It looks like that even senior Political Pundits are confused. Here is a note to David Gergen:
David, IMHO you showed very poor judgement in your recommendation about McChrystal on AC360. Coming from a Political Dean like you was especially astonishing. You said McChrystal was the best suited , nay the only one, to prosecute the war. Every reprimand no matter how severe will fall flat in front of the American Public and ROW. Letting him stay, because of the so called indispensability, will give a message to the troops that Commander In Chief is in fact the Pussy In Chief. In these circumstances McChrystal will be a terrible team player and will be in no position to prosecute his duties effectively. If he was a technician vital to national security such lapses may be tolerated -- but given his position, firing him will be the honorable thing to do for all concerned -- and absolutely essential to establish the authority of the chain of command.
There already has been a lot of speculation on whether Stanley McChrystal will be fired by the President or retained because of his indispensability for the Afghan war. IMHO the only question is what kind of a paddle will the President use to whup his sorry ass, before he is frog-marched out of the Whitehouse on his way to a court martial.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment