<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Dissents Of The&nbsp;Day]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[No, it is not <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/mcchrystals-overreach.html">McChrystal’s job</a> to bend to political pressure. It is his job to give the best military advice he can and if the President chooses not to follow that advice he should have the option to resign. This is not about challenging civilian control or exacting political damage. It’s about doing what he thinks is right and accepting the consequences. This is exactly the problem we had in the beginning with Iraq. Nobody was willing to tell the President what he needed to hear.</p></blockquote><p>My point was that leaking this report and advertizing in advance that he will resign if the president doesn&#39;t adopt it goes way beyond what my reader suggests. What I dislike is the public posturing from a senior military figure as a way to advance what he believes is a political resolution. Another reader:]]></html></oembed>