Gen. Stanley McCrystal to resign over comments?

jank

Furious President Obama summons Gen. Stanley McCrystal to explain comments

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html#ixzz0ra91uViN

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration.

The face-to-face comes as pundits are already calling for McChrystal to resign on grounds of obvious insubordination.

McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington today to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House.

An administration official says McChrystal was asked to attend in person rather than by secure video teleconference, “where he will have to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes about his colleagues in the piece.”

McChrystal and his top aides appeared to let their guard down during a series of interviews and visits with Michael Hastings, a freelance writer for the magazine.

The article, titled “The Runaway General,” appears in the magazine later this week. It contains a number of jabs by McChrsytal and his staff aimed not only at the President but at Vice President Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke and others.

McChrystal described his first meeting with Obama as disappointing and that Obama was unprepared for the meeting.

Jim Jones is described by a McChrystal aide as a “clown” stuck in 1985. Others aides joked about Biden’s last name as sounding like “Bite me” since Biden opposed the surge.

McChrystal issued an immediate apology for the profile, advance copies of which were sent to news organizations last night.

“It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” McChrystal said. “Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”

NATO issued a statement overnight indicating continued support for McChrystal despite the “unfortunate article.”

It will be hard for the White House to get past this since the remarks appear to amount to some level of insubordination.

“This general has to be fired, he has to be gone by the end of the day,” said Joe Scarborough, on “Morning Joe” on MSNBC.

“Gates and Petraeus have to come out and fire McChrystal.” They should have already done it - Petreaus and Gates should have already fired McChrystal.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html#ixzz0ra9VuoLq

jank

Very interesting indeed. The thing is though it appears that McCrystal has taken a swipe at quite a few officials in the white house, both democrats and republicans. What is worrying is that he was so prepared to voice his opinions in public. It will do nothing for the effort in the region and just isolates him from the rest of the army. Will be interesting what Manic thinks about this. As they say in football what happens in the dressing room should stay in the dressing room. Its a big No-No to go public no matter how much you don't like the manager.

Bit of a McArthur moment for Obama.

Amerika

I guess we now know the real reason Petreaus fainted in the hearing . Brave, yet ludicrous thing McChrystal did. You can feel his frustration. The military does report to civilian authority, regardless of the incompetence. Unfortunately he does have to be relieved. I think he will do the honorable thing and resign.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

I guess we now know the real reason Petreaus fainted in the hearing . Brave, yet ludicrous thing McChrystal did. You can feel his frustration. The military does report to civilian authority, regardless of the incompetence. Unfortunately he does have to be relieved. I think he will do the honorable thing and resign.

Wow, one of the more reasonable posts from you. I thought you were going to come out and support him to the hilt. I suppose Bush's problems with his generals puts things in perspective.

It is becoming increasingly rare that presidents serve in uniform. I suppose it comes down to the end of the draft. There is always going to be a disconnect. Regardless the military report to the white house. The USA is not Argentina.

Amerika

jank wrote: »

Regardless the military report to the white house.

Acutally, I think they report to the Commander-In-Chief.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Acutally, I think they report to the Commander-In-Chief.

Who lives where?

fontanalis

The Biden remarks seem very petty and the article doesn't go into detail about what exactly he isn't happy with regaridng Obamas policy. Whatever he's unhappy with, Rollign Stone isn't the place to do it.

Manic Moran

Will be interesting what Manic thinks about this. As they say in football what happens in the dressing room should stay in the dressing room.

You are correct on the dressing room comments. I'd be curious to read it myself. I find it hard to believe that McChrystal would be stupid enough to knowingly speak ill of his superiors in an interview. Most of the mentioned comments seem to have been from persons under McChrystal (And a lot of them, though politically embarassing, won't actually come under the prohibited speech rules in the Army: We're allowed quite a bit of leeway: Take the MSN article on the subject, for example, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37839756/ns/us_news-military/ which finishes with a PFC criticising the policy set by McChrystal.

I don't think it's quite a MacArthur moment, though. Once McChrystal's been given an order, so far he's said 'Yes Sir' and gone on with the job. With the MacArthur situation, even after the decision not to use the A-Bomb on China or otherwise attack into China had been made, MacArthur continued to speak vocally in opposition to that stated policy.

