The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville nine that day;
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play...
"If only Casey could but get a whack at that —
We'd put up even money now, with Casey at the bat."

"Casey at the Bat" - by Ernest Lawrence Thayer June 3, 1888

In domestic politics, when nothing that takes place makes any sense at all, one has to automatically wonder if - it is for a reason.
The June 23rd 'firing' of General Stanley McChrystal’s for allowing his staff to - speak his mind - to Rolling Stone magazine, in an article which had yet to be published – is a case in point. His staff’s virtual tirade to the widely circulated national anti-war leaning publication begs many questions, but the primary one has to be - why did he allow it?

First of all we should clear up one key point: McChrystal did not resign - he was fired.  However, to those on the political Left who adamantly state that this was not a 'Truman/Mc Arthur' moment, they are quite correct. General McArthur was dismissed for gross insubordination; McChrystal’s dismissal was for open disrespect of the Chief of State – the President.

Of course some of Gen Stanley McChrystal's talkative team will also be going, along with a few others on a hit list locked away in the minds of Obama's long-time backers and critics in the press:

Who will Obama sack next?

In a New York Times editorial, Thomas Ricks, author of a book on Gen. Petraeus also says they should go. He writes that:

Holbrooke and Eikenberry should be fired for past indiscipline and that "Mr. Obama should then replace them with a team that has a single person clearly in control, with the power to hire and fire the others. And he should send that new group to Kabul with clear orders that they should get along, or expect to be relieved." They are civilians, of course, but the interesting article goes on to argue the military should revert to past practice with swifter and more frequent firings.

These same sentiments were expressed on Fox News by Sen. Kit Bond, vice chairman of the intelligence select committee:

"That would be a good start," said Senator Bond. "That's the kind of plan that I hope the president was referring to yesterday when he said we must have the entire team working together."

Over at Slate, Fred Kaplan also argues that they should be sacked, on the grounds they don't really agree with the current strategy and don't see Karzai as a proper partner:

I suspect if Gen David Petraeus wants them gone, then they are toast. Mr. Obama has to give him a pretty free hand, which makes for an interesting relationship in the future. Gen Petraeus is said to be a better politician than Gen McChrystal, and one who makes sure he has a good relationship with the civilian side of operations, so he may not charge in demanding that heads roll.
Therefore, to understand what all of the commotion on Capital Hill is all about, we must first look over some of the key revelations within the explosive rolling Stone article. They are as follows:

A McChrystal staff member and advisor describes their view of the General's first meeting with President Obama -

"Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better, 'It was a 10-minute photo-op,' says an adviser to McChrystal. 'Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f-ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.'"

Evidence early infighting between McChrystal, his staff, Obama and Vice President Biden -

"Last fall, during a question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as 'shortsighted,' saying it would lead to a state of 'Chaos-istan,' The remarks earned him a smack-down from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the f- up, and keep a lower profile. Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. 'I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem,' he says.

Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner. 'Are you asking about Vice President Biden?' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?' 'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say "Bite Me?'

Surprisingly, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is looked upon favorably by McChrystal's group -

"In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk s- about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a 'clown' who remains 'stuck in 1985.' Politicians like (John) McCain and (John) Kerry, says another aide, 'turn up, have a meeting with (Afghan president Hamid) Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful.' Only (Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. 'Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review,' says an adviser. 'She said, "If Stan wants it, give him what he needs."

McChrystal and his close group of aids and advisors hold special contempt for many of the President's inner circle, notably, some more than others -

"McChrystal reserves special skepticism for (Richard) Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban, 'The Boss says he's like a wounded animal,' says a member of the general's team. 'Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN (counterinsurgency), and you can't just have someone yanking on s-."

The situation was getting worse day by day as both groups began to spar with the other: in the mix of egos and political ambitions gone astray, a war was being lost and U.S. soldiers were dying every day -

"By far the most crucial - and strained - relationship is between McChrystal and (Karl) Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. According to those close to the two men, Eikenberry - a retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 - can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general.

"... The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as 'not an adequate strategic partner,' and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be 'sufficient' to deal with al Qaeda. ... McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. 'I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before', says McChrystal, who adds that he felt 'betrayed' by the leak. 'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so."

Mc Chrystal's Playbook

So why did he do it? For the moment, let's put aside the best selling book by the general that will undoubtedly come out of this, and let us examine the motives of the reporter who managed to put this bombshell Rolling Stone article together. How did he do it?
The following excerpted article manages to flesh out this incredible story in clear concise detail:

Writer defends role in demise of Stanley McChrystal
Jerome Starkey, Kabul: The Times June 26, 2010

The man who, in effect, ended General Stanley McChrystal's glittering military career says he thought he was "un-fireable".

In a candid interview yesterday, journalist Michael Hastings said he never imagined he would get so much access to the general and his inner circle. He insisted he was simply doing his job as a reporter and denied that his methods were underhand.

Hastings's devastating expose of General McChrystal and his aides led US President Barack Obama to dismiss the man credited widely as the mastermind of the US strategy in Afghanistan.

"I realized that it was very strong material for a profile," Hastings, 30, said. "But I thought McChrystal was un-fireable. I thought his position was very well protected."

.......In a series of vignettes he showed them mocking, criticizing or dismissing almost all of the senior civilians in and around their chain of command.

Hastings described the general's staff as "a collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs". He watched them on a night out in Paris, drinking until they were "completely shitfaced.”

