I disagree about the need to fire McChrystal. Obama's message to the general should be along the lines of a) say what you want to your entourage and even to reporters, but be honest with me about what you think and how you believe things are going; and 2) opening up to Rolling Stone? Are you nuts?

That said, the article isn't all bad, the further into it you get. It does seem that McChrystal is pursuing his COIN strategy at some cost to his reputation with the troops, particularly with regard to collateral damage. And most of the money quotes were from his butt boys, clearly testosterone-fueled and undoubtedly having little regard for any of us who haven't walked in their shoes.

Poor General McChrystal! With his bosses General David Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen as well as Defense secretary Gates justifying Pakistan’s ‘terrorist connections’, Mullah Mohammed Omar’s QST trail from Quetta to Kandahar is operating unimpeded.

McChrystal himself had warned about Pakistan ’s sheltering of Taliban terrorists in his August 2009 report to Obama: ‘Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta , the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan . At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year‘.

But US can not even use its drones to destroy QST that is causing daily deaths of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan since 2002! That shows Obama’s continuance of Bush’s mollycoddling of Pakistan .

Defense Secretary Robert Gates sought to justify Pakistan ’s terrorist connections, alluding to a “deficit of trust” between Washington , DC and Islamabad . Mr Gates also said there was “some justification” for Pakistan 's concerns about past American policies. Gen David Patraeus, rushed in with an apologia for his Pakistani friends, by claiming that while Faisal was inspired by militants in Pakistan , he did not necessarily have contacts with the militants. Both Adm Mike Mullen and Gen Patraeus fancy themselves to be “soldier statesmen” a la Gen Dwight Eisenhower. Adm Mullen has visited Pakistan 15 times and Gen Patraeus no less frequently. Both evidently have high opinions of their abilities to persuade Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to crack down on the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar-led Quetta Shura.

All American officers in southern Afghanistan know that they cannot prevail in the ongoing military operations, unless Taliban strongholds across the Durand Line in North Waziristan and Baluchistan are neutralized. Adm Mullen and Gen Patraeus evidently do not want to acknowledge that hard options have to be considered if their soldiers are not to die at the hands of radicals, armed and trained across the Durand Line.

With US tolerating and mollycoddling Pakistani support of terrorist outfits across the Afghan border, US mission is doomed to fail no matter how much money and manpower US pours in that terror center of the world which resides in Pakistan.

I really liked McChrystal, his stamina as well as his dedication to fix a difficult place such as Afghanistan. At the same time, the recently published comments made by McChrystal and his aids have disappointed.

The reality is that the war in Afghanistan is not heading in the right direction anyway, and with all the best intentions, most sophisticated COIN approaches and efforts of McChrystal and his team, we currently are funding both sides of the war and what we build with one hand, we undermine with the other (see the articles in NYT and Washington Post about the payments made to Afghan led security firms for protection of NATO convoys, payments which end up going both to Afghan officials and taliban to restrict their attacks on the respective convoys).

Under these circumstances, Obama's decision to relieve McChrystal is the right one. Especially, in a context of rising attitudes among some in the US military along the lines that they know it all, have seen it all, while the civilian leadership "knows shit about war."

Most civilians do respect the efforts of our military men and women deployed into war zones. At the same time, civilian-military relations are based on a social contract. As we, civilians, pay our dues in order to assure that our nation is secure, we also expect that those at the receiving end, perform their duties at their best.

Moreover, in order to respect and honor these men and women who put their lives at risk for our national security, we also expect them to respect the chain of command and act according to certain values. This latter part makes the difference between a "national army" and a "mercenary corps."

Honorable behavior on the part of our soldiers will be respected and appreciated. Inflated perspectives regarding one's own self-importance should be dealt with appropriately and not be left unpunished.

And on top of this, the sad part is that those McChrystal aids are nowhere close to having the brilliance and achievements of someone like Holbrooke. The man is indeed a "feathers ruffler;" but at least he has a more sound basis for his arrogance than many on McChrystal's - or Petraeus's - staff.
Good luck to the latter! He will need it!

"the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who had urged American leaders to let General McChrystal remain in place." (NYT quote) - so that they can bitch together about Obama and US leadership?!

