Hindsight is 20/20 right?

But all of this publicity today over the Rolling Stone article McChrystal candidly did, has a few politicians and commentators calling for his removal from commander of forces in Afghanistan.

I cannot speak to whether he “deserves to be fired”.  That to me depends on just how much of a good job Obama believes McChrystal has done as head of the Afghanistan war effort, and how that compares to McChrystal and his staff’s capitulation of all their misgivings about key leaders and their grievances on different occasions.

He has apologized, and I do believe he means it.

But in my mind, I just cannot come to understand why he would agree to this interview???

You could say that Rolling Stone magazine produces reputable content – maybe that motivated him because he knew he was not going to be interviewing with a tabloid or gossip column?

But I figure, when you find out that the name of the article is going to be called “The Runaway General”, I would think that you might have some concerns about how this will reflect on that whole “discipline of a military officer and his staff” thing.

I mean, isn’t there some rule about chain of command respect in the military?  Even more important, as a major leader representing the military strategy of a larger policy, wouldn’t it be nice to consider the ramifications of anything you say or do as an instrumental piece of that policy?

In this case, a crystal ball could have showed McChrystal it might not have been the best move to ask for forgiveness rather than permission to speak publicly and candidly about his misgivings on other leaders and their policies.

We will see how this plays out after word passes around about the outcome of his meeting with Obama and other key leaders that help shape the US foreign policy in Afghanistan.

Popularity: 4% [?]