in the comments section at AlterNet following an article about the changeover. The commentator surmised that the war was going badly, and will probably end up like Viet Nam. (No nation has ever succeeded in an Afghan invasion/occupation.) If McChrystal could see the writing on the wall, he would - as an intensely ego-driven man - hardly want to preside over the loss. So why not act like the crusty old warhorse and run off his mouth (surely he was not stupid enough to forget the presence of the reporter) and get fired. Those who dislike Obama would praise McChrystal, and if he has political ambitions, it would stand him in good stead with the Tea Party. Petraeus, who already has exhibited political interests, will get to take the fall if it all goes down the tubes, not McChrystal. I can tell you that despite overt camaraderie between senior military officers, they are always looking for some way to exploit the chink in the other's armor. OTOH, if we want to continue the modern day Crusades, your scenario is as good as any. What better way to ensure permanent war for the economic benefit of the ruling elite? It's scary either way.

by phatkhat on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 02:26:18 PM EST

I don't think Obama is a closet Dominionist so much as he's either not taking them seriously (easy to do, since they want to fly under the radar) or he's making the classic mistake of trying to pacify them.

It's still very hard to name this particular enemy without sounding paranoid or hysterical and what I'd really love to know is how we can change this.

by Autumn on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 03:41:44 PM EST