"They are fun guys to hang out with," Hastings told The Times. "They are impressive people.  I just don't know if their solution for Afghanistan is appropriate."

In an article for GQ about campaign journalism, Hastings wrote: "You pretend to be friendly and non-threatening, and over time you 'build trust', which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you're supposed to f . . k them over." That, and the extraordinary level of access that Hastings enjoyed with General McChrystal, prompted a Fox News commentator to describe him as a "rat in an eagle's nest". One rival reporter in Kabul dismissed his McChrystal profile as "people bitching about Washington. What's new?"

Even senior NATO officials admit, however, that the profile brought together an irrefutable weight of anecdotal evidence about the fractured relationships that surrounded General McChrystal's command. It also incorporated revelations about the mission's prospects of success.

"Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counter-insurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm," he wrote.

"It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," Major General Bill Mayville, General McChrystal's chief of staff, was quoted as saying in the report. "This is going to end in an argument."

Hastings insists he does not care what the critics say. There were no rules, guidelines or even unspoken understandings broken. Tellingly, he points out that no one at NATO, the Pentagon or even the White House has questioned the truth of what he wrote - nor have they claimed that the men were quoted out of context.

His bombshell exposé started with an email to the executive editor at Rolling Stone magazine, Eric Bates, earlier this year. Hastings wanted to write about General McChrystal to coincide with his first anniversary of command in Kabul, and Bates agreed to publish it. "He said just send them an email, so I did. They responded almost immediately and said they would love to do it," Hastings said.

"They were pretty candid right from the get-go," he said. Bates later said: "They knew when we were on the record. They said a lot of stuff to us off the record - that's not in the story. We respected those boundaries. This was all when they knew they were on." (Editor: Which means they wanted it out there).

This entire caper has all the signs of ‘chaos planning.’ As I see it, McChrystal and what ever powers put him up to it, got exactly the outcome they wanted.  Before the 2010 elections, thanks to Hillary’s Ecuadorian TV outburst, the ‘Immigration’ issue will hit Obama square and center. Then will come the aftereffects of the oil spill crisis ‘(assuming BP has managed to stop the leak by then), followed by unemployment numbers and possibly – a foolish military action by Israel and, if Petraeus fails, -Afghanistan will finish off his future prospects.

This mysteriously ‘uncoordinated’ chain of events leads to an end game….that will, inevitably, make it - impossible - for Barack Obama to go beyond this one term in office. In other words, to bury his presidency - in Afghanistan.

Mighty Casey Comes to Bat...

Since the announcement Wednesday, the choice of Petraeus has been hailed by Official Washington as a political masterstroke. But who's masterstroke?

It is highly unlikely that Barack Obama made the choice of General David Petreaus as McChrystal's replacement: he’s incapable of being that decisive that quickly.  

More than likely it was simply Obama's choice to ‘accept’ whoever’s suggestion it was, for of his own volition he would never have done so. Obama never liked Petraeus and made that point patently clear all during his campaign for office.

Arguably the most well-known American general since MacArthur, and perhaps the most effective since Eisenhower, Gen. David Petraeus has been called on by the Obama administration to take on what many believe will be his biggest challenge to date. And his selection for the daunting task is emblematic of the famous baseball poem of 1888, for this is - the mighty Casey coming to bat.

Can Petreaus reverse the momentum of the Taliban in Afghanistan while, simultaneously, stabilizing the shaky regime of Afghan leader Hamid Karzai? But most important, can he do so in the one year time frame, foolishly, pledged by the Obama administration for the beginning of the removal of American forces from the country?

Petraeus faced far more daunting challenges in Iraq when he assumed command there in early 2007. Iraq was embroiled in a vicious civil war in which Shia and Sunni civilians were showing up dead on the streets of Iraq's cities at the rate of 90 a day.

Iraq's Ministry of the Interior was in charge of the country's security, but had been heavily infiltrated by Shia death squads. The situation appeared hopeless.

Matters were further complicated by the powerful Sunni insurgency led by al Qaeda's Iraqi affiliate. It recruited fighters from around the Middle East, who were largely responsible for an epic campaign of suicide attacks that killed thousands of Iraqis. More suicide attacks were conducted in Iraq between 2003 and 2007 than had taken place in every other country of the world combined since 1981.

Last year some 2,400 Afghan civilians died in the war, but when Petraeus took the reins of command in Iraq, 3,200 civilians were dying - every month, making Iraq around 15 times more violent than Afghanistan is today. But Iraq was Iraq, and Afghanistan is Afghanistan and the situations and wars are as different as night and day.

The conventional wisdom holds that Petraeus is the military genius who can still prevail in Afghanistan. But by now, even the densest of Obama's advisers know there will be no prevailing. The Iraqis have historically been overrun and subjugated many times, but the Afghanis, with terrain, history and determination in their favor - never.

Petraeus has been given a mission that is virtually an impossible assignment from the get-go (complicated by the fact that he is not a healthy man: he appears slightly sciatic and is a recent cancer survivor). But if there is any Obama administration cleverness in his choice, one must not lose sight of the fact that the move does get him out of the country and out of contention for the 2012 Republican nomination.  
Petraeus is now in direct charge of the mess in Afghanistan and will find it difficult to pin primary responsibility on Obama. Or so may go the hopes of the White House.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out.

We’ll see…

Your comments - The voices of our readers

Obama's motto ; get rid of the good guys and keep all the mutts ! S.H., Orlando, FL