A Soldier's General

Having read the Rolling Stone piece on General McChrystal and measured that against the press reports, I am confused. Yes, the General's staff had some colorful descriptions of Obama's advisors. The article did not have the General saying outrageous statements which would have guaranteed his "canning." On the contrary, the article is a description of a General in charge of an operation of his own creation, how he has to fight for that operation and the disagreements that he has with the current administration. One could hardly say this was an attack on the administration but more of an explanation of the two forces at work.

McChrystal comes off as a soldier's general. A man who is not afraid to get into the middle of a firefight, who arrives at the front without a entourage, and one who cares for his guys. When his guys do not understand the reason for certain actions, he takes the time to go out and address them.

Yes, I guess that is a positive view of the General which generally runs contrary to the current view of our President who would not get into a firefight, does not care for the people of the United States and would not take time to sit down with people and take suggestions from those in the know. He surrounds himself with "yes" men and cannot stomach any disagreement with his ideas. (Although he profess the opposite.)

McChrystal is not a "yes" man. He is a man of action, who knows what he wants to achieve and goes out and tries to accomplish it. It is a shame that Obama feels the need to pump up his own testosterone by firing the General. It will not be good for the war in Afghanistan or the soldiers fighting there.

Agree or disagree, I would like to hear from you.