McChrystal—obstreperous rogue or an opportunity?

Contributed by Rusty DePass

In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I do not like Baraq Obama. I don’t like him, his policies, his administration, his appointments. In short I like practically nothing about him.  However, I have to say he was perfectly justified in relieving Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command in Afghanistan.

I would also like to point out to all the silly liberals out there that not a single Republican I’ve heard of has disagreed with Obama over sacking McChrystal (I wish he didn’t have such a long name).

Yes, I have read the article in Rolling Stone magazine—the whole, insufferable article replete with split infinitives and gratuitous uses of the “f-word” in many forms—and I have to admit the comments quoted in the article are not the kind of thing a Commander-in-Chief would find encouraging from one of his important factotums.  However, it should be noted that it was not McChrystal who said uncomplimentary things about Obama and his band of thieves; it was his aides.  Well, in this case, you are probably justified in ascribing the words and feelings of the subordinates to their leader.

Columnist Paul Hollrah thinks it was done on purpose.  He believes McChrystal had had it carrying water for the Obama administration and set this thing up to show America just what kind of guy Obama is.  One might hope so, but I find that difficult to swallow.

Of course, that approach does obviate the need to find out who set up the interview with Rolling Stone, for unless Hollrah’s theory is correct, surely that fellow is in the running for the “Dumbest Man of the Year Award.”  Why you would let anyone from Rolling Stone magazine anywhere near a military commander is beyond my comprehension.

During my days as an active duty U. S. Army officer, interviews like the one with McChrystal would have to have been approved by higher ups.  Of course, the Obamas probably read Rolling Stone magazine and might have thought it was a swell idea to let some sleaze ball claiming to be journalist ruin a good general.

For those of you who might be inclined to read the article, don’t waste your time.  It is a puerile tome written from the kind of anti-America viewpoint you would expect from such a magazine.  ‘Hey man, make love, not war.”  Where have we heard that before?

McChrystal has a great reputation as a brilliant, involved commander who has done well throughout his career.  But if that’s so, where did this information come from about his having voted for Obama?  In the past it was uncommon for military personnel to vote at all.  Maybe  they shouldn’t be allowed to after all.  That certainly doesn’t indicate some high level of intelligence for a guy in his line of work.

I’ll admit it may have been a Hobson’s choice: McCain or Obama, but there’s really not much chance at the end of the day that someone with half a brain—especially a military man—wouldn’t logically vote for someone—anyone—other than Obama. [Republicans take note: you can’t beat a bad guy with a bad candidate.]

OK, so we all agree Obama was fully justified in removing McChrystal, but why would he do it? Afghanistan, after all, is the good and justifiable war, unlike that bad, unjustifiable war in Iraq that belonged to George Bush.  Surely, even someone as anti-American as Obama doesn’t want to be Commander-in-Chief when you lose a war.

This incident gave Obama the perfect opportunity to cast himself as reasonable and human, self-deprecating and not megalomaniacal.  Yet he blew it!

Consider: Obama calls McChrystal in, gives him a stern lecture on how we just can’t have this kind of thing and then announces to a waiting, pandering, obsessive and adoring press that he and McChrystal have come to a meeting of the minds.  We’re not going to have any more of this backbiting by the general or his staff.  He understands that it is unacceptable, but “my ego is not so important that I have to relieve a general who is doing a great job in a very difficult situation. Now let’s everyone get back to the work of winning this very important military operation in Afghanistan.”

What an opportunity!  Then again, he may not really care what anyone else thinks.  He’s on a mission to destroy America, and Stanley McChrystal played right into his hands.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: