America's Top Commander Exposes Obama Administration Incompetence; Walks It Back

[PanzerJaeger]

Top commander in Afghanistan, that is.

McChrystal Apologizes for Criticizing Obama Team (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/22/world/main6605254.shtml)


The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has apologized for a magazine profile in which he criticizes the U.S. administration.

An article out this week in "Rolling Stone" magazine depicts Gen. Stanley McChrystal as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration and unable to convince even some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the war.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in a statement issued Tuesday the article "was a mistake reflecting poor judgment." He said he has enormous respect for the Obama administration, and the piece fell short of his principles of "personal honor and professional integrity."

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan
U.S. Tax Dollars Fueling Afghan Insurgency

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," said McChrystal, adding that he remains "committed to ensuring" the successful outcome of the almost nine-year-old Afghan war.

McChrystal on the Challenges in Afghanistan

In Rolling Stone, McChrystal is described by an aide as "disappointed" in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. "I was selling an unsellable position."

Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. And the White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

A band of McChrystal's profane, irreverent aides are quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden and Richard Holbrooke, the special U.S. representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The profile, titled "The Runaway General," emerged from several weeks of interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides this spring.

It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Biden at the top of a list of those who don't.

The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

Biden initially opposed McChrystal's proposal for additional forces last year. He favored a narrower focus on hunting terrorists.

If Eikenberry had the same doubts, McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute.

McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so."'

There was no immediate response from Eikenberry. The Associated Press requested comment through an aide after business hours on Monday in Kabul.

Eikenberry remains in his post in Kabul, and although both men publicly say they are friends, their rift is on full display.

McChrystal and Eikenberry, himself a retired Army general, stood as far apart as the speakers' platform would allow during a White House news conference last month.

Rolling Stone interviewed troops frustrated by McChrystal's strict rules for combat that are intended to reduce the number of civilian casualties.

At one outpost, a soldier McChrystal had met earlier was killed in a house that the local U.S. commander had repeatedly asked to destroy. The request was denied, apparently out of concern that razing the house would anger locals whose allegiance the U.S. is trying to win.

"Does that make any (expletive) sense?" Pfc. Jared Pautsch asks. "We should just drop a (expletive) bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself, 'What are we doing here?"'

McChrystal told Congress in December that 2010 would be a critical year for the U.S. campaign to oust Taliban and al Qaeda-linked militants from Afghanistan and firmly place power in the hands of a stable Afghan government. He laid out a set of milestones which he said must be met to achieve that goal.

David Martin reports on McChrystal's Milestones

The irony, says CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder, is that McChrystal needs the full support of President Obama to win the war, as much as Mr. Obama needs McChrystal on his side to achieve one of his biggest foreign policy goals.

This is highly frustrating, yet very predictable. Did anyone really think a one term senator would be able to manage governing the nation and fighting two wars? I guess 53% did.

At the time of the ridiculously protracted decision process, I was assured that the arbitrary deadline for withdrawal was not a mistake, but in fact a clever plan to put pressure on Karzai. Barack was two steps ahead of conventional thinking!

Now, many months later, we're best friends with Karzai again and we find out what the military really thinks of this "commander and chief". Oh, and the White House and the DoD still can't seem to get their stories straight (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hz33CLCwbhtiuwTXWaZkaPfvP4Xg) on that 2011 deadline.

:shame:

[Slyspy]

You would have done better to link to the original Rolling Stone article, rather than a third party analysis IMO.

[PanzerJaeger]

You would have done better to link to the original Rolling Stone article, rather than a third party analysis IMO.

Indeed. However, this is breaking news today, and I do not believe it is out for the general public yet. Advanced copies were sent to the press, and all that is available are excerpts from those agencies, unfortunately. :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

So.... a two term senator, or a C grade ex-alcoholic drug addict was the perfect choice?

Democracies have specialists to help - all those generals and so on. I believe that the Pentagon has something to do with it.

Just sitting on a committee for 30 years makes you no better at it than Obama. Even being a general might not work as the picture is way beyond mere warfare.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

PJ's pronouncement (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126057-quot-Soviet-quot-solution-in-Afghanistan&p=2426910&viewfull=1#post2426910) earlier was, "The war in Afghanistan was lost in November of 2008." That should tell you most of what you need to know.


You would have done better to link to the original Rolling Stone article, rather than a third party analysis IMO.
Full article here (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_r1109mcchrystal.html).

McCrhystal really messed up big-time. Not in his criticism of his CIC, which is bad enough, but in bad-mouthing all sorts of colleagues to a RS reporter. Amateur hour. Examples (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10372558.stm):


Gen McChrystal also appears to joke in response to a question about the vice-president.

"Are you asking about Vice-President Biden?" McChrystal asks. 'Who's that?"

An aide then says: "Biden? Did you say: Bite Me?" [...]

Another aide refers to national security adviser, James Jones, as a "clown stuck in 1985".

Of an e-mail from US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, Gen McChrystal says: "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke... I don't even want to open it."

[PanzerJaeger]

I love how the implication of PJ's rhetoric is that the war in Afghanistan would be sorted out if only we didn't have this incompetent bumbler socialist in the WH. Note that PJ's pronouncement (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126057-quot-Soviet-quot-solution-in-Afghanistan&p=2426910&viewfull=1#post2426910) on all of this earlier was, "The war in Afghanistan was lost in November of 2008."

So tell us all, PJ, what the winning strategy in Afghanistan is. Tell us who we should back, how many troops we should deploy, how many more years we should pay for their country, etc.


It is rather surprising that you would link to that thread in relation to this article, as it only seems to validate my concerns and highlight your misplaced confidence in this administration.

