The Case of the Uppity General

A lot of hand-wringing has taken place regarding General McChrystal's controversial comments regarding policy in Afghanistan. I'll take the uncontroversial view that being governed by a military junta might not be a good thing as Eugene Robinson explains:

How to proceed in Afghanistan will be among the most difficult and fateful decisions that President Obama ever makes. But he's the one who has to decide, not his generals. The men with the stars on their shoulders -- and I say this with enormous respect for their patriotism and service -- need to shut up and salute.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is entitled to his opinion about the best way forward. But he has no business conducting a public campaign to build support for his preferred option, which is to send tens of thousands more troops into a country once called the "graveyard of empires."

Some folks on the left say that the top general in Afghanistan only sees things through his "own narrow experience", which probably means another General Betrayus type ad from Moveon.org is coming soon to a newspaper near you. But taking the position that elected leaders should be responsible over the military does not categorically place you with the Code Pink crowd. However, in any chain-of-command, you hope and pray that those appointed over you are competent, have their priorities straight, and have your interests at heart. And, the President devoting his time and political capital to the 2016 Olympics, command-and-control economics, and not to the rapidly worsening Afghanistan situation doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.