First of all, as a matter of form, it's never good when you have soldiers publicly complaining about those above in the chain of command General Stanley McChrystal should have known this, and that any article which stated or even implied a dissatisfaction with the failings of the Obama administration in the war in Afghanistan was going to lead to ass reaming. I don't know his motivation in letting Rolling Stone in to write the article. And in the end, it may cost him his position, and the ability to continue the fight. And as a result of that, it may mean some halfwit politician general who isn't fit to pour piss out of a boot with instructions written under the heel will be the go-to(-hell) guy in
While the picture it paints of Afghanistan is bleak (it is Rolling Stone magazine), it also paints a portrait of a profane, balls-to-the-wall general who doesn't necessarily give a damn about the rules as long as he can get the job done. The biggest problem is that the strategy he's employing requires rules of engagement so insane that they can't win. Not that Afghanistan was a place we thought we could win anyway (unless you forgot the history of the place).
Oh, and what would a Patton reference be without the speech (from the movie):
|Free Video Hosting|