I don't buy that McCrystal didn't know what he was getting into. RS has confirmed that he vetted all the quotes in the article before it appeared, so he at leas

I don't buy that McCrystal didn't know what he was getting into. RS has confirmed that he vetted all the quotes in the article before it appeared, so he at least had to know that he was going to be firing a few aides pretty quick. Besides, we're talking about a dude who just last summer was carefully leaking stuff to the press to try to force Obama into a position where he'd have to accede to the demands of the brass. [interesting article from a month ago, before all this happened: http://www.newamerica.net/node/31833 http://www.newamerica.net/node/31833] He knows how to play the game, and he's been playing it for years. He may come off in the article as a battle-weary military dude completely unsavvy with domestic affairs, but I don't think that's a correct impression of him; it's just part of the impression he wanted to cultivate. The reality, I think, is that McCrystal intended this interview to make it seem as though the Obama administration is well-intentioned, but cluelessly doesn't let the military brass do what they want. McCrystal wanted to carefully cultivate the public perception that Obama just needs to trust the military more, and let them self-govern a bit. What he didn't realize, I think, was that Hastings was smarter than he sometimes seems, and played the interview quite nicely. Where McCrystal had wanted to come off as a no-nonsense military man who's held back by Obama's idealism, he instead came off as an asshole. And to most of us, it might appear that he's just a poor old-school hard-nosed military guy who went into an interview blind - heck, I think Hastings makes it seem like that intentionally in the article. The truth, however, is that he's as savvy as they come, and he should have been prepared for this. Anyway, interesting read - Slate always has good stuff like this. Thanks!