"... noble sentiments, sure - but the fact is there are many more McChyrstals out there and we'll probably be hearing from them - and that's not just because of the incendiary nature of modern media - but also because our military is under pressure and threatened by several unpredictable dynamics: one, competing long term strategic visions increasingly at odds within the military, in short best summed up by those that believe China and its eventual satellites are the real threat and those that think the future is all about COIN and 'small wars'; two, that 'strategic' problem exacerbated by a poor economy and large deficits equaling a smaller piece of the pie for the military and therefore an inability to accommodate both visions; and three, those two problems further exacerbated by America's increasing isolation as the only Western military of any value whatsoever. Add to those ills a second Obama term [god help us] and/or our most famous general suffering a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan - and hell let's throw in Iran getting the bomb and another war in the Mideast - and yeah, you're gonna see more McChrystals and the possible rise of significant strain in civilian/military affairs..."

With this whole McChrystal circus I went on and on with various sorts about how when Mc is finally offed there's no way in hell Petraeus will take the job to replace him - and of course today Petraeus takes the job to replace him - so that's embarrassing - especially since on reflection it makes perfect sense for Petraeus to replace him since when it comes to COIN in Afghanistan Petraeus has the most to lose therefore he has the most to gain in making sure things proceed according to plan - so with a little bit of effort I would have figured that one out and not looked so foolish - fuck it. I still think there's no way he agrees to this unless he's been promised certain baseline givens by Obama - it will be interesting to see how those 'promises' complicate things as the story moves along.

Of course I'm talking as if Petraeus had a choice in the matter - who knows if Obama insisted he take the job or if Petraeus actually sought it out in order to save a baby he is very much the father of - and how that all came to be may matter greatly because if Obama insisted and Petraeus resisted who knows if in the end he managed to wrest necessary assurances out of Obama regarding things like the withdrawal deadline etc etc.

And what about Gates? What role is he playing here? As several have noted, you've essentially demoted Petraeus from CENTCOM to Afghanistan - that's a rather dramatic move and it's hard to believe anyone else but Gates could have made it - what does it say that they felt there was no one else available capable of handling Afghanistan? - or maybe there was but indeed Petraeus insisted on this - many questions.Gates comes across as the consummate technocrat but as regards how accurate his vision is or relevant his ideas are concerning strategy and America's future military, I have questions there and I've read a lot of commentary by military professionals who also wonder if Gates maybe doesn't appear more competent than he actually is - in short that his thinking is rather one dimensional.

Still, one thing has been made clear by the McChrystal meltdown - the impression that the Obama administration is disunited on foreign policy, threatened by dysfunction and incoherence in this regard and consequently not trusted by significant elements within the military seems to come close to the truth.

I'll be accused of being ever the contrarian, but the 'optimistic' takes I'm reading regarding Israel's easing of Gaza sanctions in wake of the flotilla of peace debacle entirely miss the point: what Israel's easing of sanctions says to me is that they're expecting the worst as more 'activists' sail towards the embargoed coast and therefore want to look like they made some effort at concessions sensitive to the disingenuous concerns of the world community. I'd be highly surprised, shocked if this 'easing' morphed into a more accommodating and therefore conciliatory posture by Israel - to me it's obvious they're expecting more violence, possibly much more violence, and this is them positioning themselves accordingly knowing full well the vast ignorance of world opinion will be arrayed against them when it comes.

"... an accurate and detached view of things - but 'sad' this turn is not - if I can say so without sounding gratuitously flippant this is probably a good thing and in many ways no doubt inevitable... Obama's foreign policy [and his presidency in general] is a mess and this episode nicely pulls back the curtain on the fact... reality is we weren't gonna succeed in Afghanistan anyway, not with this administration managing a dubious strategy in accordance with an extremely foolish 'deadline' - and besides, regardless of that, a good case can be made that McChrystal wasn't the right man for job to begin with... so why not consider this a good thing since the ugly truth is now out there for all to see... Afghanistan is a deadly serious puzzle that will continue to confound and resist easy explication... and when Obama embraced this war during the primaries he very clearly revealed two things about himself, namely, that he's a shameless political opportunist who is desperately ignorant and in over his head when it comes to foreign policy and war..."

It strikes me as odd - now that China has announced 'flexibility' on its currency ahead of the G20 meetings, which the American press seems to be waxing all ruddy with optimism about even though this is just classic Chinese subterfuge - they avoid public disagreements and want to be seen as accommodating and pliable so as the better to advance objectives which are anything but accommodating and pliable - regardless, it strikes me as odd that Chinese dollars, all denominations, have pictures of Mao on them, a disturbed, megalomaniac mass murderer who championed oppression in order to subjugate beneath the weight of the all powerful, all mighty state individual rights - and American dollars have pictures of Washington and Lincoln and Franklin et al on them, heroes of a story and culture and belief system vastly different from that suggested and symbolized by that little fucking bastard Mao - it may be to make a trivial point, but it strikes me as odd that we in the West seem so willing to ignore this reality, rife with all the dark and dangerous forces of history, that arrogantly flashes its sneering, mocking, mischievous visage at us every time a Chinese citizen opens his wallet.