I did enjoy the open ended call to "solve Afghanistan", both cleverly and completely sidestepping the topic.


Also, tell us what should be done with a commanding officer who bucks civilian authority (http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html). I'm sure there must be a precedent somewhere ...

Ouch. Really? Apparently the bruised egos resulting from this extend beyond the White House. :laugh4:

Edit: I thought I was the only serial editor around here. :grin:

In any event, I'm not sure how much more life your whole "Panzer hates Obama so disregard everything he says" theme has left... you may consider revising your line of attack, sir.

[KukriKhan]

La guerre! C’est une chose trop grave pour la confier à des militaires. - Georges Clemenceau


Never speak or write anything you don't want to see on the front page of NYT tomorrow. - KukriKhan

What was General Mac thinking? That a Rolling Stone freelancer was his buddy, best pal? Fight the damned war, Sir. Leave teh politics to teh poli's.

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that he was if nothing else a very clever individual. He's senior enough to be aware of the press and associated risks.

Either this was a monumental lapse of judgement, or he's thought it through and has a strategy.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

I thought that he was if nothing else a very clever individual. He's senior enough to be aware of the press and associated risks.

Either this was a monumental lapse of judgement, or he's thought it through and has a strategy.

~:smoking:

With four stars and a sharp mind I can't help but think there is something else behind this. He knows enough not to trust Rolling Stone to provide favorable coverage when he makes these kinds of comments.

[Lemur]

Edit: I thought I was the only serial editor around here. :grin:
After a couple of minutes' reflection, I de-Panzered my post almost entirely. Although you have done future generations a service by preserving the earlier draft for all time. Cheers.

[KukriKhan]

The head of his Chief of Staff should roll.

Meanwhile, assuming
there is something else behind this, we've seen this movie before, haven't we? All that remains is Country Joe MacDonald, choppers taking off from the roof of the US Embassy, talk of "Peace with Honor", and Afghanistan boat people.

Q: How long will it take this time to rebuild America's Army?

[al Roumi]

So.... a two term senator, or a C grade ex-alcoholic drug addict was the perfect choice?

Democracies have specialists to help - all those generals and so on. I believe that the Pentagon has something to do with it.

Just sitting on a committee for 30 years makes you no better at it than Obama. Even being a general might not work as the picture is way beyond mere warfare.


Fight the damned war, Sir. Leave teh politics to teh poli's.

Good posts, bows all round: :bow: :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

Last edited by Lemur; Today at 08:52.

It's an addiction. Once you start, it cannot be stopped. On occasion, I've rewritten entire posts that are so far into internet obscurity they are almost guaranteed never to be seen again, just for my own peace of mind. :rolleyes3:

[drone]

and Afghanistan boat people.
I think it's safe to say, out of all the possible outcomes of this Asian adventure, that this will not happen. ~D

[Gregoshi]

After a couple of minutes' reflection, I de-Panzered my post almost entirely. Although you have done future generations a service by preserving the earlier draft for all time. Cheers.


Never speak or write anything you don't want to see on the front page of NYT tomorrow.


:laugh4:

[Subotan]

Would McCain have done any better?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kukri's right; it was inappropriate for the General to make this remarks in a public setting. The mind boggles at why he said this to a reporter.

CR

[Vladimir]

Q: How long will it take this time to rebuild America's Army?

Rest assured: If that happens to us again I won't wait for a new Abrams to come along.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

- Georges Clemenceau

- KukriKhan

What was General Mac thinking? That a Rolling Stone freelancer was his buddy, best pal? Fight the damned war, Sir. Leave teh politics to teh poli's.



Easy to say that Kukri, but hard to do when the government is sticking it's nose in a place where it has no business in going ------ War. Leave the troops alone and let them do their jobs.

[Vladimir]

Easy to say that Kukri, but hard to do when the government is sticking it's nose in a place where it has no business in going ------ War. Leave the troops alone and let them do their jobs.

Wrests those wrists Kaiser. Save that aggression for the Turks.

[Gregoshi]

Easy to say that Kukri, but hard to do when the government is sticking it's nose in a place where it has no business in going ------ War.
And vis versa.

[Centurion1]

Likely.

Look when you fight an insurgency you never ever make a timetable for withdrawal. Mostly because its a recipe for escalation of violence, why the hell would you make any progress if the insurgents know your about to leave. If you have to make a timetable then keep it private.

As for mchrystal I find it hard to believe he voted for obama. If so he's one of like 5% of officers. And he needs to shut his mouth and get his aides to shut their mouths when their are news around, they revel in this stuff.

Overall I don't like many admirals and generals they are always political though petraeus is supposedly different which is why his men love him.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Wrests those wrists Kaiser. Save that aggression for the Turks.

Which is why I'm only coming on once today .:clown:



And vis versa.

Agreed, but remember, it is usually the polictiaions fault for causing a nation to lose a war :yes:.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I thought that he was if nothing else a very clever individual. He's senior enough to be aware of the press and associated risks.

Either this was a monumental lapse of judgement, or he's thought it through and has a strategy.

~:smoking:Aye, that was my thought too. Is he really that naive to grant so much access to a reporter, to speak his mind this freely, without realising the result?

Did he sincerely get wobbly knees, regrets? Or is it all exactly to his liking: vent the criticism, then save his own position by backtracking before it is even published?


Either way, he's done the mission in Afghanistan a disservice.


As for Obama - Afghanistan is a quagmire. It couldn't be solved before him, nor by him. We mustn't have unrealistic expectations. There was a clear reason to go into Afghanistan, there has never been a clear exit. Or, America couldn't not have gone in, and can not get out.
In Afghanistan, I haven't seen a decisive mistake by Obama, nor any meaningful policy either.



it is usually the polictiaions fault for causing a nation to lose a warIf only armies were allowed to decide for themselves, no wars would ever be lost and both sides would win every single time!

