General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, made explosive, negative anti-Obama comments. The general and his team knew they were on the record when they made every one of their explosive comments. The editor of Rolling Stone said today, "They knew when we were on the record. They said a lot of stuff to us off the record that's not in the story. We respected those boundaries. This was all when they knew they were on."
In the article, General McChrystal and his aides speak negatively of Vice President Biden, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, National Security Adviser General James L. Jones, Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, an unnamed minister in the French government, and President Obama himself. What startled me about the article is the sheer irreverence the General had for some of the duties he, as a general in charge of leading a war effort, was expected to perform. In the article, he is portrayed as a brash "regular guy" who hates anything fancy (restaurants, food, shoes, clothes, movies, alcohol), rife with profanity, the middle finger, raunch and no one can kick his ass.
Mainstream, liberal and conservative websites have all condemned the General's judgement in allowing and approving this article for publication. Many of the conservative sites condemned McChrystal for allowing this type of interview in a "Liberal Rag" and also for saying he voted for Obama. Both sides are angry he violated UCMJ rules - criticizing the President and Congress, and for "letting loose" in the middle of a war.
I cannot imagine WHY the General allowed this interview. He approved it. He knew the firestorm it would create. I used to have utter respect for Gen. McChrystal. I saw his interview on "60 minutes" and he seemed so knowledgeable, patriotic and logical.
The general fired his PR Aid that set up this article with "Rolling Stone." McChrystal has apologized for what he called a mistake reflecting poor judgment. "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," the statement said. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."
I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out why he would do this. He had up until the time they went to press to rescind his approval of the article, but he let it go through. What can he possibly gain from this insanity? He is a career man with an outstanding record. He will either be asked to resign or voluntarily resign, either way, in disgrace. There are only two possible positive outcomes:
1. He never has to return to Afghanistan
2. He has a face to face meeting with the President -- but why would he want to be face to face with a man he criticized? Hmmmmmmmmm.....