The situation with Galad and his organization lends itself to obvious comparison with Egwene's in the last book. In each case you have a leader who martyrs himself for the sake of the unity of the organization and inspires his captors to choose him for command of said organization based on the superior example. Yet, what is more telling, in my opinion, is where the comparisons break down. Were they direct paralells, the Children would be doomed to fractious infighting foreever and thoroughly unable to cooperate to serve at the Last Battle. What is more, they would now be doomed to be scattered into mutiple competing bands, possibly encouraging rules to set up their own Darkfriend-opposing organizations.

The reason for this bleak alternate future for the Children rests on assumptions that were made while two factions in the White Tower split choose to have a staring contest with Tarmon Gaidon looming, rather than make a move to decisively end the split once and for all. According to the Tower personnel on both sides, violence or bloodshed (of the sisters of course - lesser mortal scum, particularly of the male variety, didn't count) would irreparably rupture the Tower for good. Likewise, taking the moral high ground and walking away from the conflict was absolutely unaceptable. Much better to bring the Tower to the brink of the aforementioned unthinkable clash in an attempt to gain control of the whole deal.

Plainly, the leadership conflict within the Children of the Light has violated all of these principles, as well as a massive shake-up of their typical means of doing business as one of their new leaders advocates making temporary alliances with their enemies of a thousand years and tolerating revolting practices in their own eyes in order to defeat the Dark One. By the standards of What Not To Do In a White Tower Civil War, Galad and his adherents have made every possible mistake and more or less doomed the Children, and made it all but impossible for them to have any effect with the Last Battle.

Or could it be that the Children of the Light are adults, and not spoiled children? That they will shrug at the necessary bloodshed and say "too bad, but it had to be done" and go on together cooperating with their brothers in arms and holding true to the ideals for which they were established? The implication of chapter 2, strangely enough, suggests the latter! The Whitecloaks DID take the high ground and depart from the field rather than fight, or even posture as if prepared to fight, their brethern. They sought out their traditional enemies with the intention of making peace, and when they saw a would-be leader willing to put the unity of the group before his own survival, they acted instantly and decisively to rectify their failure of incumbent leadership and effect a change of power. They didn't need to interview Galad and have him answer softball gimme questions to impress them, they didn't need his supporters making subversive whispers falsely accusing Asunawa of tolerating Darkfriends, they didn't hold hearings to censure Asunawa for shackling Galad or lock up Trom for challenging Asunawa's authority. It took them about one day to see the difference and present the pretender's head to the better leader as a fait accompli.

I wonder if the difference has to do with the way a new LCC takes control and says "Perhaps you are right. I should not chide you on this choice. It may have been the only one you could have made," as opposed to the flurry of invective a new Amyrlin unleashes on all sides of her followers. Or maybe it has to do with whether or not said followers DESERVE the way their new leaders treat them! But which leader is more likely to clash with the Dragon Reborn in the immediate future? Which leader fully intends to stick up for the supremacy of their organization, despite the shortcomings which he/she has personally witnessed and overcome or taken advantage of in the rise to power, and which leader has committed to a platform of reforming their own policies in order to fit in and cooperate with everyone else.

Essentially, one group is selfish, petty and prone to sulking over slights done in the course of a civil conflict and makes crucial and necessary leadership changes at a glacial pace with disaster looming over them. Their own leader, upon taking charge, berates them all equilaterally for their misbehavior over the course of the conflict, even while resigning herself to accepting and working with the difficult situation the group's habits put her in. The other group admires and swiftly moves to raise a leader who singlemindedly bases his actions solely on what is right. When their leadership is unjust or obstructive and there is a clearly better option, they act decisively to make the change and accept the cost in blood necessary, and maintain respect for their chain of command throughout. Their leader is able to trust their loyalty enough to accept they acted for the best as they saw fit, and is comfortable proposing a radical departure from their past customs to make common cause with enemies. Yet, in spite of all that, which group's leader is going to defy the Dragon Reborn to stick up for the rights and privileges and honors of their group, and which one is going to make his men suck it up and accept fighting alongside their hated persecutors and the group of humans whose existance is responsible for the very danger the world faces? The answer to those questions is: the unworthy and selfish group will have its leader butt heads with the Dragon Reborn over their status even as time grows short for him to save the world, and the moral and disciplined group will duck their heads and serve alongside the sort of people they (rightly) hold responsible for the threat of the Shadow and the Breaking of the World. There is no sign of Galad shrugging and saying "Well the idea that channelers are not to be trusted is good enough for now, even though we have to work under one for the Last Battle," but the nature of the Tower is such that Egwene has to say the same thing, substituting "men" for channelers. Based on the behavior of the Children, the statement Egwene has to accept is utterly false. Based on the behavior of the sisters, the hypothetical statement Galad openly opposes to his men is truer than not.

What a world.