NTM

Amerika

jank wrote: »

Who lives where?

From recent accounts... seems to be the golf course.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

From recent accounts... seems to be the golf course.

I missed the real PJ!

Amerika

Here is the Rolling Stone article if interested.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

Overheal

Personally I think he should be dismissed as soon as possible. But I don't know when possible is. Sometime before the end of the calendar year perhaps, when the majority/completion of troop withdrawals is meant to have occured by august...

Manic Moran

You know, politically embarassing though the comments may be, they're actually not as far out of line as I had thought from reading the initial reports.

NTM

ynotdu

If a mod would like to delete it from Military,please do,but it might be interesting to hear the thoughts of the American Politics forum point of view and in the Military forum a purely serving or ex serving Servicemans point of view?

cheers

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66547493&postcount=1

FlutterinBantam

Hmm...

Looks like the left wingers are trying to clip the wings of Stan McCrystal who is cutting a swathe through Afghanistan.

Kicking some ass.

Looks like he overextended himself on Rolling Stone and annoyed a few suits.

Hopefully Mr O will see reason and let him clean up the place.

In my opinion he is the man for the job.

sceptre

Threads merged.

Amerika wrote: »

jank wrote: »

Regardless the military report to the white house.

Acutally, I think they report to the Commander-In-Chief.

Welcome to the modern use of metonyms in the 21st century. Not something I want silly hand-bagging over if you please, take it to the Linguistics & Etymology forum if desired.

/mod

ynotdu

CNN are confirming that McChrystal has been sacked.

Gen Petraeus to take his place.

Obama to Speak any minute now.

Sand

Intriguing - whilst what McCrystal said was probably ill advised, was he particularly wrong in what he said?

McCrystal didnt leave Obama with any good options, but Obama would have come out of this stronger if he had retained a chastened McCrystal. As it is, it looks a bit touchy - military leadeship expresses issues with civillian leadership, Obama sacks military leadership with little or no obvious investigation of issues.

ynotdu

A Video of Obama's 10 minute speech were he explains and justifies the sacking has finally appeared somewhere online.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wABTap2d2aQ

jank

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Hmm...

Looks like the left wingers are trying to clip the wings of Stan McCrystal who is cutting a swathe through Afghanistan.

Kicking some ass.

Looks like he overextended himself on Rolling Stone and annoyed a few suits.

Hopefully Mr O will see reason and let him clean up the place.

In my opinion he is the man for the job.

Sorry even the GOP dont agree with you.

jank

Sand wrote: »

Intriguing - whilst what McCrystal said was probably ill advised, was he particularly wrong in what he said?-

Well he didn't actually say publicly that he disagreed with the overall strategy that Obama was pursuing. Its kinda petty actually that he would speak of white house administration staff as clowns or fools. Jones as a retired 4 star general to be stuck in the 80's who we all remember was appointed by W. Bush. Hubris maybe?

Sand wrote: »

McCrystal didn't leave Obama with any good options, but Obama would have come out of this stronger if he had retained a chastened McCrystal. As it is, it looks a bit touchy -

If he left him in place he would have looked unbelievably week and the right would have killed him for it. Even you Sand all theory aside would have to agree with that. The dems have always had an issue of being perceived week on national security. Fair or not leaving a general in command after he basically told to world that he thinks the VP is an idiot is not a show of strength. You dint come out in an interview with the rolling stones magazine of of publication and express disagreements with the civilian leadership and in all intents and purposes your boss.

Sand wrote: »

military leadership PUBLICLY expresses issues with civilian leadership,.

Fixed that for you

Sand wrote: »

Obama sacks military leadership with little or no obvious investigation of issues.

So all conversations between Obama and his national security adviser, the chief and staff and the pentagon are now public knowledge. WOW! Can I get your security clearance:D:rolleyes:


Look we all agree that Afghanistan is not exactly going to plan. Is it thus because of Obama or in spite of Obama. IMO, it was going to be a mess regardless if you had Palin, FDR, Bush, Obama etc in the WH and I find it very fox news like of you Sand that people use this as an excuse to take a swipe at him.
Never let a bad news story go to waste eh!

digme

mmm lithium etc etc etc....

scallioneater

Sand wrote: »

As it is, it looks a bit touchy - military leadeship expresses issues with civillian leadership, Obama sacks military leadership with little or no obvious investigation of issues.

