Was General McChrystal Being Honest or Disrespectful in Rolling Stone Magazine?

By now news viewers have heard that President Barack H. Obama accepted General Stanley McChrystal's resignation today after a controversial interview with Rolling Stone entitled "The Runaway General." Rolling Stone had the McChrystal article on its website this week and released the magazine on newsstands and retail stores today. So after you read it, do you think McChrystal was just being honest? Was he wrong for speaking his truth?

Pres. Obama stated that McChrsytal's comments "undermine the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

"I welcome debate among my team, but I won't tolerate division," Pres. Obama stated at the Rose Garden of the White House.

While some citizens are wondering why McChrystal would make these comments knowing full well that it was going to get back to Pres. Obama, others are just curious why McChrystal chose to speak with Rolling Stone in the first place knowing the magazine's views on war. The publication's writers have been very outspoken about being opposed to the war and judging from their for-us-against-us charts, seem to be fairly liberal.

But a bigger question after reading the entry was why was the Obama administration surprised. I voted for Obama. I support Obama. I agree with many of his views. But nothing about this Rolling Stone article surprised me.

McChrystal developed a reputation for going against authority and warning the previous president, Dubbya, about what should and shouldn't be shared with American citizens (ex. Corporal Tillman's murder). So did he contradict his own point by making insider information public? There were some additional people who also shared insider information, but McChrystal was the only one punished. Shouldn't all of the people who made comments disagreeing with the Obama administration been dismissed, including a couple aides?

Clearly from the article, McChrystal isn't one to be quiet and inactive, so I'm wondering why Pres. Obama wasn't expecting this type of behavior from him. According to Rolling Stone, he also pushed his way to getting close to the 40,000 soldiers he wanted overseas. It made me wonder if their meetings really were photo ops or did he really know the personality behind the man in charge of the War in Afghanistan.

Should McChrystal have kept his mouth shut instead of telling his truth to a very well-established magazine like Rolling Stone that would obviously print his on-record words? Or, should he have kept his opinion to himself and not stood up for what he believed in? Although General McChrystal said he exercised "poor judgment," do you think he made his contumacious comments on purpose? I do.

Additional Notes: Parts of this entry were originally published on my Chicago Relationships Examiner page.