General Stanley McChrystal, the man in charge in Afghanistan, has been summoned to the White House. It would seem he was stitched up by the popular American magazine Rollingstone although surely he knew that being in the company of a magazine writer for several days wasn't a smart idea.
I've read the article and don't see anything which necessitates an apology - nothing said by the General is a sacking offence. Yet, the President is upset and demands his military chief leave his post and nip the few thousand miles for a reprimand or the sack. Can't have the military top brass criticising the civilian top brass can we?
There are all sorts of rumours flying about the American media. He 'could face court marshall' says one paper and suggests that he would end up sitting behind a desk like the disgraced Canadian Brigadier General Dan Menard, who was speedily removed from his post in Afghanistan.
Another rumour is that he will offer to resign, but will he?
He has shown exceptionally poor judgement in this case and it's not the first time, but the US is at war and thousands of US military depend upon this man's decisions. It's a crucial time in Afghanistan right now and the possible departure of McChrystal is just bizarre. Obama should look a little closer to home and allow his military chief to get on with his job.
Why has a magazine article acquired so much attention from the White House? I can only think President Obama can't accept criticism and is fairly thin-skinned. Not good attributes for a man who likes to be thought of as the leader of the western world.