I think it is touchy because the civilian leaders are terrified of losing control of the strongest military that the world has ever known. Both Democrats and Republicans know that to allow a general to run his mouth off like that is very dangerous for the continuation of civilian control. That is why you have seen strong support for removing McCrystal from the Republicans on the Armed Services Committees.

What I find most interesting about this is that it wasn't just McCrystal, it seemed like his entire staff had lost the run of themselves. I wonder if it is a variant of the Zimbardo study. (Amateur prison guards go on power trip in fake prison)

These staff officers are put in effective control of the nation of Afghanistan and the virtually unlimited power that they have in that nation results in them forgetting the rules that exist outside of their military jurisdiction. They speak and act like there is no check on their power, until someone from outside comes in and reports what is actually happening.

Obama had no choice. No civilian government could safely ignore this level of hubris.

Sand

@jank

Well he didn't actually say publicly that he disagreed with the overall strategy that Obama was pursuing. Its kinda petty actually that he would speak of white house administration staff as clowns or fools. Jones as a retired 4 star general to be stuck in the 80's who we all remember was appointed by W. Bush. Hubris maybe?

People are people and they dont always think everyone else is great, especially their co-workers or bosses. Maybe he thinks they are clowns and fools and was overly honest or believed he was talking "off the record", both being mistakes.

If he left him in place he would have looked unbelievably week and the right would have killed him for it. Even you Sand all theory aside would have to agree with that. The dems have always had an issue of being perceived week on national security. Fair or not leaving a general in command after he basically told to world that he thinks the VP is an idiot is not a show of strength. You dint come out in an interview with the rolling stones magazine of of publication and express disagreements with the civilian leadership and in all intents and purposes your boss.

Maybe - like I said, McCrystal didnt give Obama much in the way of good options. But if McCrystal was the man for the job a week ago, and Karzai seems to think hes the best the US have sent to Afghanistan, and then a week later hes dismissed for whats at worst ill advised comments revealing a fairly typical personality clash...well, it doesnt come out great either. It could and probably will be spun as being weak on national security.

Somehow I think Obama would have demonstrated his control and much vaunted calm/detachement by having McCrystal apologise publically, pledge to concentrate on winning the good fight, and then forgetting about the story until the next story of the week showed up.

military leadership PUBLICLY expresses issues with civilian leadership,.

Publically? He hardly called a press conference to express political views - he just very foolishly let his guard down talking to his aides with a reporter present and made some disparging remarks about the people he worked with. Unwise, yes, abnormal, no.

So all conversations between Obama and his national security adviser, the chief and staff and the pentagon are now public knowledge. WOW! Can I get your security clearance

They had a 20 minute meeting and McCrystal was on a plane to Washington very soon after the story broke. I amnt sure there was much time for examination of the personality clashes.

Look we all agree that Afghanistan is not exactly going to plan. Is it thus because of Obama or in spite of Obama. IMO, it was going to be a mess regardless if you had Palin, FDR, Bush, Obama etc in the WH and I find it very fox news like of you Sand that people use this as an excuse to take a swipe at him.
Never let a bad news story go to waste eh!

I amnt sure what youre getting at tbh. Dems/Reps dont matter much in terms of foreign policy. They face the same problems and they have the same tool box and the usually have almost identical advisors. Some just lean forward, others lean back. Just a style thing.

The people most upset about Obama are those who truly bought into the hype and thought they were getting the second coming of Jesus Christ.

@scallioneater

I think it is touchy because the civilian leaders are terrified of losing control of the strongest military that the world has ever known.

It might be a little OTT to portray McCrystal as some sort of sullen and rebellious Caesar with his legion camped on the Rubicon planning a march on Rome to overthrow the Senate.

