Rolling Stone's Anti-War Narrative

In the Rolling Stone piece that brought down General McCrystal, the writer spent three weeks with the troops. What did he find? Trash talk about bureaucrats.

Now, if someone followed me around for three weeks, they'd find far worse; the storage container underneath my waterbed, for one.

Fact is, journalists like me and those at Rolling Stone are so seedy, we could never survive the scrutiny we apply to others. And really, soldiers are better people than those who cover them.

But this writer followed the troops, who might as well be on Mars. That's what Afghanistan is: A weird, scary place without decent cable. They don't have time to worry about some slimy writer trying to get damaging tidbits upon which to build a career. These soldiers deal with death.

And how screwed up is this: While those troops work like hell to protect that writer from his own demise, he's orchestrating theirs.

And what did he find? Banter, the kind you find between troops, cops and yeah, editors. Everyone bad mouths the boss.

But maybe the left hates manly conversation as much as they hate the military. And so, they use it to form their lazy narrative: We've got another Vietnam. Of course we do, when so many writers say we've got another Vietnam. They said the same thing about Iraq (we won), the Gulf War (we won) and, if they had a time machine, they'd go back and say the same thing about WWII (which, we also won — I think).

And what of Rolling Stone? The only thing it hates more than war is winning one. They altered history last week, but not in the way they intended: With a possible end to courageous restraint.

Rolling Stone has to hate that we may win this war, since they tried so hard to lose it.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who dated Jann Wenner.

Greg Gutfeld hosts "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" weekdays at 3 a.m. ET. Send your comments to: