Civilian control of the military is as essential to our Republic as is a free press.  But does anyone believe that the dynamic between office dwellers from Foggy Bottom and academia and political cronies with authority over snake eaters, captured through the prism of the media (more office dwellers), will result in something productive?

I once was introduced to the Secretary of the Army: "Sir, meet Major Brady." The secretary then turned and shook hands with a private standing next to me. The incompetence of political appointees is no secret -- and to be expected. They are often not there for their competence but for their politics. Most are over their head but the smart ones listen as carefully to their military counterparts as a second lieutenant does to his sergeant.

In order to keep friction to a minimum article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits commissioned officers from using "contemptuous words" against their political chain of command and a few other political types. I did not find ambassadors on the list however. Considering the quality of many politicians and the honesty of many officers, if private were public, it would thin out the officer corps. If the same standards were applied to politicians, it might eliminate them.

One would have to go to great lengths to find anything General McChrystal personally said in the Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings that meets the criterion of Article 88. I am sure that much of Hastings' article will be challenged ("Pentagon was Determined to Embarrass the President." "Gates is an Obama clone!"). I find it hard to believe that any officers would discuss how he voted with subordinates -- and even harder to believe that McChrystal voted for President Obama. The language is what it is, not for public consumption, and Hastings knew that. We don't know how much of the criticism of politicians by his subordinates (mostly unidentified) was in McChrystal's presence, or even if it happened, but it should not have been allowed.

It's apparent that Hastings wormed his way into the McChrystal circle under assurances that he would not do what he did. The disingenuous nature of this reporter is demonstrated most vividly when he identifies, by name, low ranking enlisted challenging and denouncing policy. Those men cannot defend themselves against the likes of Hastings. They probably had no idea he was present, thought what they said was in confidence -- and will suffer greatly because of Hastings' cruelty.

So why did Obama fire General McChrystal?

Before the ink was dry on the article, before facts were checked and before he met with McChrystal (he may have more face time with Paul McCartney than McChrystal), President Obama set in motion his dismissal. And he ignored the chain of command. McChrystal works for General Petraeus who works for Secretary Gates. Gates has had a lot of firing experience, perhaps more than any Secretary of Defense in history. He fired McChrystal's predecessor. He also fired two service secretaries, a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army Surgeon General, and too many other good men. One wonders why, if his department is so messed up, he hasn't he fired himself.

Weak leaders, especially politicians, often try to project an image of toughness by emphasizing (sometimes falsely), a hard early life, military service and medals -- or kicking ass. Obama's supporters have compared him to many great men including Truman and Lincoln. President Lincoln fired McPherson because he wouldn't fight. Truman fired McArthur because he challenged policy. McChrystal could never be accused of not fighting; and he helped design the policy in Afghanistan.

Our Madison Avenue pin up president fired McChrystal because of growing perceptions, even in his own media, about his competence and leadership, i.e., dithering and voting present.  This was a chance for him to kick ass.

In the military we have a very simple measure for leadership. Would I want this man with me in combat? Who would you want with you in combat -- Obama, Gates -- or McChrystal? Here is what a leader would do. "Stan, this is the president. How is the war going?  By the way, volcano or not, you should know better than to let a reporter from Rolling Stone into your camp. If I were you I would fire the PR guy who led you into this. Tell your guys to be more careful in the future. Now let's get on with winning this war. We need to spend more time together. I need your military expertise and you need my media savvy."

The Petraeus appointment, described as "brilliant" is fraught with peril.  Generals win battles, they don't win wars. Politicians win wars. By demoting Petraeus Obama confuses the chain of command. And by setting a date certain policy for withdrawal from Afghanistan, he has put victory (or whatever he calls it) in the enemy's hands.