I guess I am running against the grain here, but I think there's a legitimate argument for why McChrystal should not be fired.
In fact, it boils down to this: Obama is increasingly infatuated with drones as a means to enable the troop drawdown, but more drones and fewer troops leads to more collateral damage and civilian deaths. Thus, losing the war - where victory is measured not in bodies, but in hearts and minds.
McChrystal is fighting the Administration's political cowardice and his own soldiers' attitudes in trying to navigate a course in Afghanistan that meets our strategic goals without turning into a Vietnam/Phoenix kind of SNAFU.
The irony here is that by arguing for McChrystal to be fired, we are playing into the warmongers' hands - they believe that a return to Bush-era tactics is needed and they fault McChrystal for "imposing unnecessary restrictions on the rules of engagement". Most conservative pundits are pretending to care about insubordination, though they famously didn't care about that during the Bush era. But check out this column by Byron York (of NRO fame) which is refreshingly honest, at least. This is what we are agreeing to by advocating for McChrystal's ouster.
Obama needs to listen to Hillary Clinton: "if Stan wants it, give him what he needs." Or withdraw from Afghanistan entirely.
Incidentally, the number of troops is a red herring - the real problem is that we don't have enough civilians in Afghanistan.