[PanzerJaeger]

It is interesting that the discussion seems to be focused on whether the general should have made the comments and not on what he said, which seems to be of greater importance. The top commander in Afghanistan sees the president as unprepared and his top men in country as a bunch of stooges. Such a situation does not seem conducive to a successful conclusion.

[rory_20_uk]

The content is almost old news. Rumsfeld et al did if possible an even worse job in Iraq.

Politicians always screw wars up - look at the Crimea for example. Same story then as now.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

Such a situation does not seem conducive to a successful conclusion.
Feel free to define "successful conclusion" in terms that can be accomplished in less than a decade.


It is interesting that the discussion seems to be focused on whether the general should have made the comments
I, for one, blame the UCMJ, Section 88 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm88.htm) for this outrage:


Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Meanwhile, the original article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236) has gone live at the RS website.

Good analysis here (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/06/22/mcchrystal-apologizes-but-the-question-remains-defrock-the-pope/):


The amazing thing about it is there’s no complaints from McChrystal or his staff about the administration on any substantive ground. After all, McChrystal and his allies won the argument within the White House. All the criticisms — of Eikenberry, of Jones, of Holbrooke, of Biden — are actually just immature and arrogant snipes at how annoying Team America (what, apparently, McChrystal’s crew calls itself) finds them. This is not mission-first, to say the least.

In fact, you have to go deep in the piece to find soldiers and officers offering actual critiques — and what they offer is criticism of McChrystal for being insufficiently brutal. Everyone of them quoted here is a mini-Ralph Peters (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/09/26/ralph-peters-general-betray-us-moment/), upset because McChrystal won’t let them “get our ******** gun on,” as one puts it. [...] McChrystal is stepping into a diplomatic vacuum and acting as an advocate for Hamid Karzai despite Karzai’s performance in office. [...]

McChrystal’s apology, emailed to me and other reporters well before the Rolling Stone story dropped, suggests that he wasn’t trying to walk away from his command in a blaze of arrogance. But it’s on him to repair his relationship with his colleagues and his bosses.

-edit-

A worthwhile read from Joe Klein (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/06/22/mcchrystal/):


Here is the Stanley McChrystal I know: A few months ago, he received an email from a soldier fighting in Kandahar Province. The soldier was frustrated--as most of his comrades are--with the very restrictive rules of engagement that the General had laid down to prevent civilian casualties. Rather than ignore the email or have the trooper reprimanded, McChrystal went to Kandahar and walked a patrol with the soldier's squad. Afterwards, he had a meal with the squad and explained the necessity for the new rules.

This is an extraordinary man, with the perfect skill set necessary for the mission in Afghanistan: a thorough knowledge of counterinsurgency and deep experience in special operations. But there is another side to McChrystal: he is so focused on his real job that he hasn't spent sufficient time learning how to play the public relations game. He speaks his mind; in private conversations, I've found, he is incapable of fudging the truth. This leads to a certain myopia, an innocence regarding the not-so-brave new world of the media. [...]

The opinions he expresses are not surprising to those of us who have covered this war--although his statements about the President are at variance with things McChrystal has told me in the past. As I wrote last week, the backbiting has gotten very intense--on all sides--as the frustrations of the mission mount. What is surprising is his willingness to express these opinions on the record, and that he allows his staff to do the same. The lack of discipline and the disrespect he has shown his Commander-in-Chief are very much at odds with military tradition and practice.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What is surprising is his willingness to express these opinions on the record, and that he allows his staff to do the same. The lack of discipline and the disrespect he has shown his Commander-in-Chief are very much at odds with military tradition and practice.

At odds with tradition, but I'm not really convinced that his openly speaking his mind is a bad thing. I mean, isn't the military tradition to say nothing while in service, then write a tell all book when you retire?

Rolling stone is a pretty terrible magazine though.

[Vladimir]

OK. The conservatives have weighed in on the poll. Time for the left.

[PanzerJaeger]

Cue Lemur with the pushback. True to form, good sir, true to form. It will be interesting to see which narrative takes root - Obama the incompetent wimp or McCrystal the immature, arrogant general looking for a way out.


At odds with tradition, but I'm not really convinced that his openly speaking his mind is a bad thing. I mean, isn't the military tradition to say nothing while in service, then write a tell all book when you retire?

I think it depends first of all on whether he voiced his concerns through more traditional avenues first, and second on whether such public statements help or hurt the situation on the ground. It is always risky though, as you never know what the reporter will choose to report or if he/she will represent the situation accurately.

[Lemur]

OK. The conservatives have weighed in on the poll. Time for the left.
The poll, as phrased, misses pretty much everything worth saying. I think it's best left alone.


Obama the incompetent wimp or McCrystal the immature, arrogant general looking for a way out.
Cool, two whole narratives, buth simplistic, both false, both pre-packaged for the 24-hours news cycle! (This sort of insta-narrative is a big reason why the Lemur does not watch cable news. Ever.)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think it depends first of all on whether he voiced his concerns through more traditional avenues first, and second on whether such public statements help or hurt the situation on the ground. It is always risky though, as you never know what the reporter will choose to report or if he/she will represent the situation accurately.

How is it supposed to hurt the situation on the ground? Demoralizing the troops? Eh.

[Centurion1]

No sasaki if there is friction at the top everything slows down And no one listens to anyone else. Obama and bidwn should be making no advice to mchyrstal they should shut their mouth Support everything our troop do and handle PR. Obama has no understanding of war whatsoever

[Lemur]

Obama and bidwn should be making no advice to mchyrstal they should shut their mouth Support everything our troop do and handle PR.
Not a big fan of civilian control over the armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military), are we? Should I call that sentiment un-American, or would that constitute a tautology?

