Reading the press, there is much controversy over Michael Hasting's Rolling Stone article about the contempt and insubordination on the part of General Stanley McChrystal and his staff toward the President and policy makers. Pundits at best question McChrystal's judgement for airing the President's dirty laundry in plain view of a Rolling Stone reporter. This isn't Defense News or the Stars and Stripes, where one of their reporters would have held off printing the contempt, at least till after McChrystal retired, in order to maintain their access to the brass.

I was ready to write a post about how McChrystal should be fired. But then I read the article. There isn't "skirt-chasing", "draft-dodging" contempt. This is a not-so subtle knife job on McChrystal's opponents. After reading the article, who looks more foolish McChrystal or his detractors?

The guy who is responsible for winning the hearts and minds of a nation at war with the Taliban (and a former Pentagon spokesman) doesn't know not to talk to Rolling Stone reporters? Right. Every damning quote is from a subordinate, not McChrystal himself. And yet the frustration and circus surrounding the Adminstration's approach to Afghanistan gets aired. McChrystal benefits - if he survives. If he loses, he retires at four-star pay and gets an open mike. But his detractors lose either way - note John McCain's rumblings. McChrystal is shrewd.

President Lincoln was asked why he kept Ulysses S. Grant on as a General during the civil war. Afterall, Grant was crude, unkempt, and a drinker; not at all the picture of a gentlemen like General George B. McClellan. "He fights" was Lincoln's answer.

Secretary Gates has no qualms over firing Generals, especially pretty boys. But I think he'll prevail on Obama to keep McChrystal - he fights.

UPDATE: Some similar observations from Max Boot:

...Despite the calls for his firing emanating from the usual quarters on the left, the general is certainly not guilty of violating the chain of command in the way that truly insubordinate generals like Douglas MacArthur have. Recall that MacArthur publicly disagreed with Truman’ strategy in the Korean War. Likewise, Admiral Fox Fallon was fired as Centcom commander in 2008 after publicly disagreeing in an Esquire article with Bush-administration strategy over Iran. McChrystal does nothing of the sort. At worst, one of his aides says that McChrystal was “disappointed” by his initial meetings with the president, who looked “uncomfortable and intimidated.” Most of the disparaging comments heard from McChrystal’s aides are directed not at the president but at presidential aides who oppose the strategy that the president himself announced back in the fall and that McChrystal is working 24/7 to implement. Is this type of banter enough for Obama to fire McChrystal?