“Well, if McChrystal really were out to shank Obama”

That was never the real argument. The argument was (and is) that Petraeus and McChrystal don’t sufficiently respect civilian authority. It isn’t that they are out to “get” the civilian leadership politically (though there is a history of that from Petraeus). It is that they don’t have a sufficient appreciate for the norms of civil-military relations that ought to require them to keep out of policy debates. McChrystal’s “sin” was solely that. And the White House reacted — not because the media push it — but because they understood the issue — which you don’t. I swear, Spencer, you won’t believe this, but the moment I (and many other people I spoke to immediately after the IISS speech) saw the remarks and especially the blunt dismissal of what was then the Biden plan we realized McChrystal had messed up. Some of his advisors felt the same way, btw. I was told that McChrystal hadn’t meant it, that he was just tired, etc. I realized he’d messed up. The White House did. Even McChrystal’s people did. It wasn’t because of the media reaction, whatever it was. It was because he overstepped accepted bound.

Frankly, at this point, I have no beef with McChrystal on this issue. He’s apologized repeatedly. My beef is with you — and a few others — who seem to want to transform civil-military relations so that generals become not just implementers of policy and private advisors, but rather become key players in public debates over policy. The fact that you can’t seem to grasp the dangers inherent in that is frankly disappointing… not that you care what I think… but whatever.

-You’re telling me about overinvestment in a narrative?

I mean, yeah. We are. That was three months ago. And the guy got what he wanted. I’m not making any accusations or trying to revive any and I think everyone’s ready to let this go except maybe you. But just what would it be that him acting like a team player now after he’s now gotten the decision he needed prove about past intentions? I personally never thought McChrystal was consciously trying to pressure the president. It was always simply a question of the propriety of him weighing in from the position of commanding general on the fundamental policy while the president was deliberating on it. His words clearly had that effect, even if they were misreported (and he did, whatever else he said, say that a Biden-style plan would not work while it was still at least in theory under consideration).

And who ever said he was out to “shank” the president? What good would that do him?

OK. I’ll let it go. Your points are taken.

You, on the other hand.

I’m done with you because you don’t stop at arguing with what’s on the screen. You go to motivations. Writing that I “seem to” want to “to transform civil-military relations” — well, congratulations, homie, you’ve cracked it. You’ve read my mind and determined my motivations. Good sleuthing. Oh wait: last time I was just too deep in the pocket of McChrystal and the COINdinistas, cravenly sacrificing my intellectual honesty for access.

I learned from a very good journalist when I was younger that writing that someone “seems to” only happens when someone lacks evidence for his or her point. When I see myself writing it, I try to stop myself and rethink what I mean to determine if it’s actually reality-based. From my perspective, as we’ve gone over and over, your perspective on civil-military relations is hysterical and doesn’t treat the bonds of civilian control with the durability they’ve exhibited for 235 years. But you don’t see me wondering, “What’s Finel REALLY up to? What’s his REAL motivation for writing something so unconvincing?”

I believe you want to let it go too – the fingers can just get to flying at times. And your point — that the actual infraction was almost nonexistent — is pretty clear. It was a failure to self-edit on the fly at most. Also, as the Times article points out, the extent and fundamental depth of the review underway was not clear to the military leadership, especially those not in the U.S. McChrystal no doubt in his mind (and in fact) was defending the president’s policy as he understood the president to retain it.

Our civil-military relations have durable because for generations people have been vigilant in policing the issue. This doesn’t just happen on its own. Petraeus and McChrystal are pushing the envelop as no one has since MacArthur. And for those of us who like robust civilian control, that is a source of concern. It should be discussed, but whenever people raise it — like Senator Webb… who, presumably is just another dumb-ass duped by a hysterical media narrative — you come in to just down their throat.

So here are the choices — the White House, Gates, Webb, etc. are all responding to media hysteria. Or Ackerman got it wrong and doesn’t understand civil-military relations? Hmmm… which is more plausible?

And about the integrity issue… I actually went out of my to post specifically on that (http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=851). I don’t think you’ve sold your integrity for access, though I do think your consistent defense of McChrystal doesn’t hurt your access. But frankly, I think you have a ton of integrity… knowledge of history, not so much.

So if McChrystal wasn’t trying to box in Obama, and McChrystal’s future career aspirations have nothing to do with the reasons why his report was leaked as it was…

Who leaked it?

And why?

There’s the REAL story. Because if they did it once, they are going to or have done it again.

Did you see my speculation in parentheses? I’m sorry I can’t answer this question at this time. I wish I could.

Oh my, and now Matt Yglesias agrees with me too:

“What we saw with that episode is that in real-world political terms the senior leadership of the military—when it’s in rough agreement—is so politically powerful that it’s pretty easy for generals to more-or-less accidentally undermine civilian control.”

And it becomes more likely when people insist that there was nothing inappropriate! That’s the point.

McChrystal should not be briefing Congress at all.

In a just world, he would be meeting 24/7 with his war crimes defense attorneys regarding charges for treatment of detainees in secret camps under his command in Iraq as well as JSOC/Blackwater drone attacks on civilians, not to mention his supervision of assassination squads.

That he is supervising our war on Afghanistan is to this country’s eternal shame.

Oh for Christ’s sake. Your reading comprehension is in serious question. But whatever — if you want to claim vindication and keep trolling my threads, I won’t stand in your way of you making a fool of yourself. I see you enjoyed the same thing in Ex’s comments, too.

Teddy, come on, man. Execution before trial much? We don’t have nearly the facts necessary for those conclusions.