Afghanistan is more than the “graveyard of empires.” It’s the mother of vicious circles.
So the commander in chief can be bad-mouthed as weak by the military but then he can’t punish the military because that would make him weak? It’s the same sort of pass-the-Advil vicious circle reasoning the military always uses.
McChrystal painted a vicious circle around his commander in chief. As Stars and Stripes summed it up: “Fire Gen. Stanley McChrystal and risk looking like he’s lost control of the war in Afghanistan. Or keep him and risk looking like he’s lost control of his generals.”
But he has met his match in Afghan warriors, who have clobbered every foreign invader since Alexander the Great. The average Afghan fighter lives on grain, a bowl of rice, a bottle of water. How much does it cost by comparison to have a foreign soldier in Afghanistan?
McChrystal never should have been hired for this job given the outrageous cover-up he participated in after the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman. He was lucky to keep the job after his “Seven Days in May” stunt in London last year when he openly lobbied and undercut the president on the surge.
Third time's the charm. Same applies to movie references (see next two posts). There's a Star Wars one in the column as well. What's next, Mad Max? "Kundalini wants his arm back..."