I disagree with part of your statement(s). Maybe he is a liberal but I also think he is a smart and crafty liberal. I believe he realized that any statements he made to the "standard" MSM would be doctored up, changed, edited, mis-quoted and then would be further botched up in the re-reporting of them. By going to a media such as Rolling Stones he bypasses the NYT, WSJ, LA Times, mindset. He ensured his message would get out.
I also believe he did the interview with the precise goal of being dropped from the Afghan mess. It has become obvious that the White House has no idea on how to run a war and General McChrystal did not want to be pegged as the reason the strategy failed. He is smart enough to know that he would become the scapegoat for the failing policies of the great Zero. I admire him for doing what needed to be done. He has saved his reputation and I think enhanced it (even if he is a liberal). Remember Truman was a liberal and Reagan was a liberal. Fortunately Truman was a smart liberal and Reagan had the intelligence to change.
how often have you read Rolling Stone magazine?
He saved his reputation at the expense of his men, how on earth can you admire that? While he's in a nice safe place, his men are still in Afghanistan dying because of his lack of courage to do what was right when it was needed. Instead he saved HIS sorry butt.
Your analogy fails because your premise is faulty.
Reagan was a Democrat once upon a time, but he was never a liberal. In that once upon a time there was a difference.
McChrystal is, was, and likely ever shall be a liberal. That he is a warrior who is also a leftist constitutes a curious aberration. Yes, he could change, but suggesting that he could change like Reagan changed is highly unlikely (to nigh on to impossible)