the mcchrystal question

It's this sort of stuff that makes me wonder about the general:

He carries a custom-made set of nunchucks in his convoy engraved with his name and four stars, and his itinerary often bears a fresh quote from Bruce Lee.

I think Obama will put aside the immediate issues of insubordination. The crime itself - irreverence towards his seniors - is bad but not that bad. The question is, does this merely reveal a more intractable problem - that McChrystal is in the wrong job? Is he impossible for the rest of the team (Holbrooke, Eikenberry etc) to work with? Is there something in his personality that makes it impossible for him to work alongside anyone else in civilian authority?

The profile is excellent and not just because of the scoop. It paints a vivid portrait of the man. There's something of McCain about him: the son of a general who was an arrogant, irreverent party-boy as a young soldier who grew up and got better at politics, but who never really shook the bad boy self-image out of his system.

McChrystal is born to be a great general in so many ways: physically dynamic, brilliantly intelligent, fearless, creative, well-read, a commander who is revered and loved by his men. But at some point, when rebels become the authority they built their whole identity kicking against, they have to change the way they see themselves quite profoundly. That's hard. As we saw in the election campaign, McCain never managed the transition from "maverick" to plausible president. Maybe this incident suggests that McChrystal just isn't suited to the highest levels of command.

"The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price..."

Indeed.

Comments

[ejoch]

It's hard to believe he did this to orchestrate a showdown- otherwise why send out letters of apology so quickly? And what else could he expect to happen other than at best a public dressing down? Which leaves an amazing lack of media awareness.

I must admit I couldn't finish the Rolling Stone article, the style drove me up the wall. Is it necessary to put f*** every 5 lines? (I've no objection to swearing in general, it's just in a serious article it comes across like 'look at me, I'm swearing, how edgy am I!')

[Marbury]

Ha ha yes, it's very "Rolling Stone"

[peter]

Suppose you were a very bright officer who'd built a career espousing a certain military strategy. Suppose you had the chance to implement that strategy, with almost as many resources as you'd ever said you would need. Suppose, despite all this, the strategy was not working and not likely to work, and you have now realized this before most other people. Which would be better? To get sacked now for insubordination, or to end your career in shame after everyone learns that your military strategy has failed.

[ejoch]

Surely if his aim is to just avoid the strategy failing though, all he has to do is wait a while... the administration will pull the troops too early, and he can say "if you'd just given me X more months". etc.