DS, I don't think you're accurately addressing the issues that are being raised. Gen. McChrystal should have to explain the article and deserves the consequences. That aspect really hasn't been bantered much, because I think everyone agrees with it. But let me start by offering an example based on one of your references. (even if it was a joke...) If I spent years and years telling you that the HK416 isn't worth being adopted by the military, I'd expect that you'd be rather shocked if I came in here tomorrow and criticized the army for not issuing it to troops. Such an opinion would represent an 180 turn from everything we've discussed prior to that point. There are those here who promoted the idea that military officials have to be able to, in fact had a duty to the troops under their command to, criticize their civilian leaders. Consequences have always come with that stand, but many promoted the idea that such "frankness" should trump protocol because it was worth it. Something which goes hand in hand with this idea is the environment that has been cultivated for the media to achieve the same goal. A film like Fahrenheit 9/11 can't win the "golden palm" at Cannes despite the fact that oh, it's about 10% accurate... Seymour Hersh can't publish "secret plans" for the invasion of Iran even if they're nothing more than a contingency... Richard Clarke can't "cut through the red tape" inside of a mostly speculative book...and so on... without it having a cascade effect for journalism in general. So now, Rolling Stone comes along and publishes a no holds barred interview with a military general- because "edgy" and "in your face" has been the media standard for a while now- and it's being labeled by some as indication of not respecting the country and an example of complete insubordination simply because the President is different? Should all other issues like Afghani stability and policy be overlooked because McChrystal made a joke about Biden? Choice of taste nonwithstanding, it's not really all that shocking.