The ousting of Gen. Stanley McChrystal (pictured), the commander of the U.S. Force in Afghanistan, has raised eyebrows today. What has got people talking isn't so much McChrystal's resignation, but the president's seemingly bullish and no-nonsense approach to the matter. President Barack Obama is often accused of being too soft on hard issues.

Not this time, though.

On Tuesday, President Obama said that McChrystal, whose candid remarks about the administration and its approach to war, which appear in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, had displayed "poor judgment" and that he would speak to the general before making any decisions. It was already clear at that point, however, that McChrystal's position was on the line.

Several White House officials, including Press Secretary Robert Gates, had publicly rebuked the commander for his comments. In it, McChrystal reportedly said that he had been "disappointed" after his first meeting with the president, and that he had found it hard to sell the idea that more troops were needed: "I found that time painful," said McChrystal, before adding that "[he] was selling an unsellable position."

The president pointed out that the resignation was not a personal or policy-related issue but rather in the interest of national security.

I contend that getting rid of McChrystal was better for the president's image than anything else.

The war in Afghanistan is a sensitive topic for President Obama. Having inherited it from his predecessor, George W. Bush, he was expected to withdraw troops almost immediately as he had pledged during his campaign. Instead, troops have since been added, and more money has been spent fighting in a war that many consider unwinnable.

It's a war that Obama cannot afford -- either literally or figuratively -- to lose. McChrystal's comments caused a firestorm that was not good for the administration, and had Obama kept McChrystal, he would have looked weak.

It is telling, as well as troubling, that the man responsible for the military command does not believe that the president is on the right track with his war strategy. Although he would be unlikely to say more at this point for risk of further damaging his career, we should ask the general to explain more about his perspective.

This incident reminds me of the war in Iraq, when people like Hans Blix, former chief weapons inspector of the United Nations, publicly stated that there were no weapons of mass destruction. His voice, too, was silenced, and he turned out to be right.

If McChrystal does feel as strongly as he appeared to in the Rolling Stone article, he should probably have not held that position in the first place. He would also have done better to have discussed his views with the president in private first. Using the megaphone of the media to do that was indeed a poor judgment call. Gen. David Petraeus, now McChrystal's replacement, may indeed be a better fit.

We should not entirely dismiss McChrystal's views, though, because they underscores wider issues in the war strategy that should be taken seriously. I just hope that Afghanistan will not turn out to be another Iraq.