Absolutely. A publicly-reamed, on-the-edge commander would not have the respect of his troops and would be crippled in everything he asked them to do.
Military rules aside, if only the secretary overheard them it might turn into a he said/he said situation, so there would be some doubt and maybe a way to save face. Here, we had multiple stupid comments by McChrystal and his men appearing in print.
Maybe I should been more explicit about what “the deal” was. It could have included a commitment not to prosecute and not to dishonorably discharge so long as he led the rest of his career with mouth securely shut.
If he’s kicked out of the military, there’s no telling what happens. Now, maybe he’s a stand up guy, and wouldn’t run off and do some tell-all book. I really don’t know.
How do you know that that has been forgotten? The whole reason I went back to that thread to actually check it out is that the board, even the liberals members of the board, are not a hive mind. That some posters expressed suspicion of Bush’s motives in the past is not enough to then declare a different set of posters expressing a different view to be hypocritical, or that they have forgotten the actions or beliefs of the first set of posters. You can’t say based on that thread that, gonzomax aside, posters appear to be acting in some unfair way in comparying Fallon to McChrystal.
It only looks mighty partisan if one is willing to attribute the actions of one group to another group. I am sure I could declare that the actions of pro-life groups are mighty partisan, because look at all those pro-choicers out there, saying the opposite! But they are two different sets of people. Likewise, in this case; these posters may both belong to an overall set - posters, or liberal posters, or whatever - but only one person belongs to both groups. You’re generalising far beyond what is reasonable.
You haven’t shown that.
Now, you’ve mentioned that there were two threads about Fallon, that you’re aware of being around at that time. Perhaps in that other thread, I will find more posters besides one who seem to have some partisan streak - and if you present that thread (and, even better, names) i’d be happy to take a look at them. But, for now, you can show evidence that one poster seems partisan on this.
Not the board. Not a group of posters. One. To claim you can for anything greater than that - based on what you’ve currently shown - strikes me as “mighty partisan” itself.
Let’s say McChrystal confirms what the secretary emailed to the President. There’s no doubt, but only a small circle is aware. Still fired or told to knock it off?
I’ll give Obama a solid “A” on his handling of this situation. Quick, decisive, and the right (best) choice for a replacement. Now we can get back to the easy part-- winning the war in Afghanistan…
I’m not going to guess because I just don’t know enough about how the military works. It’s an interesting situation, though.
Also, Obama had basically already done this (not with a public reaming, but a private one). McChrystal was already playing with a yellow card. If it had been a first offense, it might have been different, but a CIC can’t keep giving more chances.
I did want to add that if this really happened, word about the emails would probably be leaked to the press, in which case the situation would essentially be the same.
John Mace got it in one. The reason Hillary is Secretary of State is the same reason Obama should have kept McChrystal around, to keep his enemies close. He just cut the leash on something capable of biting him in the ass.
To review the situation: McChrystal is forced to leave behind his 10 x 12 [del]prison[/del] military bedroom and the prestige of Airforce 2 to suffer the indignity of living in luxury with no responsibility except to earn large piles of money for lectures and book deals. McChrystal just won the lottery.
President Obama just cut his nose off to spite his face. He should have publicly stepped on McChrystal and left him to the hell hole called Afghanistan.
When he said Obama did the right thing?
Hilarious.
You have no idea what motivates someone to enter and stay in the military, do you?
Explain that to John Mace, then. 
WASHINGTON, D.C. - McChrystal was awarded a cabinet position as a consequence of insulting remarks directed at the Administration yesterday. When asked for comment, Obama replied, “If I’m going down I’m taking the bastard with me.”
John Mace got the analogy of keeping enemies close. We differ on the punishment. Afghanistan is where I would send someone to punish them.
After seeing the interview of the Rolling Stones journalists it is apparent that McChrystal’s subordinates knew exactly what they were saying. They were given the option to speak off the record and keep it off the record.
Any thoughts that this harms McChrystal is just more fuel to the fire he’s going to use to roast the President. The lock that kept that door shut was just undone.
Good luck with all that. 
I think you’re overstating the animosity, if there even is any. McChrystal and his staff may not have respected Obama very much, but that’s a far cry from wanting to take him down.
I think you’re overstating the intent of a book/lecture circuit. By default a publishing company will want something juicy in it. All he has to do is expound on his opinion that the President was not mentally invested in early meetings. As I said before, McChrystal’s subordinates knew what they were saying and had every opportunity to qualify their statements as off the record (per the Rolling Stones staff interview).
President Obama had him on a short leash that he could yank on whenever he felt the need.
I think he just couldn’t hold his girl beer.
McChrystal is now drawing his retirement with nothing but time on his hands to write a book and lecture. I’m not sure who you’re wishing luck on. The General just got a huge bonus check for leaving a desert prison. The President fired someone who stands to gain financially by talking about it.
There’s nothing to talk about. He shamed himself and showed himself to lack the discipline, maturity, intellect and moral character to do his job. Why would he want to brag about that? How is any of that Obama’s fault? He never says in that piece that he had any actual policy disagreements with Obama, so what’s he going to talk about? Why he called (or allowed one his toadies to call) a 4-Star General and decorated combat vet of the Marine Corps a “clown?” How is that going to be lucrative for him?
You’re right. Nobody has every written a book about a President and even if they did, everybody loves President Obama.