McChrystal (Updated) (And Again)

The big news today is Gen. Stanley McChrystal's interview with Rolling Stone (PDF), which seems to be a total PR screw-up. One wonders what was on McChrystal's mind.

Most commentators are focusing on the General's remarks (and those of his aides) about Obama, Biden, et al.

John Amato notes that the Villagers, in the person of Brit Hume, are appalled that McChrystal agreed to be intervewed by (gasp!) a lefty, hippie rag.

Hume: This is a regular mess. The comments made by General McChrystal himself and by his aides. The astonishing lack of judgement [sic] shown in granting access to Rolling Stone. ROLLING STONE! Of all publications. No one over the age of four would speak on the record to Rolling Stone about delicate military matter and 'above all' about laying yourself with all kinds of back room opinions about your partners in the effort and the commander in chief and the vice president.

The outrage is focused on the remarks about Obama and the possible fallout. Joe Sudbay's comments are here. Digby has a good analysis here:

I can't speak for anyone else, but my belief that he should fire McCrystal or at least accept his resignation (which is as far as he should go to appease the military) has nothing to do with any skepticism of the war. It has to do with respect for the constitutional requirement that the military be subordinate to the civilian executive. The military has been acting more and more as a rogue political faction with its own power base for quite some time. No president of either party should allow that (although it must be said that Bush's fetishizing of "the Generals on the ground" and The Man Called Petraeus has contributed greatly to this problem.)

This isn't something to play with. Obama should accept his resignation.

I think he can't afford not to. He should also fire Gates and Mullen, for the reasons Digby noted.

Timorthy Beauchamp at AmericBlog Gay just says "We told you so."

Karoli, at Crooks and Liars, highlights some interesting information:

According to the Rolling Stone article, the rank and file has lost faith in McChrystal's strategy and believe it places them at a greater risk of injury and death.

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal’s new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. “Bottom line?” says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers’ lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing.”

This is why McChrystal must resign. The President will survive petty snark about whether he was sufficiently deferential to the general at their first meeting. He will survive the hysterical flappings of the right about how he's unqualified to lead, and how the military doesn't respect him. This is not about President Obama. It's about the troops who are putting their lives on the line every single day in Afghanistan.

Everyone who has a clue about leadership understands what happens when the rank and file loses faith. There can be no question that the troops in Afghanistan do not believe in their ability to successfully carry out the mission McChrystal has defined, nor do they believe in the mission itself. That is a very large red flag that must not be ignored.

You won't hear about this part of it from the right-wing press (which is most of it). That part of the story's going to be buried under their effort to make Obama look like a) a wimp is he doesn't cashier McChrystal, or b) a thug if he does.

Ack! The clock is speaking to me. I might come back to this later, but have to run for now.

Update: Now that I've had a chance to digest all of this, a thought occurs to me. Simply put, one wonders whether it's a calculated move on McChrystal's part to be lectured and/or canned for insubordination/disrespect to his commander rather than cashiered as a failure at strategic planning -- which, after all, is his job. Given the personalities involved, a slap on the wrist would seem a safe bet -- I mean, based on the record, what does it take to make Obama actually stand up to anyone? -- and it's better politics for McChrystal -- he can immediately don the official robes of victimhood and have the right wing (territory in which I'm sure he's very comfortable, although he reportedly voted for Obama -- well, given the choice between a communist/fascist/homo-symp/Muslim non-citizen and Sarah Palin, what would you do?) falling all over themselves to worship. At the very least, I wouldn't doubt he figures that should be good for a senate seat a couple years down the line.

Given the notable lack of success of the current Afghanistan program -- McChrystal's baby -- and the total insanity of the content of that interview, which McChrystal was reportedly allowed to review before it went to press, I can't come up with anything that makes more sense.

Update II:In this vein, note Alex Pareene's comments. And everyone's quoting Marc Ambinder, and I'm not quite sure why. In light of later reports, his comments seem off-center to me. He's also, not surprisingly, much more sympathetic to McChrystal than other commentators have been. (He's also voicing the possibility -- or probability -- of misattributed quotes which, if McChrystal really did see the piece before publication, doesn't hold water.) Barbara O'Brien takes a position much closer to my own:

I’ve been trying to understand precisely what’s wrong with General McChrystal, and my impression is that he’s an asshole.