But he insulted the civilian leadership of the military, from the State Department’s ambassador to the vice-president of the United States. On the record. To Rolling Stone. His staff trashed the president himself. James Fallows says the president must “demonstrate that there are consequences for showing open disrespect for the chain of command.”

Spencer Ackerman says there’s a case to be made that McChrystal could be court-martialed. But, he adds, McChrystal probably won’t even get fired:

Regardless of whether McChrystal should be fired — there’s, frankly, a compelling case to be made when considering the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s penalty of court martial for “any commissioned officer [using] contemptuous words” against the civilian chain of command — my guess is that he won’t be.

But while McChrystal will probably keep his command, his idiotic decision does probably mean that any further escalation of the Afghanistan war is off the table.

An interesting question now is whether Republicans jump on Team McChrystal and begin repeating the complaints made by the general. On the one hand, we know how Republicans feel about undermining the commander in chief during a time of war. On the other, they only think that’s bad when the commander in chief is a Republican. Just be on the lookout for some neocons to start bemoaning the influence of Joe Biden while disingenuously talking up their respect for Hillary Clinton.

(Just about an hour ago, you could read the entire forthcoming Rolling Stone piece at Politico, for some reason. I’m guessing that reason is “theft,” because you can’t do that anymore. Rolling Stone will most likely post the entire thing online some time in mid-July, when everyone is done talking about it. For now, a couple excerpts are here.) (Update: Look, Rolling Stone put it up! They’re learning!)

The Bush administration’s illegal wiretapping and torture sessions were the most obvious examples of the rogue sensibility on steroids. But then came McCain-Palin, a presidential ticket predicated almost singularly on the rogue brand. And now, even in the Obama era, that brand pervades.

It began reemerging in September with Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s Afghan escalation plan. McChrystal didn’t just ask President Obama for more troops — protocol-wise, that would have been completely appropriate. No, McChrystal went rogue, preemptively leaking his request to the media, then delivering a public address telling Obama to immediately follow his orders.

Incredibly, few politicians or pundits raised objections to McChrystal’s behavior. Worse, rather than firing McChrystal, Obama meekly agreed to his demands, letting Americans know that when it comes to foreign policy, the rogue general — not the popularly elected president — is in control in the White House.

Of course, while McChrystal’s insubordination was extra-constitutional in spirit, he at least made the effort to obtain the commander-in-chief’s rubber-stamp approval. The same cannot be said for the rogues inside Obama’s Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Recall that one year ago, Obama instructed the DEA to follow his campaign pledge and respect local statutes legalizing medicinal marijuana. When the DEA kept raiding pot dispensaries in states that had passed such laws, Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated the cease and desist decree, stating that “What (Obama) said during the campaign is now American policy.”

As even more raids nonetheless continued, the Justice Department then issued an explicit memo ordering federal agents to refrain from prosecuting those who are in “compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”

And yet the DEA has recently intensified its crackdown. Here in Colorado — where voters enshrined medical marijuana’s legality in our state constitution — the feds not only raided two dispensaries, but did so in a way that deliberately humiliated their superiors.

In January, the DEA stormed a company that performs cannabis quality tests. The firm’s alleged infraction? Following protocol and formally applying for a federal equipment license. DEA rogues responded to the request not with thanks or — heaven forbid — approval, but instead with the gestapo.

This was topped last week when DEA agents arrested a medical marijuana grower who dared discuss his business with a local news outlet. Sensing a P.R. opportunity, DEA agent Jeffrey Sweetin used the spectacle to insist that he will not listen to stand-down directives from his bosses.

“The time is coming when we go into a dispensary, we find out what their profit is, we seize the building and we arrest everybody,” Sweetin menacingly intoned.

Once again, a rogue going wild and once again, tacit acceptance. Rather than personnel changes reining in the out-of-control agency, the president has nominated the acting Bush-appointed DEA administrator, Michele Leonhart, to a full term.

