>>>>Charles, Tracy,
>>>>
>>>>I just read this review in today's paper. Sounds like if you enjoyed his other books you will probably enjoy this one. Personally I am not a fan of extensive anonymous quotations but it looks like they are here to stay.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/books/23book.html?_r=1&ref=books
>>>
>>>But you didn't have a problem with the extensive anonymous quotations in "Runaway General" in Rolling Stone?
>>>
>>>Have you read Woodward's other books?
>>
>>See my reply to Tracy about his other books.
>>
>>Funny you mention the Rolling Stone article. The Army just released its report on the controversy. MacCrystal resigned and left the Army, and it sounds like they just want to wrap it up and move on, but two of his subordinates are up for promotions and they want some sort of official finding to guide those one way or the other. It does sound like some of the more controversial quotes are disputed and may have been said by others. IMO acting to subvert President Obama's desire to scale back Afghanistan, trying to scale it up instead, was insubordination. Along with the Pat Tillman coverup I think the President was justified in firing him. Like him or not, the President is the Commander in Chief.
>
>Pushing his ideas is not insubordination. As a general, he did not have the authority or the means to do anything other than make recommendations to the President. All of the Presidents advisors do everything in their power to push their ideas and agendas. How did he subvert Obama's orders? Please be specific. If he overtly and publicly spoke out against the President , disregarded a direct order or directive, or acted in direct contravention of one, then any of those would be insubordination. It was his job to make recommendations to the President. What exactly did he do that was insubordination? Every president is pressured by his general's in military areas (they are trained and experienced in strategies - much more so than the President) and by his other advisors in other areas (who are experts in their fields). It's why we have a balanced military/civilian leadership so it doesn't tip entirely one way or the other. Have you forgotten Obama's campaign pledge to increase our military presence in Afghanistan?
>
>I haven't read anything that could be considered insubordination other than his known unflattering remarks about senior Obama administration figures...even those are from "sources" in most cases so it would be difficult to prove many of them. The inquiry found that it was not McChrystal himself or the most senior members of his staff that made the most offensive comments Still, if he did in fact make disparaging comments about our President: the administration may have earned his disdain, but it is disrespectful to make disparaging comments about your leadership and inexcusable when it is done to world leaders. It undermines this country. Generals only make those comments among themselves and if they wish to do so publicly, they resign and go into public office.

It is also worth noting that "the mission" at the general level is strategic, not tactical. If the President says to the theater commander that the mission is to make it possible to get out of Afghanistan, then the theater commander, barring contradictory orders, develops strategy - in this case asking for a "surge" ( which was exactly what happened in Iraq). Ultimate he is responsible to civilian authority, but the decisions on the ground have to be military.

JFK had a line about Curtis LeMay who scared a *lot* of people (especially the Russians) "If we ever have to go, I want him in the lead plane - but I never want him to decide if we have to go."

I actually thought McChrystal came out rather well in the article. I don't know if he is right about what to do in Afghanistan but I think it is safe to believe he knows more about it than I do. (and most likely more than the guy who fired him)

As to the Tillman thing, I don't know what happened there but if anything was "covered up" I don't think it was done for any nefarious purpose and was done with focus on accomplishing the mission.

People using it as a political talking point are making it sound like the cover-up of Mai Lai, rather than a decision in war-time to say a hero died as a hero. Getting killed by "friendly" fire is one of the hazards of combat. It is not taken lightly by anyone, but it is considered as a rule to be an internal matter.

What is made public in time of war is a judgment call. I don't think if McChrystal signed off on the "cover-up" he would have considered it a violation of his honor. And I also understand that someone outside his culture may not see it the same way. But it happened in his world, where he and people who were part of his culture were betting their lives they were making the right calls - not just worried about "losing the Democrats".