Ever thought that if it hadn't been for the Rolling Stone piece, McChrystal would still be running the war? But is Patraeus any better? I'd like to see the wars end...in both Afghanistan and Iraq..then we wouldn't need either of them!When Rolling Stone Calls the Shots, It’s Time to Negotiate
By Fred BranfmanIt is amazing how little commentary there has been on the key issue raised by the McChrystal Affair: Should U.S. war policy be made by Rolling Stone? The very fact that it took a magazine article for President Barack Obama to remove Gen. Stanley McChrystal provides the strongest possible reason for allowing Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban.
One point must be understood above all: McChrystal was not fired because he disrespected civilian authority, despised his administration colleagues and was running a dysfunctional operation. He was ousted because he allowed the public to find out—the one unforgivable sin for a U.S. executive branch long accustomed to operating its wars with little public or congressional knowledge or accountability, behind a PR curtain maintaining the myth that U.S. foreign and military policy is conducted democratically.
If the Rolling Stone piece had not appeared, McChrystal would still be running the war in Afghanistan, still ignoring e-mail messages from Richard “Wounded Beast” Holbrooke, still feeling betrayed by Karl “Traitor” Eikenberry, still blowing off Joe “Bite Me” Biden and James “Clown” Jones, and still disparaging Barack “Disengaged” Obama.
Then, you have Mr. Assange from Wikileaks, you protects people like McChrystal, from the "powers that be," that want EVERYONE, to think that these wars are run in a "democratic fashion."
AND HIS ASS GETS THROWN IN JAIL!!
It's a wonderful time to be alive, isn't it!!