Keep the Idiot McChrystal

Let's play the "you get to be president" game. Here's the scenario: your top military commander in your hopeless war grants a rolling interview with a popular music magazine.

That's stupid enough.

I mean, what exactly was the chance that Rolling Stone would come out with a positive story about the war in Afghanistan?

Then, it turns out that the idiot four-star general lets the Rolling Stone reporter see him and his ten man in full rap star mode, with his whole ten-man posse of "killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs" letting their hair down. Everybody's in full wise-guy mode. They're wise guys. They're "completely shitfaced" at an American bar in Paris. They're belligerent. They're t0tal assholes. McChrystal's posse doesn't just dump on President Obama in McChrystal's name. They make sure they name the name of every civilian official they don't like and why--including Joe Biden, Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, Ambassador Karl Eichenberry, and National Security Adviser James Jones.

Wait a minute! They forgot to dump on Jones' secretary. Well, thank God for that.

But they do like Hillary Clinton because she's for giving McChrystal everything he wants.

Then, to make matters worse, General Stan and his posse proceed to dump on the war he's supposed to be winning. It turns out that the General doesn't think he's winning and doesn't think the war can be won.

And of course, McChrystal's interview with Rolling Stone also provides an occasion for all the highly placed opponents of the war in Afghanistan to have their say and for all the opponents to look extremely reasonable because the general himself pretty much agrees with them.

Talk about stupid!

So, if you're president, do you keep General Stan in his job or do you fire him for being a belligerent asshole and a fucking idiot?

My considered opinion is that Obama should keep the idiot, but that he should force the idiot to replace every last person on his posse--er, staff--who talked for the Rolling Stone interview.

Every last one one of them.

The case for firing McChrystal is that he's another "idiot general" in the vein of Douglas MacArthur and that he's a threat to civilian authority over the military.

I don't think so.

McChrystal didn't make the derogatory comments about Obama himself and is not defying Obama's orders. That takes McChrystal out of MacArthur territory right there. McChrystal wasn't quoted as criticizing the president's strategy for the Afghanistan War either. In relation to McChrystal, the main problem with the interview is that he let the Rolling Stone reporter see the normal ups and downs of communication with people like Richard Holbrooke.

That's stupid, but it's not betraying the Constitution.

The other big problem is that his staff people are clueless about just about everything except fighting the war on the ground.

But the article doesn't make McChrystal and his staff look that bad in terms of fighting the war on the ground.

(to be continued)








Did I mention that McChrystal and his staff were total assholes?



It's