A worthwhile anecdote (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-shame-of-stanley-mcchrystal/58511/):


I remember once in Iraq being made to feel profoundly uncomfortable by an Army colonel who was openly scornful of President Bush's tactical leadership of the war effort (this was well-before the surge). I didn't disagree with his analysis one bit, but I thought it was deeply inappropriate, and even nervous-making, to hear a senior military leader disparaging his commander. Civilian control of the military is a paramount American virtue, and anyone who undermines this core principle is unfit to serve. There's no way around this fundamental fact, unfortunately.

[Vladimir]

Not a big fan of civilian control over the armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military), are we? Should I call that sentiment un-American, or would that constitute a tautology?

A worthwhile anecdote (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-shame-of-stanley-mcchrystal/58511/):


I remember once in Iraq being made to feel profoundly uncomfortable by an Army colonel who was openly scornful of President Bush's tactical leadership of the war effort (this was well-before the surge). I didn't disagree with his analysis one bit, but I thought it was deeply inappropriate, and even nervous-making, to hear a senior military leader disparaging his commander. Civilian control of the military is a paramount American virtue, and anyone who undermines this core principle is unfit to serve. There's no way around this fundamental fact, unfortunately.

Sounds like it's emotionally driven. It's completely normal to talk trash about your boss, especially when he's doing a horrible job. If this Colonel was defying or subverting the CINC that's another issue. While unprofessional, portraying it as a challenge to our system of government just marginalizes the author.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sounds like emotional drivel. It's completely normal to talk trash about your boss, especially when he's doing a horrible job. If this Colonel was defying or subverting the CINC that's another issue. While unprofessional, portraying it as a challenge to our system of government just marginalizes the author.

Yeah, I think that quote is a bit weird. He complained about the job he was doing, but he'd complain if it was a general ordering something he didn't like too. So it has nothing to do with the "paramount virtue" of civilian control of the military.

[Lemur]

So it has nothing to do with the "paramount virtue" of civilian control of the military.
I think part of the point of civilian control of the armed forces and UCMJ Article 88 is to tamp down on a human being's natural tendency to kvetch and whinge about the boss-man. It becomes political very, very quickly, as PJ and Rolling Stone have demonstrated.

Meanwhile, our man in Kabul wants the General to stay on (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128007138):


Afghanistan's president believes that U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the "best commander" of the nearly 9-year-old war and hopes that President Barack Obama doesn't decide to replace him, the Afghan leader's spokesman said Tuesday. [...]

President Hamid Karzai's spokesman, Waheed Omar, said the Afghan leader thinks McChrystal "is a person of great integrity," who has a very good understanding of the Afghan people and the Afghan culture. [...]

Karzai's half-brother, believed among the most powerful figures in southern Afghanistan, also threw his support to McChrystal.

"He is the first good thing to happen to Afghanistan," Ahmad Wali Karzai told The Associated Press. "He is active. He is honest. He does a good job, a lot of positive things have happened since he has come."

[Vladimir]

"He is the first good thing to happen to Afghanistan," Ahmad Wali Karzai told The Associated Press. "He is active. He is honest. He does a good job, a lot of positive things have happened since he has come."[/indent]

Which is why I hope this (heartbreaking) issue doesn't combine with footballgate to get him relieved. This reminds me of when Soviet intelligence officers would get summoned to Moscow.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think Kukrikhan's wording -- referring to him as "Mac" -- will be an accurate prediction. As did Truman, so will Obama.

His comments, at least once made public, put him clearly in contravention of the UCMJ. Since he apparently didn't intend for those comments to become public (media saavy -- NOT!), I do not believe that a court would cashier him or jail him over it, but he's clearly broken the rules. I suspect that Obama will ask him (formally or informally, I do not know) to strike his flag and retire.

Obama is the Commander in Chief. The only thing outranking that is the collective will of the people of the USA -- and it is a rare thing for that will to be employed outside an election.

PJ, your 53% quip in the OP was inaccurate. 53% voted for him to lead us, they did not vote for him to fight the war on terror on three fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Home) and a recession per se. If you had polled those who voted for him on those issues at the time, I think you'd have found that a hefty portion of his supporters didn't want him to FIGHT in Iraq or Afghanistan at all, but would have preferred a sauve qui peut.

[Beskar]

Kukri's right; it was inappropriate for the General to make this remarks in a public setting. The mind boggles at why he said this to a reporter.

Probably a gun-ho Republican trying to give his party a boost in the November elections.

[Vladimir]

Probably a gun-ho Republican trying to give his party a boost in the November elections.

:laugh4:

Supposedly he voted for the Big O, but who knows. I don't think he would throw away his military career for mid-term election.

[Lemur]

Probably a gun-ho Republican trying to give his party a boost in the November elections.
There is zero evidence of this scenario, and many reasons to believe it's off the mark.

McChrystal has put President 44 in an uncomfortable conundrum (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/mcchrystal-and-obama/58530/), though:


Obama might wish he could overlook it. McChrystal was his choice, part of his seizing ownership of the war. [...] But how can Obama let this go and retain his own authority?

If he sacks [McChrystal], he removes the officer he has been describing as uniquely qualified to do the job, which sets back the mission and calls the president's own judgment into question. If he leaves him in charge, he looks weak, affirming a gathering line of criticism. That is the dilemma McChrystal has created: in either case, Obama loses. On balance, I think, the best thing would have been for McChrystal to offer his resignation publicly and immediately, and for Obama to refuse it with a final warning to shut up. That opportunity has already slipped by.