Amerika

I wish I knew the answer to two questions in the matter. First, why in the world would General McChrystal even allow Rolling Stone Magazine, which by many accounts is staffed by anti-war liberal hippie retreds, into his inner circle? And second, why in the world would he and his staff let their guard down in front of this Rolling Stone individual, which given the opportunity to portray the military in less than favorable light, will most definitely take advantage of it?

scallioneater

Amerika wrote: »

I wish I knew the answer to two questions in the matter. First, why in the world would General McChrystal even allow Rolling Stone Magazine, which by many accounts is staffed by anti-war liberal hippie retreds, into his inner circle? And second, why in the world would he and his staff let their guard down in front of this Rolling Stone individual, which given the opportunity to portray the military in less than favorable light, will most definitely take advantage of it?

I wondered about that too.... The best I can guess is that McChrystal and his entire staff came to see themselves as omnipotent because they were effectively omnipotent in Afghanistan. They got used to talking down to everyone in Afghanistan and then just forgot that the rest of the world didn't operate by those rules.

I've seen it time and time again with less powerful people in business and government. Give them power over others and they lose control of themselves. The greater the power the greater the temptation.

Overheal

God Damn Hippies :mad:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-10-2008/marines-in-berkeley

scallioneater

Sand wrote: »

It might be a little OTT to portray McCrystal as some sort of sullen and rebellious Caesar with his legion camped on the Rubicon planning a march on Rome to overthrow the Senate.

I disagree, there are not very many steps from insubordination to rebellion. In fact, it might be a good exercise for you to read up on Ceasar crossing the Rubicon.

Remember, when you and I complain about our politicians, all we have to effect change are individual votes. A four star general can effect a lot of change with a couple of infantry divisions.

In a democratic system, any challenge by a general staff officer to the civilian leadership is a no-no. If the civies don't dismiss the general involved, then the problem only gets bigger.

jank

Sand wrote: »

People are people and they dont always think everyone else is great, especially their co-workers or bosses. Maybe he thinks they are clowns and fools and was overly honest or believed he was talking "off the record", both being mistakes.
.

Well that is life, of course people are not always going to get along but he didnt critise policy he just critised people publicly. Therefore it's a bit petty on his and his teams behalf.

Sand wrote: »

Maybe - like I said, McCrystal didn't give Obama much in the way of good options. But if McCrystal was the man for the job a week ago, and Karzai seems to think hes the best the US have sent to Afghanistan, and then a week later hes dismissed for whats at worst ill advised comments revealing a fairly typical personality clash...well, it doesn't come out great either. It could and probably will be spun as being weak on national security..

Yea, spun by right wing nuts such as Michael Savage.
Also seriously I wouldn't take heed of any thing that corrupt stooge Karzai says or thinks. He likes McCrysral probably because he gets to line his own pockets with relative ease. His opinion on matters such as this is worth toilet paper

Sand wrote: »

Somehow I think Obama would have demonstrated his control and much vaunted calm/detachement by having McCrystal apologise publically, pledge to concentrate on winning the good fight, and then forgetting about the story until the next story of the week showed up...

This is fantasy and you know it!!

Sand wrote: »

Publically? He hardly called a press conference to express political views - he just very foolishly let his guard down talking to his aides with a reporter present and made some disparging remarks about the people he worked with. Unwise, yes, abnormal, no. ...

Abnormal, tell me how many 4 star gernerals have been let go by the president for making disparing personal remarks.
What was he thinking anyway of letting that publication into his inner circle?

Sand wrote: »

They had a 20 minute meeting and McCrystal was on a plane to Washington very soon after the story broke. I amnt sure there was much time for examination of the personality clashes....

Ah, so you are just "guessing" and "assuming" nevermind "guessing" and assuming" that that was the only meeting Obama had with this staff and military about this situation.... ever. You know what they say about the word assume. It makes an ass of u and me!:p

Sand wrote: »

I amnt sure what youre getting at tbh. Dems/Reps dont matter much in terms of foreign policy. They face the same problems and they have the same tool box and the usually have almost identical advisors. Some just lean forward, others lean back. Just a style thing.

The people most upset about Obama are those who truly bought into the hype and thought they were getting the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Sorry but I dont think Glenn Beck and his cohorts and Fox news voted for Obama.

ynotdu

Arghhhhhhhhhhh How could any discussion even approaching "The right thing to do" Democracy etc include the name Karzai?????

