John Burns of The New York Times set up a very disturbing notion of media dynamics in the wake of the Rolling Stone demise of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Clearly Burns believes that McChrystal was a real asset in the Afghan military campaign and is being sacrificed because of the Michael Hastings story in Rolling Stone. Burns seems to think that Hastings took nuanced moments to create a portrait of military commanders contemptuous of their civilian colleagues. The piece challenged the principle of civilian control of the U.S. Military. Burns believes the piece may have ended a longstanding relationship between journalists and military leaders as a channel for much needed information over time. By taking what Burns seemed to suggest were “off-the-record” moments and using them to support the Rolling Stone “Runaway General” premise, Hastings has made it difficult for reporters to get the real story of what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq or at the Pentagon generally, from here on out.

General Stanley McChrystal's fate was sealed with the publication of a bombshell Rolling Stone magazine profile on Tuesday. In less than forty-eight hours after the article surfaced on the internet, the U.S.'s top commander in the Afghanistan war found himself summoned to Washington, D.C. to hand his resignation to President Obama.

In a press conference announcing his decision to accept McChrystal's resignation, President Obama emphasized that "this is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy." Centcom commander General David Petraeus will take over for McChrystal. Though Petraeus is a familiar face with an arguably proven track record, some observers are dubious of the president's claim that U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is staying the same.

General Stanley McChrystal resigned his job as top U.S. commander in Afghanistan after disparaging remarks he made about President Obama, among others, were published in Rolling Stone magazine.

Does military culture always involve speaking out about your superiors, or was this just an unusual one-off at a very high level?

Less than 48 hours after Rolling Stone’s profile of General Stanley McChrystal went viral on the Internet, President Obama relieved the four-star general of his job as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. General David Petraeus will now take over the post, leaving behind an opening at the Central Command in Iraq. Takeaway Washington correspondent, Todd Zwillich, was in the Rose Garden yesterday for Obama’s announcement. He explains the political implications of the president's decision and the response it is getting in Washington. Even though the president tried to drive home the point that strategy was not going to change, this personnel upset has reopened the strategy debate in Washington.

President Obama on Tuesday relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his duties in Afghanistan, less than 48 hours after it was revealed that McChrystal and his aides made disparaging remarks about high-ranking members of the Obama administration to a freelance journalist from Rolling Stone. McChrystal will be replaced by Gen. David Petraeus. We want to know what you think. Should Gen. Stanley McChrystal have kept his job?

Gen. Stanley McChrystal meets with President Obama today, as the fallout from a Rolling Stone article remains front and center in Washington. In his article, journalist Michael Hastings (who was on The Takeaway yesterday) quotes the general and his aides making disparaging remarks about various administration officials, including Vice President Biden and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.