As the country waits to hear what kind of dressing down Gen. Stanley McChrystal
will get when he meets with President Obama tomorrow, the calls for his resignation -- or termination -- are growing. Here's a sampling of the "Fire McChrystal" camp, and their reasons for being there.
1. Military code demands his resignation.
Writing for Newsweek, Jonathan Alter says that this is McChrystal's second time getting in hot water for insubordination -- the first time being last fall when he was asked if he would support Vice President Biden's plan for fewer troops in Afghanistan with more drone attacks
. McChrystal said "no" -- meaning if that was the policy the President chose to go with, the commanding general would not be behind it.
"Having been burned once by Stanley McChrystal, the president is not likely to allow himself to be burned again. The military code -- and American democratic traditions -- all but demand that he accept the general's resignation of his command."
2. His direct bosses should have canned him already.
said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he has to be fired by the end of the day.
"Gates and Petraeus have to come out and fire McChrystal," Scarborough said. "They should have already done it - Petreaus and Gates should have already fired McChrystal."
3. Obama needs to set a precedent.
James Fallows, writing for The Atlantic, says that if McChrystal and his staff did in fact say the things the article says they did, then it's up to Obama to fire McChrystal
because of historical imperative and to set a precedent for future presidents.
"The second step is what this means for US strategy in Afghanistan, the future of COIN, etc. But the first is for the civilian Commander in Chief to act in accordance with Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution and demonstrate that there are consequences for showing open disrespect for the chain of command."
4. McChrystal should resign on his own.
Jonathan Capehart, writing for the Washington Post, says that McChrystal should resign
when he meets with the President tomorrow, and the President should accept his resignation.
"Some might argue that Obama shouldn't do so because there's a war on. But with this journalistic IED, McChrystal has stripped himself of the confidence Obama needs to have in him to trust that the Afghanistan war policy is being carried out faithfully."
5. Insubordination must be punished.
Andrea Mitchell said on MSNBC this morning that McChrystal's comments constitute insubordination, but whether or not he could be fired is a practical matter based on the state of the war in Afghanistan
"I think it crosses the line of insubordination and it crosses the line of the military code of justice. He has challenged the commander-in-chief and legally, morally, ethically, professionally he ought to be canned."
6. The "United" needs to be put back in "United States."
, an editor and columnist at the Washington Post, said on "Morning Joe" today that McChrystal is out of chances. "I just don't think you can have your commander in the field out there saying these kinds of things and behaving in this kind of way when this is supposed to be a high-stakes, united effort on the part of the United States, you just can't have it this way."
7. Focusing on McChrystal is focusing on the wrong thing.
Michael Muskal writes for the LA Times that it doesn't matter so much if McChrystal is fired
or if he stays on but where the war goes from here.
"The Obama administration has increased the U.S. presence in the Afghanistan war but also has insisted that there is a July 2011 timeline for the beginning of disengagement. The military, particularly McChrystal, has been uncomfortable with the idea of the deadline and have questions about how realistic the political goal is given the military situation on the ground and the political confusion of the Hamid Karzai government."