"... why is it you feel America must prostrate itself before any provisional assertion of power can be seen as credible? You're surprised to find yourself thinking this soldier did something wrong? Really? You know very well these videos contain tactical information that can compromise military operations - for that reason alone you should not at all be surprised to find fault with what this soldier did. You know very well these videos will be exploited by ideologues who have a vested interest in undermining the beliefs and values that make a strong military possible -  and so it was this video was doctored to suit that end - of all the people who have seen this video how many have seen the original, the version that makes it clear the pilots in the Apache acted in accordance with the ROE current at the time, that demonstrated their actions may have been unfortunate but not therefore necessarily unjustified? Very, very few. You know very well these 'freedoms' you speak of are conditional, not absolute - to speak about them as if they're absolute is to engage in a false argument - if you'd been a reporter in England in 1944 that had been leaked plans to Overlord and then sought to publish them on June 5th you would rightly have been stolen away in the dead of night and then probably put up against a wall and shot - the freedoms you laud are conditional.

Where does this liberal arrogance come from, this Obamaphile blind faith that imagines that 'enlightened' progressives, in direct opposition to pretty much everything history has to teach us, can remake the dynamics governing great and powerful nations so as render them more palatable to their myopic, fanciful, self-indulgent sympathies?..."

"... yes, but Gates is being less than honest here - at least one hopes that's the case, one hopes that Gates and the Obama administration are not just simply being naive - Taiwan is an integral piece in China's larger long term military strategy puzzle - but China's huge military build up is not specifically about Taiwan, it's about control of the South China sea and the surrounding outer island chain overall, it's about in many ways replicating Japan's grand strategy from WWII - in short it's about a lot more than a 'disagreement' over Taiwanese independence. What's of chief concern in this instance is not the arrogance of China in general but the arrogance and possible growing autonomy of the PLA in particular - again, another uncomfortable reminder of WWII era Japan..."

"... some don't seem to understand what it means when one says Israel is vital to American security concerns in the region - this does not mean it's vital in the sense Japan is vital in the Pacific for instance - what it means is that if Israel declines there will be war, and that's bad - but even if an immediate war is somehow avoided, you'd still have a situation where in the wake of an Israel decline extremists will revel in a perceived victory, which will be bad and probably lead to war - and malingering at the end of any Mideast war is the threat of China being forced to support and align with our 'enemies'. So, vital interest in that sense.

Now, one can also argue that supporting Israel in the face of the international rabble calling for its head leads to unpleasant complications too - that's certainly a valid argument - but I don't see how we're anywhere near the point where dread of this latter scenario outweighs dread of the former

Regardless, it is possible Israel will be forced to make some dramatic gesture to reduce tensions - I doubt it, but possible - something like disengaging from Gaza entirely - but if they do that it will be out of spite, not compliance with left wing idealism, because Israel knows full well what evil a 'free Gaza' will let loose - and be rest assured if that day comes Israel will reduce Gaza to rubble.

So, again, it's in this sense Israel remains a linchpin to American security in the region ..."

Good post but you essentially miss the point - Israel's existential situation comes down to two fundamentals. Firstly, there's a large demographic out there that wants to see Israel fail - because of anti-Americanism, anti-semitism, the naive posturing of liberal ideologues and of course your Islamist fascists - whatever, the dominant opinion in the world is anti-Israel - therefore, what choice does Israel have other than to do what it's doing? The alternative is extinction - sure, it could tolerate some moderation maybe, but even a small movement towards appeasement risks inviting extinction - so Israel has no choice [although they obviously need to shake up their military establishment because it keeps making mistakes that simply shouldn't be happening] - therefore when you say Mr Rothkopf that Israel is now backed into a corner and must change, I don't see how that can or should happen - it'd be like telling a pitcher who just blew out his elbow that he's gonna have to learn to throw with the other arm - that's simply not possible - he either fixes the arm or he retires.

And secondly, and of most importance probably - is America's view of a viable Israel as a linchpin to its regional and overall security - as long as America continues to see a 'strong' Israel as vital, nothing changes - and so the question to ask is what would motivate America to back away from Israel? Well, obviously, oil ceasing to be a prime energy source would certainly not be good for Israel - although since oil exporting Muslim states would also decline accordingly, that could prove a wash from Israel's point of  view; possibly an Obama-like president who out of a delusional arrogance hands a long sought victory to the radicals in the region by pulling the plug on Israel - but even though Obama has been test driving that approach, one imagines there'd be an outright insurrection on the right in this country if he or someone of his ilk ever followed through on it so can't really see that happening; and world opinion - but would an America that still saw Israel as a linchpin to its own security ever abandon Israel because of something as enervating and unsavory as 'world opinion'? Hard to believe.

So, Mr Rothkopf, I don't see this turning into a watershed moment - or rather, if it does turn that way, expect it to be an ugly, unpleasant and uber dangerous shedding - if you're caught on the banks of that river you'd better be a damn good swimmer.

the desire or intent or need by 'certain' groups to see or view or characterize Israel in a certain way exists a priori - therefore how can Israel possibly appease that need without capitulating to a degree that will look very much like surrender to forces inimical to it? And even if, hypothetically, Israel were to embrace that 'capitulation', why is it liberals assume that conditions in the Mideast would consequently improve? Isn't it just as likely that extremist elements would be emboldened thereby engendering a worse environment for American interests? In this sense we see that Israel is merely a proxy upon which left wing ideologues and other sundry radicals of a much more serious bent practice their enmity against and disdain for American power, capitalism, free markets, democracy, Western culture and the idea of the nation state.

Of much more concern here for 'friends of Israel' is the spectacle of the IDF botching another military effort - realists in the audience should be increasingly alarmed that the once vaunted Israeli military establishment can't seem to do anything right anymore.