As I am a news / geopolitics junky, blogging has a place for following the events of the world that are unique unto themselves. Generally, they give a very personal picture of what is happening in the space of a confined person's life. Some blogs publish posts daily or weekly, while others are monthly, and some even hourly or by the minute. I've determined, that there simply isn't a concrete structure to blogging but when the mood strikes you. Obviously, a blog is a journey, a column of life so to speak, and what is a good slice of life without some background?
I mentioned on Friday in my USA Soccer post that a cousin told me to quit ranting about politics on Facebook. In the short space there, I tended to be over dramatic to the point of belligerence. Considering that myself and fellow blogger / friend Falnfenix had discussed my gift to scribe (her humbling words, not mine) I finally found the opportunity and courage to branch out of the short message dramatics that were irritating friends and family. I figured that rather than alienate all of them, I should give them the choice to "opt-in" and read instead of capturing their news feeds, perpetually. Further, the blog allows me to write in a more professional, thought provoking manner with more structure.
As a strict Constitutional loving, Libertarian-Conservative, I have an aversion to almost everything that the Rolling Stone publishes. I find that most of their journalists have a huge leftist lean to them that I rather not patronage, no do I care to support financially through subscription. That said, the RS reporters have bigger stones than Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann combined. No other mainstream media newspaper or TV newscast would dare publish the edgy material that the Rolling Stone's political editors can get away with. It goes to show, that when you think outside the box of normal news, you find good reporting and journalism does exist, even if you know the journalist and you would disagree on the substance.
The Article in question last week was "The Runaway General" (which is linked above). Michael Hastings has written an absolutely gripping piece that gives a true to life insight into our political leadership, our military, and the strategy on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. While to the naked eye, it would seem that the expose was a showcase of bad military leadership gone a rye, Gen. McChrystal is far to smart for a shadow game of bad politics. The article is almost a preemptive strike against failed support from Washington, in an effort to keep the history books from showing a fine field commander blundering an un-winnable war.
It is this article that helped to spark the name for this blog. McChrystal's background is that of a man who knew exactly what he wanted and needed to accomplish the task at hand, winning. "The Run Away General" shows a military man that is almost completely lost to today's Joint Chiefs, political leaders, and even the troops who serve under him. Plain point, war sucks. It's ugly, it costs massive amounts of money and massive amounts of morality and life. McChrystal understood this probably better than his bosses, and yet, he was the one that was becoming the scape goat.
Of course history has a hindsight of 20/20, when it isn't perverted. The question that will remain to be answered here is, how does McChrystal come out smelling? Considering the article here helped to create at least one off shoot blog about him, a similar field commander (Patton) and the spirt of "Team America's" kickassness, I'd say McChrystal's memoirs will be an excellent read.