If this is the case, it means that he's willing to put his butt on the line so others don't have to.
That causes problems for the military trying to complete a mission and for the person who Cook was scheduled to replace. Basically, Cook suspended that person's return home until the Army could unscramble the paperwork. That's a crappy thing to do to that soldier and his/her family.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. My husband is a soldier and crap happens all the time. Soldiers get hurt or sick the week before the unit deploys and they just go one short. I've *never* seen or heard of a situation where a soldier can't come home because his replacement is late. Never once in 20 years. And yes, this goes for commanders and 1st sgts, too.
Heck, during our last deployment our company COMMANDER had a family emergency that set him back a month. The until deployed and made do without him (putting a LT in to hold his position until he could get to Iraq) and they did just fine. If the army is making someone stay because of Cook, they're doing it to be a jerk.
More specifically, the article and any stated problem in deployment may well be the top brass doing some sucking up. One other thing I have considered is; why does an article like this see the light of day in a military publication? What makes the most sense to me is that the top officers understand that their asses are grass and Obama is a lawnmower if they cross him.
Let the cheek smooch-fest begin, and a national guard major and his civilian job are pocket change at the $1000 minimum table.