I don't usually make blanket statements, but I think Gen. McChrystal should be fired for insubordination. The pro-forma "apology" that gaffe-makers offer are worthless. He should not have given an interview to the media and should have cleared it with his supervisor, the Commander In Chief.

If Obama retains him, as I expect he will do, seeing his non-confrontational management style, it will be a big mistake. If you lie down with dogs, you risk getting fleas.

McChrystal seemingly has poor judgment and is infantile - he is not fit.

McChrystal did use poor judgment talking about his commander but Obama knew what the gen was like. i think he will get fired (at lest if Obama has any backbone) but the question is who will want to take the position after him? Who will want to deal with the shackles that will be placed on them.

When Jimmy Carter was President, the pro-rata yardstick among the admirals and generals, were equally distributed among the Democrats and Republicans.

Reagan skewed this in favor of Republicans. Clinton continued this skew, Bush skewed it further, and along comes Obama, and he has yet, to either reduce or remove this skew, let alone speak or make his feelings known.

And whatever Obama decides, the skew is now in play.

Moreover, as a Native American/Chicano/Military Veteran, that's my view and I'm holding tightly to the cards dealt to me via history, when it comes to my assessment of these Admirals and Generals and for their having turned their backs on the Privates, the Corporals, and the Sergeants.

Jaango

Maybe one of the TPM 'sack McChrystal' crowd here can tell me:

(1) If Obama sacks McChrystal and installs a new guy do you believe the new General WILL NOT say he needs MORE TIME and possible MORE TROOPS to 'WIN', setting back any departure from the country for a year or more? DO YOU WANT THAT??

(2) Doesn't sacking McChrystal make it appear Obama believes he and the US are 'in control' of the situation-which is scary in itself because it is not true, and not the Taliban (whom we pay millions to indirectly to get our supply truck thru from Pakistan), and that Obama believes some dumb comments by McChyrstal staff and relieving him of command makes any damn difference in the eventual outcome of this fiasco of a war.

-IF OBAMA WANTS TO KEEP PLAYING WAR PRESIDENT WE ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE! Leave the guy in command, say we tried his best plan and it failed (next summer), and start pulling out forces in 2011.

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct"

obama the WEAK must stop shaking long enough to make sure he fires this guy and upholds the military code of justice.

there is NO wiggle room here.
NONE!

I can understand the din of demands for McChrystal's firing echoing throughout the blogosphere, because it appears that almost no-one has ever worked in an organization where underlyings have been known to complain privately about their superiors, and so the McChrystal team behavior must seem to be a unique phenomenon unknown previously to students of human nature. However, I, for some strange reason I can't fathom, have actually worked in places where employees made unflattering comments about higher-ups during water cooler conversations. Many will find this hard to believe, but I'm willing to swear it's true on a stack of Pentagon Papers.

Enough of the snide commentary, because others here are better at it than I am. My serious point is my hope that Obama will resist calls across the political spectrum to sack McChrystal and will retain him after the approriate scolding and apologies are forthcoming.

I don't excuse McChrystal's negligence in permitting Rolling Stones, an antiwar magazine, to interview various members of the team, but there's a significant difference between what he did NOT do - deliberately issue public condemnations of Administration officials - and what he did, which was to allow interviews that permitted hearsay reports of such condemnation from aides to appear in the media. The first would be insubordination because of its deliberate nature. The second is mere stupidity. Both deserve penalties, but not to the same degree.

Obama today made the only point that matters - our focus must be on our mission in Afghanistan. I believe the president will most likely conclude that McChrystal is the best person to conduct the Afghanistan strategy Obama has chosen, and that replacing him at this time, even with a qualified successor, would seriously hamper our effort there. I hope Obama does in fact make that choice.

I respect all views on this issue, but it's important to disentangle views about our Afghanistan strategy from views about McChrystal's conduct of it. What I would deplore is the use of McChrystal's transgressions as an excuse to demand his firing with the true purpose being an abandonment of the strategy. Those who oppose the strategy have every right to voice their opposition, and many have, but they should not disguise opposition to the strategy as as a criticism of McChrystal's public relations missteps. If he is the best person to implement the strategy, he should remain in charge of it until the strategy itself changes.

For this reason, I will be most receptive to views on how Obama should deal with McChrystal when they come from individuals who support the overall strategy, and I will perhaps be slightly suspicious of demands to fire McChrystal coming from opponents of the strategy. I believe they should argue their case on what they see as its merits, and that will require a forum of its own.

C&L.com:

...(McChrystal) isn't that dumb and just wants out of Afghanistan altogether since his planning has failed completely. (IF FIRED) He can now be hailed a right wingnut hero by the Freepers for calling out the President, Joe Biden and the Afghan team when he goes on a speaking tour of the AEI's and other tea party events. He can make as many false claims as he wants about what actually happened during the planning and implementation of his counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan since we know he'll lie even about his own troops. (Pat Tillman cover-up)

So where's the downside for McChrystal to get fired? (hint-there is NO downside for him)

His military friends in the media, while believing his actions are a firing offense, they will say, like Col. Jack Jacobs did on MSNBC, that all the troops feel Obama's people are incompetent fools too.

http://crooksandliars.com/

"McChrystal should have been sacked almost a year ago when he boxed Obama in to giving him more troops by leaking a memo suggesting we were about to "lose Afghanistan to the Taliban"."

I write this as a strong Obama supporter and with the realization that debate specifically about McChrystal is academic now. When military brass leaked or spoke opinions contrary to Rumsfeld/Bush, they were hailed by some and condemned by others. Now it's reversed.

What MacArthur did was clearly over the line, but some amount of military expertise should be included in the public debate. Civilian control of the military doesn't and shouldn't mean that opinions of serving military officers should be wholly removed from public debate.

Obviously any president (and that president's supporters) would prefer to have opposing opinions from the military brass kept quiet, but that doesn't mean that keeping it out of public debate serves the country's interests.

There is a fine line of what is okay, but again, as a firm Obama supporter, I believe that it was the right thing to do for some military brass to voice their opposition to the Cheney and Biden camps.