At least General Stanley McChrystal hasn’t attempted to explain his remarks to Rolling Stone as “a poor choice of words,” the usual fallback after someone lets us see what’s inside their head. But still, he’s gotta go.
(Yes, singular they. It’s okay sometimes.)
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
A McChrystal thought
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
comments: 6
I'm seeing "zir" more and more often.
That one’s new to me. I’m not sure about z as a way to start words that’d be frequently used.
Well, he went. I think the president would have earned more respect from cynical brass if he had told the general to keep his mouth shut in future and do the job he was given. Now the general is off the hook for whatever happens "going forward," as they say. According to wicked tongues, the Rolling Stone interview was a deliberate gambit for the purpose of being relieved from a task that the general knew (or believed to be) hopeless.
If it was a gambit, I think that makes McChrystal look worse than anything in Rolling Stone. My first thought was that Obama would seek some sort of reconciliation, but I think he had to let the guy go — too great a violation of trust.
Admittedly, it was a terrible violation of military discipline to speak negatively about one's commander-in-chief in Rolling Stone, but what if his accusation, that the President is disconnected and aloof from the war, is accurate? Shouldn't we worried? Shouldn't we try to find out?
I would like to think that McChrystal was mistaking Obama’s calm and cool manner for disconnection. But there’s plenty to worry about. Frank Rich’s column in today’s New York Times is worth reading.
Post a Comment