General Stanley McChrystal has been stitched up by Rolling Stone
By Adrian Michaels Last updated: June 22nd, 2010
There isn?t very much in the Rolling Stone article requiring an apology from General McChrystal, the man in charge in Afghanistan who has been summoned to the White House. If he does resign, it should not be because of perceived slurs against the White House. They?re not there.
There was a copy of the article available online until recently, which I?ve read, and some excerpts and a news report about it
here and
here. Basically, the general ? or ?THE RUNAWAY GENERAL? as he is hysterically referred to ? has been the victim of journalist hype. It is the magazine?s editors that call the White House ?wimps?, and it is the author that uses almost every f-word in the piece, gratuitously, gratingly, and not while quoting anyone. The only f-word used by someone else is a Brit saying how much some people love McChrystal?s habit of showing up on patrol.
Let?s be clear: Barack Obama may still want McChrystal to resign. The general gave long, close and after-hours access to a journalist and also apparently made no complaints when Rolling Stone sent him a pre-publication copy. That this represents poor judgment, and that this is not the first instance of his poor judgment, is indisputable.
But of the inflammatory quotations and asides, I think it is safe to say they?re mostly ill-judged wisecracks. One in particular from a McChrystal aide about Joe Biden is specifically meant to be a joke. McChrystal also laughs about not wanting to open an email from Richard Holbrooke, and exhibits a reluctance to have a posh dinner in France. Some aides need to wash their mouths out. That really is about it.
There is very little in the piece that would back up the ?runaway? angle. There is almost no difference in policy mentioned between the army and the White House. McChrystal comes off as one of the few people actually building bridges properly with Afghanistan?s difficult government. And it would hardly be the first time that a general and a president have not got on like a house on fire.
If anything, the case for dismissing McChrystal is strengthened by what the article exposes as his failure to win over the hearts and minds of his own men. There is considerable doubt among ordinary soldiers that counterinsurgency is the right strategy, and their commander does not come out of confrontations with them very well. But for insulting behaviour towards the administration? Look elsewhere.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/adrianmichaels/100044497/general-mcchrystal-has-been-stitched-up/