Unintended consequences re McChrystal? Or intended?

I vote for the unintended but desired, by the war hating magazine that had the story.  I have not read the story but I do not remember them ever writing a story showing any military  in a good light. (actually, if they did I would not have seen it as I never read it.)  The author says he didn't intend, nor did he expect anyone would be fired.  If that was the case what DID he intend with his story.  I'm sure he personally did not expect the repercussions to go quite this far.
This was written for Pajamas Media by Soerem Kern who is Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

Europeans React Skeptically to McChrystal Debacle

There's a feeling that the departure of McChrystal is an indictment of Barack Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan, and may increase the pressure on European governments to withdraw their troops from the country.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to remove General Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has generated considerable media commentary in Europe, where governments are facing an uphill struggle to reverse dwindling public support for the Afghan deployment.

Most European opinion-shapers say that Obama had no choice but to relieve McChrystal of his command after the general and his associates publicly ridiculed Obama’s war cabinet in a magazine article. But the overarching theme in European newspaper commentary is that McChrystal’s insubordination is a symptom of a much larger problem, namely that Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is not working.

Read it all along with its embedded links.