BluePlanet

ynotdu wrote: »

Arghhhhhhhhhhh How could any discussion even approaching "The right thing to do" Democracy etc include the name Karzai?????

Well he was hand picked by the yanks to begin with.
And in fairness he did look good on paper...

Sand

@Jank

Well that is life, of course people are not always going to get along but he didnt critise policy he just critised people publicly. Therefore it's a bit petty on his and his teams behalf.

If anything seems petty its the overreaction to what was at worst unguarded conversation in front of a journalist.

He likes McCrysral probably because he gets to line his own pockets with relative ease. His opinion on matters such as this is worth toilet paper

More likely its down to McCrystal taking the reduction of civillian casualties from NATO operations very seriously - which obviously relieves pressure on Karzai from Afghani public opinion.

This is fantasy and you know it!!

Is it? Its not the first time Ive heard of stress and strain between personalities in the US presence in Afghanistan. Christ, its not the first time I have heard of stress and strain between personalities in US leadership, military or civillian, period. Did everyone who expressed frustration get sacked regardless of their capability for the job?

Its very rare for a US President to sack his top General during the middle of a war. I think the last time it happened was MacArthur. Did the rest of them all get on like a house on fire? How would Obama have handled a General like Patton?

If anything seems petty its the overreaction to what were at best stupid remarks by a man recognised as being very smart and capable and considered ready to the job.

Abnormal, tell me how many 4 star gernerals have been let go by the president for making disparing personal remarks.
What was he thinking anyway of letting that publication into his inner circle?

See above. The McCrystal case is a rarity in that a top general in a time of war has been sacked for a few snide remarks made between himself and his aides. The US civillian leadership have endured outspoken generals in a time of war before. The US went so far as to exploit the outspokeness of Patton to try and sell a dummy to the Germans before D-Day.

As for why a journalist was allowed to report on a US general - I cant honestly say. Obama would never allow a journalist to sit in on his conversations with his staff in anything other than totally stage managed productions. I very much doubt journalists will get much more than press releases from the wiser of US army generals going forward.

Ah, so you are just "guessing" and "assuming" nevermind "guessing" and assuming" that that was the only meeting Obama had with this staff and military about this situation.... ever. You know what they say about the word assume. It makes an ass of u and me!

Small question - why are you putting " " around guessing and assuming?

Sorry but I dont think Glenn Beck and his cohorts and Fox news voted for Obama.

I amnt Glenn Beck.

@scallioneater

I disagree, there are not very many steps from insubordination to rebellion. In fact, it might be a good exercise for you to read up on Ceasar crossing the Rubicon.

Remember, when you and I complain about our politicians, all we have to effect change are individual votes. A four star general can effect a lot of change with a couple of infantry divisions.

In a democratic system, any challenge by a general staff officer to the civilian leadership is a no-no. If the civies don't dismiss the general involved, then the problem only gets bigger.

Scallion - I have read up on Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Roman soldiers were increasingly professionalised in the late Republic, when military service stopped being a civic duty and became almost mercenary. Rome stopped making war as a broad civic effort and instead the weight was bourne by a small, alienated and often non Roman faction within society. The Senate never caught up with the new reality - they refused to accept responsibility for this new professional soldier caste, expecting them to do their civic duty as citizens had done 100 years before. This left their Generals (politicians appointed to military command) to take responsibility for providing for them through loot and resettlement in retirement. Political figures suddenly had a private army of serving soldiers and veterans dependant upon them for financial security. This offered options outside of the normal standards for the power struggles within Rome. The citizen armies of the Punic Wars were amateurs led by amateurs, but they would never have marched upon Rome, upon themselves. The semi-professionalised armies of the late Republic, often non citizens or otherwise alientated from Rome, loyal to one man, a warlord...they would.

That was the context within which Caesar descended upon the Roman Republic with an army of men more loyal to him than they were to the idea of the Republic. This was why Roman soldiers violated the ancient understanding that loyal citizens would not carry arms within the boundaries of Rome. And this was why Augustus Caesar was able to intimidate the Senate by having armed soldiers enter the Senate to stand behind him whilst he announced his new powers.