Needless to say, the timing is as bad as could be.

[PanzerJaeger]

How is it supposed to hurt the situation on the ground? Demoralizing the troops? Eh.

Well I don't think these comments do that. In fact, I think exposing the President's and his team's ineptitude could be the last honorable move of a good man. There is a fine line between insubordination and being the proverbial canary in the cave. Maybe it is my interest in the German military that sways me, but I am of the opinion that commanders, especially of this level, who truly care about their troops and the mission should not blindly follow some clueless dolt off of a cliff because of oaths or regulations. McCrystal may very well have known exactly what he was doing, and calculated that it was in the best interest of his men.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Needless to say, the timing is as bad as could be.

And guess who catches it hardest either way? Right in one! The P.B.I.

[Hosakawa Tito]

- Georges Clemenceau

- KukriKhan

What was General Mac thinking? That a Rolling Stone freelancer was his buddy, best pal? Fight the damned war, Sir. Leave teh politics to teh poli's.


I thought that he was if nothing else a very clever individual. He's senior enough to be aware of the press and associated risks.

Either this was a monumental lapse of judgement, or he's thought it through and has a strategy.

~:smoking:

General Mac very well knows the military protocol of using the chain of command
for his concerns/complaints/requests. Heck even a Private figures that out pretty quick, usually with the aid of his Staff Sergeant's boot up his backside on the first offense. Naw, one doesn't rise through the Special Ops ranks to General and naively throw dirty laundry into the street. Could he be delusional enough to think he has the hero worship stature of Truman's Mac and be indespensible?I doubt it. Maybe Mac no longer feels the mission is doable in the year he has left before the troop drawdown begins. Hard to know really, but time will tell. Unless there are unreconcilable differences I think Obama will try and patch this up instead of asking for his resignation.

[Centurion1]

Your "anecdote" lemur was not informative military officers are people with their own opinions They are also tax payer an voters they are entitled to their opinions.

Do you think civilian control of a military is a good thing! It is anything but when doctrine and tactics, campaigns and appointments are controlled by a civilian bad uh... stuff goes down

[Lemur]

Why the "scare quotes" around "anecdote"? Are you suggesting that the "text" that I "quoted" was not, in fact, "anecdotal"? Or are you just unclear on the use of "quotes"?

If you don't like civilian control of the armed forces, you're gonna hate the U.S.A. They've been doing that since, like, the founding. It's insane!

Meanwhile (http://washingtonindependent.com/87984/angry-president-will-meet-mcchrystal-tomorrow-but-strategy-likely-to-remain-the-same):


None of [the quotes from Gibbs] sounds like a White House that’s ready to scrap its counterinsurgency strategy in the year to go before it begins to shift to a heavier focus on training Afghan forces and withdrawing troops. But McChrystal will have to reiterate his commitment tomorrow to working with the team that, in many ways, signed onto a strategy he himself largely convinced the president to support. “This is bigger than anybody on the military or the civilian side,” Gibbs said. Translation: McChrystal can go or stay, but the strategy has been set. And that may be the greatest irony of the entire McChrystal imbroglio.

[KukriKhan]

Ahhh, the Tillman case. THAT's where I've heard this guy's name before.

My sympathy-o-meter has bottomed out.

[KukriKhan]

Do you have confidence in the Obama Admin to prosecute the Afghan war successfully?

We're not at war. Congress, in their wisdom would have declared it, if so. We're at "police action". I'm confident any POTUS can declare "success" at any time, and leave the place.

[rory_20_uk]

And since at any point there'll be ample examples of why it's not, the sooner the better - unless we think we can turn Afghanistan into Canada in 20 years or so.

~:smoking:

[Centurion1]

canada is pot set at a low boil eventually she'll erupt though, and america will pay.

[Lemur]

And at last the real threat is revealed: Canada.

[Vladimir]

:yes:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/

[Azathoth]

And at last the real threat is revealed: Canada.

I preferred your unedited post.

[Azathoth]

What was the movie where some Canadian tries to launch American missiles at Russia and nearly starts WW3?

[Vladimir]

What was the movie where some Canadian tries to launch American missiles at Russia and nearly starts WW3?

You'll have to be more specific. They all want to do that.

On topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/23/AR2010062300689.html

1:30

[Lemur]

Hmm. Not to get all Psychic Friends Network on this, but it sounds like McChrystal is out. I guess it had to happen, although I wish it could have been otherwise. The General may be a PR nightmare and something of a free agent, but his COIN credentials are impeccable.

[Vladimir]

Hmm. Not to get all Psychic Friends Network on this, but it sounds like McChrystal is out. I guess it had to happen, although I wish it could have been otherwise. The General may be a PR nightmare and something of a free agent, but his COIN credentials are impeccable.

He may remove the general but leave selected staff and his policies intact. I wish he'd remove a few select civilians as well.

He has to fire him but I don't know if he can. I hope he stays but that's mostly for my own selfish reasons.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sad. Now we've got an unprepared and incredibly thin-skinned president and a critical commander lost in the midst of a critical juncture in the war effort, all over a few off-handed comments. With rising violence in Iraq, Patraeus will have to take his eye off the big picture and get back in the mud. Hopefully he'll be able to replicate past success.

The president had an opportunity here to put national interests above his ego. He chose differently. :shame:

[Lemur]

The president had an opportunity here to put national interests above his ego. He chose differently.
And if he had retained McChrystal? I can imagine the rhetoric:


Sad. Now we've got an unprepared and incredibly wimpy president unable to discipline a commander in the midst of a critical juncture in the war effort, despite blatant insubordination that clearly calls for action. By bending to pressure and caving to the hysterics and theatrics of a subordinate, Obama has emboldened our enemies and shown that he lacks a spine.

