"...he did not criticize the Obama administration he made fun of it - criticism if its valid is one thing, outright disrespect is another thing altogether..."
(In case you missed it, here is a link to a summary of today's events: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10395402.stm )
THIS is why it wasn't sitting well with me. I do NOT like war. I don't know anyone who does. BUT in studying history I do know the necessity of a standing, volunteer army controlled by the civilian government. That being said...
In any job, most employers will tolerate and (if it's a reasonable person) take constructive criticism and use it. However, out and out insulting behavior is usually called insubordination and is grounds for dismissal. Some of the quotes I have seen from this article in Rolling Stone are so insulting it is comical. Seems to me that the good General was playing a game of Bad Decisions with his career... and he lost. Of course, the ONLY way to win Bad Decisions is NOT TO PLAY.
Paul Adams of BBC News, Washington wrote:
"This was not a clash over strategy. In the now infamous Rolling Stone profile, Gen McChrystal did not question the policy he himself helped to devise.
But it was a matter of authority. In their dismissive remarks about members of the administration, Stanley McChrystal and his unnamed colleagues fatally compromised their relationship with the commander-in-chief.
Not to get rid of him would have looked like weakness.
If the past year has turned Gen McChrystal into something of a legend, then his replacement is an even bigger and more celebrated figure.
As the head of US Central Command, David Petraeus is Gen McChrystal's boss. His military, diplomatic and political skills are hugely admired here in Washington."
Sounds about right, Mr. Adams. I say "Kudos" to Obama for understanding that he needed to make a stand here.
GGC