Given that context, given the great efforts to which modern society goes to honour and respect military soldiers and to place them at heart of civic identity and to stress their patriotism....are there that many soldiers who are more loyal to McCrystal than they are to the US consitution?

I seriously doubt it, please stop.

Amerika

Brilliant!

Funny, looks like all the mainstream media got the “Brilliant” talking points regarding the sacking of General McChrystal and replacing him with General Petraeus. But think about it, who else could Obama have picked that wouldn’t have caused a firestorm?

(answer: option 1) Petraeus, option 2) Petraeus, option 3) Petraeus.)

So Obama choosing the “obvious” is a brilliant move? I don't understand why the mainstream media feels the need to give him such props for something so very apparent.

Really quite sad.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Xd2GqG6UQu

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Brilliant!

Funny, looks like all the mainstream media got the “Brilliant” talking points regarding the sacking of General McChrystal and replacing him with General Petraeus. But think about it, who else could Obama have picked that wouldn’t have caused a firestorm?

(answer: option 1) Petraeus, option 2) Petraeus, option 3) Petraeus.)

So Obama choosing the “obvious” is a brilliant move? I don't understand why the mainstream media feels the need to give him such props for something so very apparent.

Really quite sad.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Xd2GqG6UQu

Maybe because fundamentalists won't give him credit for anything that he does.

karma_

Amerika wrote: »

Brilliant!

Funny, looks like all the mainstream media got the “Brilliant” talking points regarding the sacking of General McChrystal and replacing him with General Petraeus. But think about it, who else could Obama have picked that wouldn’t have caused a firestorm?

(answer: option 1) Petraeus, option 2) Petraeus, option 3) Petraeus.)

So Obama choosing the “obvious” is a brilliant move? I don't understand why the mainstream media feels the need to give him such props for something so very apparent.

Really quite sad.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Xd2GqG6UQu

Seriously, why does every single link you post originate from a site pushing a neo-con agenda? It's blinkered and unhealthy mate.

LostinKildare

Sand wrote: »

Its very rare for a US President to sack his top General during the middle of a war. I think the last time it happened was MacArthur.

Only two years ago Adm Fallon was forced to resign as CENTCOM Commander during the Iraq War for criticizing the Bush Administration in an article in Esquire magazine; he too was replaced by General Petraeus.

It has to be said, too, that McChrystal was already on thin ice for publicly pressing his own plan and criticizing alternative Afghanistan strategies while Obama was conducting a strategy review last fall. Some observers saw it as insubordination and called for him to be sacked, but reportedly Obama just advised him to be more circumspect. How many times should a military commander have to be told to maintain military discipline and exercise personal self-control?

From last October:

The New York Times portrayed McChrystal’s brief defense of the virtues of stabilizing Afghanistan as a public rebuke of Vice President Biden, who contends that restricting the mission to hunting terrorists and emphasizing Pakistan is the wiser course of action. In an op-ed in The Washington Post on Saturday, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman said McChrystal had “no business making such public pronouncements” and was in “plain violation of the principle of civilian control” of the military. On CNN Sunday, ret. Gen. Jim Jones, Obama’s national security adviser, curtly replied that “better for military advice to come up through the chain of command” than in public pronouncements. Speaking Monday morning to the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations – civilian and military alike – provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”

http://washingtonindependent.com/62415/media-pushes-rift-between-mcchrystal-and-obama

The Rolling Stone article put it this way:

As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the same fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out how your enemy operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody else, then take the ****ers out. After arriving in Afghanistan last June, the general conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn't send another 40,000 troops – swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half – we were in danger of "mission failure." The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was determined to kick the president's ass.

RonMexico

What do you guys think of the actions of the journalist in all of this. Some quarters are criticizing him for acting unethically in reporting off the record remarks while others are saying he had a duty to expose the truth.

Would love to read your opinions.

Carcharodon

I would have to agree with this article by Matt Taibbi

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/121191/83512

and especially this one in response to David Brooks column which criticizes the original journalist

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/121680/83512

plus this http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512 (Is it obvious I like this journalist)

PopeUrbanII

Mac knew better. He succumbed to seriously poor judgment. Maybe the power went to his head. Dunno, but he did it to himself.:o