The president had an opportunity here to show he would not be bullied by anyone. He chose differently.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh boy. POTUS just said Stan McChrystal is a great general, that he has relied on him extensively, and that he is one of America's greatest soldiers.

I understand a "thank you for your service" was in order, but after such a lauding summation, letting him go over a Rolling Stone piece looks all the more petty.

[gaelic cowboy]

Oh boy. POTUS just said Stan McChrystal is a great general, that he has relied on him extensively, and that he is one of America's greatest soldiers.

I understand a "thank you for your service" was in order, but after such a lauding summation, letting him go over a Rolling Stone piece looks all the more petty.

Then maybe he should have concentrated on fightin the Taliban than pickin a fight with POTUS.

[Vladimir]

Then maybe he should have concentrated on fightin the Taliban than pickin a fight with POTUS.

True. It's a fight you'll never win.

[PanzerJaeger]

Then maybe he should have concentrated on fightin the Taliban than pickin a fight with POTUS.

Maybe if POTUS gave him the troops he asked for and didn't slap an arbitrary timeline on the whole thing.... or even just went over his powerpoints before their meeting, he wouldn't have been so frustrated. :shrug:

[Vladimir]

Maybe if POTUS gave him the troops he asked for and didn't slap an arbitrary timeline on the whole thing.... or even just went over his powerpoints before their meeting, he wouldn't have been so frustrated. :shrug:

Now we're getting into the civilian authority thing.

The President doesn't do what the generals want. The generals do what the President wants. If the President is smart, he lets the generals decide how to use what he gives them.

[Lemur]

Even National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmI5OGI2ZGY3MjJlMDVmNGNhMzI2Mzk4ZDYzMWIwZjQ=) is being sane about this one:


I'm not sure how Obama could have handled this any better. He was genuinely graceful about McChrystal and his explanation of why he had to go made perfect sense. He called for unity within his adminstration in pursuing the war and sounded quite stalwart about both the war and about the strategy. More importantly, his choice of Petraeus as a replacement for McChrystal is a brilliant move: He gets a heavy-weight, an unassailable expert in this kind of warfare, and someone who presumably can step in pretty seamlessly. He also picked someone who has expressed (very diplomatic) misgivings about the July 2011 deadline and who will have the clout and credibility to tell the president that he can't afford to go down in troops when July comes, should circumstances warrant. (It should also be noted that this is a step down for Petraeus and he can't relish directly managing another war — that he will do so speaks to his selfless patriotism.) In short, Obama has made the most of a rotten situation.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Rolling stone should get most of the blame.

[gaelic cowboy]

Maybe if POTUS gave him the troops he asked for and didn't slap an arbitrary timeline on the whole thing.... or even just went over his powerpoints before their meeting, he wouldn't have been so frustrated. :shrug:

Generals always want more more more thats they way it works in the public sector, he has been givin more troops and a timetable to follow now get to work.

Hell even Eisenhower would have wanted more troops and to wait for another year in WW2 but that is not the way it works the Generals implement the policy through force of arms not the other way round.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

PJ:

His competence had nothing to do with it. Obama could be the biggest NINCOMPAC in history and the answer was still the same. Publicly denigrate the Commander in Chief and you get to strike your flag. Obama had virtually no choice in the matter -- the precedent had been set long ago and the reasons for the dismissal -- ultimate civilian control -- are important.

Sad end to an otherwise brillian career. Maybe Sarah will tap him for a VP nominee spot -- can't do any worse than Perot's admiral.

[Centurion1]

You all know I'm not a uh.... fan of obama. Hell in essence I'm a member of the united states army. But I support obama on this. He had no other choice in the matter and was at least graceful about it. Rolling stone is the villian here and the sad part is mchrystal wasn't the one saying most of thede things, it was an aide in a bar in paris during a flight holdover......... never liked that magazine.

[Hax]

You all know I'm not a uh.... fan of obama. Hell in essence I'm a member of the united states army.


In essence, I'm a Buddhist monk. But I'm not.

[rory_20_uk]

I think Obama was heavy handed on this. Sure, establish the Alpha male thing by publicly give him a dressing down, but seeing as he apologised unreservedly pre-emptively and most things were said not by him but by his staff sacking seems OTT.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

[S]eeing as [McChrystal] apologised unreservedly pre-emptively and most things were said not by him but by his staff sacking seems OTT.
How do you feel about a three strikes rule? This was, in fact, the third time the General went gonzo with the press, and he had been repeatedly warned about letting his mouth get ahead of his brain. Throw in the Pat Tillman coverup for bonus points.

At the end of the day, I don't think the President had much of a choice.

As for those who blame Rolling Stone, I don't quite follow your logic. A free press will report on jerkish things that people say. Just because McChrystal and his staff had become used to reporters who wrote puff pieces does not mean they should have relaxed their discipline and said whatever they liked to the press. It's easy to imagine how it happened, but that does not make it okay.

[KukriKhan]

Hurray for Freedom of The Press.
Huzzah for Civilian Control of the Military.
Booo to the Ranger Cover-upper.

Still - it's probably just my old-age cynicism kicking in - this "smells" like something else going on to me. It all happened so quickly; I mean: 4 months to consider a troop increase proposal, but less than 4 days to fire a combat theater general officer? If I had spidey-senses, they'd be tingling now.

Nevertheless, if no additional soldiers were hurt or killed in the making of this Kabuki production... I'm grateful.

[Vladimir]

Nevertheless, if no additional soldiers were hurt or killed in the making of this Kabuki production... I'm grateful.