"“We are not opposing his successor, but we would prefer that General McChrystal come back,” Ahmed Wali Karzai, the influential half brother of Mr. Karzai, said earlier Wednesday" - Come on! was McChrystal involved into any sort of scheme with the Karzai brothers?! (my conspiracy theory for the day)

or (after second thoughts, my second conspiracy theory for the day) is this a set-up to get Petraeus elegantly out of circuit so that he does not pose a challenge as a Presidential runner in 2012 (or for other unknown reasons it was better to have him "exiled")? How does this correlate with the reception Karzai has recently received in DC? Was he put en-garde regarding the transition of military leadership in Afghanistan?

Petraeus might want to watch his back while in Afghanistan as it has been the graveyard of many generals (and great powers, nonetheless) and it would be a pity as he seems a good man.

We hope that conspiracy theories are nothing more than that, that Stan has enough integrity to only bitch with his own men about Obama & Co, and that Petraeus will actually be given a fair chance and be able to turn Afghanistan from a graveyard of empires to a success. The first one of this kind. Good luck, Dave!

Also known as, getting rid of all the people known to oppose the policy preferences of Kristol and Donnelly. Yeah, why wouldn't President Obama want to go that way?

We probably need a new Ambassador in Kabul. I never understood Eikenberry's appointment anyway. The new man should have a brief of much greater authority over development assistance and greater integration into the ISAF operations process than Eikenberry has now. As for Holbrooke, leave him where he is. Personally I would have preferred for him to have been made Secretary of State, an office now occupied by someone who has piled up frequent flier miles at an impressive rate but is otherwise just another player among many in the Obama foreign policy circus.

Obama does have a "too many cooks in the kitchen" problem on his foreign policy team (and in other areas as well -- just look at the Gulf oil spill clean-up effort). The root of this problem is Obama's determination to be at the center of all key decisions, instead of at the top of a hierarchy. He needs to delegate authority, not just responsibility, and he's very reluctant to do this.

This is why he ends up with lots of people arguing with one another about who has authority to do what. He would have this problem no matter who the people working for him were. Ironically, the one area in which Obama does not have this problem -- defense -- proves the point. Gen. McChrystal was able to take almost complete control over Afghan policy because his authority was clear and backed up by a chain of command on which Obama only imposed himself with great reluctance and after considerable provocation.

Kristol and Donnelly argue in their superficial way that this is a question of will and decisiveness. It isn't. It's a matter or organization, and of recognizing that the flat, candidate-centered organization structure that worked so well for the Obama candidacy isn't appropriate for the vastly larger and more complex tasks confronting the Obama administration.

Ya, some 'storm in a tea cup' as far as some General goes....

Can we talk now about the AfPak Policy itself? How would you reply Andrew Sullivan's general pessimism in this regard? Or Tom Friedman's 3 questions?

I just wish you would write some deep posts about this policy business. If folks like Sullivan and Friedman indeed turn out to be true, we are all screwed up here.

The opinion from this field grade officer:

I've been plenty critical of Obama's foreign policy but nevertheless, McChrystal had to go--he undermined the oath we take to defend the Constitution which at its core, has civilian leadership as its head. Backbiting and complaints about superiors is normal behavior in wartime BUT--it remains behind closed doors and is not allowed to reach critical mass. When you start dissing the national command authority, that breaks a major and well-known taboo. McChrystal allowed an unseemly command climate with his aides, who felt free to speak so brazenly to a reporter.

Concur though on the need for a clean sweep on civilian side of the house--the political strategy in Afghanistan is also problematic.

General McChrystal was right, and wrong. As a soldier who has been deployed to fight the Global War on Terror (GWOT), I can fully understand and sympathize with his feelings. Fighting a war with your hands tied behind your back is a fantastic way to lose a war. In many ways what McChrystal said is the exact thing the troops have been feeling for a while. If he were to run for president, he would receive hundreds of thousands of votes from military personnel.

However, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is very clear.

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." -http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-88.htm.

That being said, General McChrystal is a man who stood up and shared his feelings about this administrations inability to make good military policy. Yet he is still a soldier who has to follow the rules and regulations as stated in the UCMJ. In my humble opinion, General McChystal was correct in what he said, but dead wrong to say it.