NEW YORK - The media firestorm over the Rolling Stone profile (6/22/10) of General Stanley McChrystal mostly

missed the real point of the article, which was a damning portrait of

the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Much of the media coverage stressed the criticism

and insults hurled by McChrystal and his staff at various

administration figures. Some of these remarks were more substantive

than others. A joke about Joe Biden ("Bite Me") has been overblown;

McChrystal and his staff seemed to be suggesting a list of possible

gaffes the general might make following a speech.

The real significance of the piece is in the

criticism--voiced by soldiers in Afghanistan and military experts--of

the war itself. "Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of

counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish

in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert

Storm," wrote Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings.

A senior adviser to McChrystal stated, "If

Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it

would become even less popular." Hastings added that some officials see

the war requiring a much larger troop presence: "Instead of beginning

to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to

ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further."

Hastings conveyed a sense of confusion over

precisely what the mission in Afghanistan is supposed to be. Some

soldiers complained that the rules of engagement put them at greater

risk, though they were uncertain whether these were McChrystal's

intended policies or rules that have been, as Hastings put it,

"distorted as they passed through the chain of command."

Hastings also pointed out that McChrystal's history

has been glossed over by the media, beginning in Iraq: "When Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous 'stuff happens' remark

during the looting of Baghdad, McChrystal backed him up. A few days

later, he echoed the president's Mission Accomplished gaffe by

insisting that major combat operations in Iraq were over."

After Army ranger (and former pro football player)

Pat Tillman was killed in 2004, McChrystal "signed off on a falsified

recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed

by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the

recommendation closely enough--a strange excuse for a commander known

for his laserlike attention to minute details.)"

In 2006, there was a scandal about torture and

abuse reminiscent of Abu Ghraib at another detention facility in Iraq

that was overseen by McChrystal. "McChrystal was not disciplined in the

scandal," Rolling Stone reported, "even though an interrogator

at the camp reported seeing him inspect the prison multiple times."

Hastings concluded that the media have mostly

"given McChrystal a pass" on these controversies. Indeed, a Washington

Post story (6/24/10) on McChrystal's ouster noted in passing

that he "had to fend off allegations that he played a role in the

Army's mishandling of the death of Ranger Cpl. Pat Tillman," and that

he "faced criticism for his oversight of detention facilities where

prisoner abuse occurred."

Discussing the broader message of the Rolling

Stone article is clearly not something the White House wants--and

neither do corporate media, preferring the personal drama of military

officials making politically damaging comments about political leaders,

and the White House's attempt to assert control.

Thus, Obama's decision to dismiss McChrystal and

bring in General David Petraeus seemed to bring sighs of relief. As Washington

Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote (6/23/10), it was a "rare" but

welcome sight: "The commander in chief was being commanding." Milbank

added that Obama's "best moments as president" including "defying his

own party to ecalate the fight in Afghanistan."

The fact that he named Petraeus as McChrystal's

replacement was essentially swapping one media favorite with another (Extra!,

11-12/07). "Naming the highly respected Petraeus as

the new commander is by all accounts a great save," explained ABC

Pentagon reporter Martha Raddatz (Nightline, 6/23/10). "It allows the

administration to continue the same counterinsurgency strategy in

Afghanistan without missing a beat." Raddatz helpfully added this

assessment: "A warrior and a scholar, Petraeus is sometimes jokingly

referred to as a water walker, since almost everything he touches seems

to turn to gold."

Similar pronouncements were heard throughout the

corporate media. The right-wing Media Research Center gathered them in a

video reel, which Fox host Bill O'Reilly

used on his June 24 show. Apparently the media's gushing enthusiasm for

Petraeus is yet another sign of their left-wing bias.

So a story that was an indictment of the war became

a lesson in how the White House would be sticking with its plan. As the

Washington Post (6/24/10) put it, Obama's "decision to turn

over the Afghan command to Gen. David H. Petraeus allowed the president

to keep his war strategy intact." NBC Pentagon reporter Jim

Miklasziewski (6/23/10) declared that "the military is very high on

David Petraeus, and there should be no slowdown or hitch in the

Afghanistan strategy." NBC reporter Chuck Todd (6/23/10) noted

that the "one thing the president made clear: He may be changing

commanders, but not the mission.... Trading McChrystal for Petraeus

neutralized what could have turned into another political mess."

Of course, the war in Afghanistan would already

seem to qualify as a "mess," to say the very least. But for now, Obama

asserted presidential control--and that's something most reporters and

pundits were eager to cheer.