Glad he did not get my vote....One of the greatest marketing scams ever...next to 9/11.

The last we thing we need is a gonzo general in charge of Afghanistan.

McChrystal, or Kristol, or whoever this yegg really is, is not worthy of the adjective "gonzo". Save that for Hunter Thompson. This guy is Herr General Der Gute Deutscher. And when he fails and Brock Alabama needs a new Field Marshall/Scapegoat to command the troops at Stalingrad, some other patsy will take his place . . . and take the fall. General McKiernan probably feels like dirt today. Pretty soon he'll feel grateful that Alabama fired him.

"... according to Seymour Hersh, McChrystal was the guy who was running Cheney's assassination squads. ... What's more ... McChrystal authorized torture at a secret camp ..."

Despite all this, the majority of Americans still feel all warm and comfy when they see or hear Obama.

Good comments above,

The larger point, of course, is that imperial aggession and occupation is a failure. The only beneficiaries are the MIC (war profiteers) and their political puppets. There should be no "commander for Afghanistan" in the first place. Oh well, we have to keep the region safe for the Pipeline.

Hail Caesar!

Not to knock Hersh, but it would be nice to have independent corroboration of his claims.

Grandstanding is something of an occupational hazard for even good independent journalists; Greg Palast does this too. And Hersh isn't infallible-- he predicted that the US would strike Iran about this time last year, IIRC.

I'm quite sure that the government and military are capable of doing the things he describes, but as long as he's one voice in the wilderness without compelling evidence to prove his assertions, he can be dismissed by self-serving Establishment forces as unreliable.

That said, McChrystal's appointment is still another symptom of Obama "looking forward", I presume.

· Yr Obd't Servant

As Ralph Nader asked, "Where's my change?"

There's a much more extended treatment of the McChrystle appointment in a post by Gareth Porter today on Dissident Voice.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/mcchrystal-choice-suggests-special-ops-strikes-to-continue/

I recommend you examine Porter's article if you haven't. He suggests, contrary to the idea that the General is "the wrong man for the job" he is exactly the right man for the job that Obama wants done and it's that fact, perhaps more so than his involvement in torture (which allegation Porter does further document), that makes the appointment so ominous. His expertise and experience over the last several years has been far more in counter-terrorism than in counter-insurgency: that is, his Special Forces have been far more into tracking down and killing or capturing al-Qaeda leadership than in the "counterinsurgency" job of training Afghan and Pakistani security forces to deal with their insurgency problems. These forces have also been involved in many of the highly provocative raids on civilian homes that have generated so much local anger. It appears from this appointment and other of Obama's actions that he is totally focussed now on "defeating the enemy" by destroying its leadership, at whatever price must be paid in the resentment created by "collateral damage." While Obama is talking the talk of diplomacy he is, as usual, acting in exactly the opposite way by opting for the most militarily aggressive of available options to conduct operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So indeed, look for things to get much worse before they get better in these theatres of operations...if they ever do get better before U.S. forces leave the region in abject defeat.

The MIC must be so pleased with their man Obama.

Invading Afghanistan and going to war with the Taliban was just as big a mistake as invading Iraq. The Taliban did not attack us any more than Saddam did. However, Al Queda did.

My guess is that Obama picked McChrystal because he wants to go all out on getting Osama bin Laden, something which was never a priority with Bush-Cheney. Also, the kind of standard war waged over there by General McKiernan leads inevitably to the air strikes that kill civilians. (Once we expose our own infantry to enemy fire, covering them with air power follows)

Obama certainly believes that killing civilians is not only an atrocity but inimical to our national interests. My prediction is that under McChrystal, we will see a sudden drop in the use of any kind of air power and a pull-back of US troops from direct confrontation with Taliban fighters.

If McChrystal's special ops teams go into the Pakistani mountains where Al Queda is based and kills or captures Bin Laden, that will give Obama the option of declaring victory and pulling out of Afghanistan, even making some kind of deal with the Taliban. Although monsters in their own right, they are rational and were willing to negotiate for Bin Laden back in 2001 but Bush preferred to start a war.

This may sound pretty cold-blooded, but I suspect that is Obama's motivation in picking a man whose specialty is assassination. Whether this will work or not, who knows? My own feeling is that hiring one killer, i.e. McChrystal, to go after another is not only immoral but futile. Al Queda's fighters may well take out McChrsytal's teams in a fair fight without air power.

But Bin Laden and Al Queda are committed to another attack on the US and Obama, as president, cannot ignore that reality.

Talk about releasing the 'Dogs of War'!!!!!!

The Alpha male just got handed the keys to the kungdom.

It is somewhat of a stretch but the thought of his anointing could set the stage for a 'crossing of the Rubicon' event when he returns to the U.S.

We seem to be heading in that direction - from Republic to Caesarocracy (the executive powers seized by Bushco have NOT even been addressed by OBushma, except to extend them).

Any resemblance to the demise of the Roman Republic is purely coincidental, I'm sure.

"Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer"?