The message, then, should be clear: If you’re looking for who is “in control” of our military and police forces, don’t look to the established chain of command and don’t look to constitutional provisions that mandate civilian authority over the government bayonet. Look to the most reckless rogues — it’s a good bet they’re the ones running the show.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books “Hostile Takeover” and “The Uprising.” He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

© 2010 Creators.com

Still, in a recent phone call you congratulated President Karzai for accepting the election results — after he announced he would submit to the runoff. Was this intended as a subtle provocation?

I thanked him for accepting the results, even if his acceptance was delayed. I said that one chapter is now behind us and that another chapter is now in front of us. During the campaign, I spoke to the public about Karzai’s and his government’s failures. So there might have been quite a few things between us. But as a candidate, and with him as an incumbent, at the end of the day the lines of communication should remain open.

In the first weeks after the election, you both ruled out the possibility of a national unity government. Last week, there were rumors in Kabul that, under certain circumstances, you would be prepared to work together with Karzai. Is there any truth to this?

I can promise you, these are rumors. I want change, not just a power-sharing arrangement.

There is a good possibility that Karzai will win easily in the second round of voting. Should that happen, you would once again find yourself with little influence in the opposition. Can you afford this?

According to the Electoral Complaints Commission, the difference between his and my result is about 17 percent. It should be mentioned that the method used by the Commission only identified a part of the fraud, but not all of it. The real results would have been quite, quite different. I saw that the people want change in this country. The runoff will strengthen the people’s belief in the electoral process. It is a necessity for the political environment and it will create new momentum.

It wasn’t just Karzai’s camp that committed fraud. Some of your supporters were also at fault, even if it wasn’t as widespread. Would you deny this?

There were irregularities on our side as well, I don’t deny it. But fraud would be too strong a word to describe what took place.

The runoff, like the first round of voting, will once again cost almost $200 million of international donors’ money and will require a Herculean effort in organization and security. How can one be sure that the second round of voting will be accurate and will lead to a legitimate government?

This is a very serious question. I will propose certain recommendations for the transparency of the elections, because massive fraud could of course happen once again. That’s not acceptable. People in the Independent Electoral Commission [IEC], who have shown bias, who have violated the law and who worked in favor of one candidate, should be removed. Those who have been a part of the corruption in the IEC need to be replaced. The IEC needs to be truly independent. That is a must.

The atmosphere between the Americans and President Karzai has been tense for quite some time. Are you America’s favored candidate?

Luckily, they didn’t really have a favorite candidate. Five years ago, it was different. At that time the U.S. clearly supported Karzai. This time they stood by the process. I appreciated that. After the press conference, when the final results were announced, President Barack Obama called me, and he called Karzai. It was a courtesy call and he praised me for my stand, for my responsible attitude. But it was a short conversation.

Obama’s decision on General McChrystal’s new strategy for Afghanistan is on hold, pending a legitimate government. Can the Taliban still be stopped and if so, how?

For years I have been saying that you need a credible partner in Afghanistan. One who can deliver, otherwise it can’t succeed. General McChrystal’s strategy is the right one. But it takes two to tango. The other part is the Afghans — if they fail, it can’t work. The legitimacy should come through the electoral process, through free, fair and transparent elections. Hopefully as a result, the people of Afghanistan have a chance for change.

Karzai wants to negotiate with the top leadership of the Taliban, saying that they would participate in the government if they stop fighting. Will that work?

To believe that negotiations with the so-called Quetta Shura [the Taliban ruling council] will bring peace to Afghanistan is an illusion. These people are destroying the country; how can we make peace with them? What needs to happen is that we have to reach out to the people of Afghanistan, because the government is losing their support. That’s one of its major failures. Essentially it needs good governance, which serves the people and which is accountable. We need elected governors, not appointed ones. We need to fight corruption. It’s a whole package of measures that would go a long way toward winning the people’s trust.

People in Kabul say your budget was tens of millions of dollars with much of it donated by Iran. Is that correct?

[Laughs] I wouldn’t say that I wished it was true. No, I can surely confirm that a foreign country was not involved. Contributions from the people were overwhelming, well higher than my expectations. They invested in a different political agenda. They want change.