Well if you're thinking in big picture then there likely have been due to current ROE. We'll see if the current rules are kept in place.

[gaelic cowboy]

Still - it's probably just my old-age cynicism kicking in - this "smells" like something else going on to me. It all happened so quickly; I mean: 4 months to consider a troop increase proposal, but less than 4 days to fire a combat theater general officer? If I had spidey-senses, they'd be tingling now.


Yes I smell summit fishy too, I find it difficult to imagine this General McChrystal could not see this ending any other way than his being fired.

[PanzerJaeger]

Then senator Obama, one of the most outspoken politicians against the surge strategy, questions his future Afghanistan surge commander on the supposed infeasibility of the Iraqi surge. Sometimes fate can be a beautiful thing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIUej6VJzII




As for those who blame Rolling Stone, I don't quite follow your logic. A free press will report on jerkish things that people say. Just because McChrystal and his staff had become used to reporters who wrote puff pieces does not mean they should have relaxed their discipline and said whatever they liked to the press. It's easy to imagine how it happened, but that does not make it okay.

I think that some long for the days when the press was more even tempered about war coverage. This Hastings is no Ernie Pyle.

McChrystal seriously erred in judgment in this situation, but it takes a special kind of jerk to weasel himself into the good graces of a man focused completely on the immense task of winning our war, capture a few off hand comments, and destroy him.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think Obama did the right thing, if a bit heavy-handed. Or maybe not. Certainly McChrystal did the wrong thing, that much is true.



There has been a militarisation of American politics that's unsettling. It is creating all sorts of policy problems: no politician can afford to be seen as 'soft' (so policy options are limited to 'send in the troops' and 'send in more troops', the war on terror has installed the doctrine of permanent state of war, the military (sometimes openly) disdains the politicians (the representatives of the people, although there is a scary amount of Americans who feel the military is the true representative of the people)


Cuba and North Korea have guys in uniform at the heart of their politic system. It is not an alternative for a democracy / republic. Civilian control of the military is not something which should only be established in truely dramtic circumstances, it is one of the permanent tasks of a republic. It is not binary either, a matter of either / or, one controlling the other. It is sliding scale, a permament balancing act.

[PanzerJaeger]

Gates advocated keeping McChrystal. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/24/mcchrystal.gates.support/?hpt=T1)


Washington (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed keeping Gen. Stanley McChrystal on the job because he was vital to the war effort in Afghanistan, but Gates was overruled, a senior Pentagon official told CNN's Barbara Starr.

I guess a president's ego takes precedence over the war effort after all.

[Lemur]

I guess a president's ego takes precedence over the war effort after all.
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to accept any interpretation of this event that does not hinge on Obama being craven, incompetent, thin-skinned and evil?

Meanwhile, a deploying officer muses (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/the-madness-of-king-david-petraeus.html) on the relevance of COIN in Afghanistan:


You say that Petraeus's strategy of COIN is misplaced in Afghanistan because it's missing certain components. I would say that you understate the case. COIN isn't merely the wrong strategy in Afghanistan. It is, in scientific parlance, "not even wrong." It's the sort of wrongness that doesn't even bring you closer to understanding what the right move is.

As a contrast, Operation Market Garden was the wrong move. It needed more troops, more armor, more logistical support, etc. It was an excellent try, though, and it nearly succeeded in taking the Rhein.

By contrast, to say "we're going to pursue a strategy of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan" makes about as much sense as "We're going to pursue a strategy of de-Nazification in Afghanistan." It's a non-sequitur. I mean, for goodness sakes, an insurgency is a campaign to overthrow, reduce the reach of, delegitimize, or destabilize a local government. There is no government in Afghanistan to be an 'insurgent' against, merely a collection of warlords, drug barons, and theocratic gangsters of whom the Taliban and the Kabul Mayor Karzai are merely two of the most notable.

You can't have a "counterinsurgency" in a country that doesn't have an insurgency, and you can't have an insurgency in a country that doesn't have a government to begin with.

COIN in Afghanistan? What next, building a GOTV operation in Mogadishu? Striving to become an Admiral in the Swiss Imperial Navy? Writing a book on the mating habits of the North American Snipe? It's a non-sequitur!

Having said that, I'll likely be deploying in February, and will do my darnedest to fulfill the mission my commanding officer assigns me, even if I think that his playbook is about as relevant to Afghanistan as would be "The Art of French Cooking." And you can bet I won't be mouthing off about my CO's particular merits to the newsies who occasionally pass by.

[PanzerJaeger]

Out of curiosity, how do you know that "military reader" is an officer?

[Lemur]

Out of curiosity, how do you know that "military reader" is an officer?
Based on how he writes, he's college-educated, and he's prolly had some academic miltary instruction as well. Sounds a lot like a Westie (http://www.usma.edu/). Unlikely to be enlisted.

[Vladimir]

Based on how he writes, he's college-educated, and he's prolly had some academic miltary instruction as well. Sounds a lot like a Westie (http://www.usma.edu/). Unlikely to be enlisted.

Because enlisted people rarely have a college education. Many of them can't even read.

The use of "commanding officer" and repeated use of "non-sequitur" smells enlisted to me.

[Lemur]

Because enlisted people rarely have a college education. Many of them can't even read.
If you'd like some help stuffing that straw man, just let me know. Then again, you seem to be doing fine on your own.

Are you up for addressing the author's points about COIN, or does your interest in the topic end at scolding me for guessing the author's rank?

[Major Robert Dump]

Suddenly, my lack of judgement and big mouthed-ness makes me all the more paranoid about posting my "journal." Now you all know why my only post to date went in the backroom. If only they gave warning points like the .org.......

