McKiernan gets blamed.
I don't know enough about the Afghan headquarters and NATO interplay to say whether it's true or not, but somebody wants the story out there that McKiernan was standing in the way of progress in Afghanistan.
Whether it's simply the politics of "turning the page" to a new strategy or whether McKiernan really had problems, look at all the frontpages tying his leaving to a new (presented as better) strategy. (NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ.)
That's an awful lot of column space. Someone sure wanted to make sure that McKiernan is the scapegoat.
Whether it's simply the politics of "turning the page" to a new strategy or whether McKiernan really had problems, look at all the frontpages tying his leaving to a new (presented as better) strategy. (NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ.)
That's an awful lot of column space. Someone sure wanted to make sure that McKiernan is the scapegoat.
posted by mikevotes at
9:59 PM
2 Comments:
You don't publicly ask a general to resign -- ending his military career -- unless you've got something of an axe to grind. Otherwise you'd "promote" him out of the way.
By
-epm, at 7:55 AM
Yeah, but they're completely trashing him not only detroying his present, but destroying his retirement.
One of the general's perks is the after money from defense contractors, and by destroying his name, they're killing that,
By
mikevotes, at 8:14 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home