did not sack MacArthur.

Some of the stuff you have already touched upon. Just trying to note that with a figure as controversial as MacArthur, there's always two sides to each story...