I don’t care how good of a job McChrystal has done in his career and his current position. He should be fired immediately to send a message up and down the chain.

Sorry but don't agree, you don't take your best general off the battlefield because a politician gets his panties in a bunch and can't make up his mind. The general didn't say anything we didn't already know, or that had not already been said by Petraeus.

You are correct about the “congress and government…not regimented” and outside of the “military way”.
But the President is The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He is smack dab in the middle of the military way. If he does not know how that works, then he probably shouldn't have run for that particular office. Even Hillary Clinton knew the military way, more so than her husband at times.

The fact is that the military runs as it does within a conscripted service to maintain discipline and order. When it is broken by subverting the chain-of-command, by dishonoring your men, or ignoring those that break the rules; the system breaks down. McChrystal should be fired immediately for subverting the chain-of-command. And if Obama does not do the right thing in Afghanistan, then he too should be fired for dishonoring his men.

Can you name the people who are being two-faced about Shinseki/McChrystal?

As has already been noted, Shinseki was required to testify truthfully before Congress while in office. But which Sunday morning show was Shinseki on before he retired, and what exactly did he say?

Links in support?

LL

I don't agree with the President on his handling of military matters, as you well know, but I do agree with Jazz. If it was a breach of military discipline for Shinseki (and it was) then it is a breach of military discipline NOW and this President needs to do what his predecessor did with Shinseki.

LL

In other words, a member of the military may indeed have differing opinions to his/her superiors, but expressing them publicly, and, in uniform is forbidden, unless ordered to do so by his/her superiors, the duly elected United States Government.

THAT is the difference. Big differance huh.

I'm in rare agreement with you, Hemm. No one would be well served by another change in command in Afghanistan at this point, yet McChrystal should symbolically offer a resignation since this is a serious breach. Obama then refusing the resignation would indicate a seriousness in addressing the actual policy issues which his administration has been (unforgivably, in my estimation) dragging its heels on.

And Jazz is correct- these leaks and public dissent by military leaders were wrong under Bush, and wrong now. I think in all cases though they're reflective of major tensions and dissarray in the Pentagon, and between our political and military leaders (IOW, I see virtually all of the military commanders, under Bush and now, resorting to this sort of thing out of genuine frustration, not a desire to cause political embarrassment to their civilian leaders.)