The New York Times Wonders Why General McChrystal Was Fired

In a photo in the last issue of Rolling Stone, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is seen on board a C-130 aircraft over Afghanistan. (Navy Petty Officer, U.S. Navy/NATO / June 24, 2010)

McChrystal’s Quality Time With Rolling Stone: Impertinent? Check. Insubordinate? Maybe Not. -- New York Times

You could say General Stanley A. McChrystal was a victim of his own hubris – the archetypal field commander who got too intemperate with the suits back at headquarters.

Then again, you might not.

Let’s stipulate that allowing a reporter from Rolling Stone with a skeptic’s view of the war in Afghanistan unfettered access for a month was not the best career move. But those who’ve read the full piece by Michael Hastings — as opposed to just the juicy bits being tossed around cable news — might be forgiven for wondering what exactly got him whacked so quickly. Or at least, you might wonder if it has less to do with what the general said and more to do with the relentless velocity and recklessness of the modern media ecosystem.

Read more ....

My Comment: The paragraph that caught my eye in this New York Time's report was the following ....

.... The general is not quoted at any length in Mr. Hasting’s piece, but from my close reading, here is what he did: said that Vice President was prone to unexpected public statements, moaned audibly when he got an incoming mail from diplomatic envoy Richard Holbrooke, and complained that the White House took a long time to review his war plan. That’s it. The rest was all atmospherics and innuendo ....

Wow .... I never expect critical or objective reporting from the New York Times on any issue that involves President Obama. But this article is a zinger .... and the reporter is 100% right in his analysis. Read also the comments on this New York Times piece .... opinion is split on both sides.

Unfortunately, the NYT reporter does not examine the question on why General McChrystal was fired. If it was not for insubordination .... why was he let go so quickly?

My guess .... a few days before being fired, General McChrystal had issued a bleak assessment on the pace of the war in Afghanistan. I am sure that President Obama (and his aides) .... when reading this negative assessment .... recognized how large of a mess (and quagmire) Afghanistan had become for his Presidency.

I do not know if President Obama gets mad at these things, but if I was him I would be steamed at General McChrystal for convincing me (last fall) that this was the strategy that should be adopted. A few days later .... with parts of the Rolling Stone's article being leaked and then published .... President Obama had the opening to get rid of the General that got him into this losing situation .... which he did in a very effective and astute manner.