[Lemur]

MRD, your posts are, by definition, anonymous. Just mind yourself if some creature from cable news interviews you for man-on-the-scene junk. And note that McChrystal mouthed off to the press in large, embarrassing ways not once, but three times before being yanked.

[Vladimir]

If you'd like some help stuffing that straw man, just let me know. Then again, you seem to be doing fine on your own.

Are you up for addressing the author's points about COIN, or does your interest in the topic end at scolding me for guessing the author's rank?

Teasing, not scolding. I love pro-simians; I really do.

No, not really. I can understand his points but all he is doing is criticizing. What is he proposing? Carpet bombing and a return to massive aerial retaliation? Just because there is no strong central government doesn't mean COIN principles will not work. He constructed a straw man of his own.


MRD, your posts are, by definition, anonymous. Just mind yourself if some creature from cable news interviews you for man-on-the-scene junk. And note that McChrystal mouthed off to the press in large, embarrassing ways not once, but three times before being yanked.

In less she's like the reporter from the opening scene of Three Kings. Then tell here everything she wants to know.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Commanders in the field do not publicly criticize the CinC [full stop, end sentence].

Commanders in the field who do so -- even once -- are liable for an article 32 hearing and, potentially, a court martial.

Commanders in the field who publicly criticize the CinC repeatedly and ONLY end up striking their flag instead of earning a court martial, are getting off reasonably lightly.

The principle of civilian control of the military is CENTRAL to our republic. The military itself, at our founding, was considered tangential by most of the founders and an outright source of tyranny by some. Most of them wanted a few regiments to garrison frontier forts and provide a cadre (especially in artillery) should a conflict arise -- and that was all. The idea of a President backing down to the commander in the field is completely antithetical to the founders conception of the appropriate military for the USA.

US history already furnishes us with examples of the President's need to remove commanders who were insubordinate or publicly critical of the Presidency. MacArthur, McClellan, McChrystal, McKiernan (apparently "mac" is NOT a lucky nickname for U.S. commanders) were all dismissed by Presidents for getting out of line, and were dismissed AFTER achieving victories in the field and despite the generally positive morale each had inculcated among their soldiers.

I don't like Obama's policies and I don't think he is a particularly savvy CinC -- but he was still right to do this. If he keeps it up, he'll even pass old Abe for Stellar Renewal....

[PanzerJaeger]

MacArthur, McClellan, McChrystal,...

I think it is a bit of a stretch to put all these guys in the same boat. McChrystal didn't try to undermine the president out of political ambition as with McClellan, nor he didn't publically challenge the president's strategy as with MacArthur. This incident certainly didn't challenge the oft-mentioned "civilian control of the military". I don't even think what he did could be considered insubordination, as he never challenged his subordinate position to POTUS. He simply, and unwisely, let his guard down got caught on the record implying that Obama and his team were a bunch of dolts. McClellan and MacArthur had much different, more sinister motivations.

In any event, the fact that Gates - who notoriously hates these kinds of incidents, and has no problem firing generals over such PR errors - felt that McChrystal was so vital that he needed to be kept anyway seals in my mind that this was decidedly petty decision by the president, and more importantly, the wrong decision for our war effort. I trust Gates' opinion on military matters over a guy who apparently couldn't even bother to read through his powerpoints before he met his top general in Afghanistan. :shame:

[a completely inoffensive name]

This would not have been a problem if the war was stopped already. General said something stupid about his bosses, he got fired. Oh lord, who saw that coming? The war will be ending anyway, it is foolish to talk about how his being fired hurts the cause when the cause was dead 8 years into the campaign when the president who presided over the war's beginning left office with thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis, a regrown insurgency and no Osama bin Laden. Now it's nine years and we still have people clamoring that if do it right this time by not firing the best suited general, we can win this. It's over, and if the general wants to lose his job with his idiotic words, let him.

[KukriKhan]

This would not have been a problem if the war was stopped already. General said something stupid about his bosses, he got fired. Oh lord, who saw that coming? The war will be ending anyway, it is foolish to talk about how his being fired hurts the cause when the cause was dead 8 years into the campaign when the president who presided over the war's beginning left office with thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis, a regrown insurgency and no Osama bin Laden. Now it's nine years and we still have people clamoring that if do it right this time by not firing the best suited general, we can win this. It's over, and if the general wants to lose his job with his idiotic words, let him.

... and thus, 3-4 years down the road, NOT be the guy who lost the war; I think you may be on to something there.

-edit-
Apparently, after 3 years of "General Betray-us" frivolity, Moveon.org has suddenly (as in, yesterday) scrubbed that bit of their website. People noticed: http://weaselzippers.us/2010/06/23/moveon-scrubs-general-betray-us-page-from-website/

[Pannonian]

Suddenly, my lack of judgement and big mouthed-ness makes me all the more paranoid about posting my "journal." Now you all know why my only post to date went in the backroom. If only they gave warning points like the .org.......

*Imagines General McChrystal posting in the Entrance Hall.*

[Strike For The South]

It is interesting that the discussion seems to be focused on whether the general should have made the comments and not on what he said, which seems to be of greater importance. The top commander in Afghanistan sees the president as unprepared and his top men in country as a bunch of stooges. Such a situation does not seem conducive to a successful conclusion.
Agreed..its ok though I hear mcclellan is running against Lincoln in 64

[Devastatin Dave]

I was shocked that Obama did the right thing and fired this man. When you're in the Armed Services, you can :daisy: about the leadership, but you better do it privately and not in front of your troops. The general and his staff had to be the biggest pack of Apocolypse Now wannabe idiots to have ever put on a uniform to say the dumb-**** stuff they said in front of a.... Rolling Stone reporter? I mean come on, maybe they should have started beeding with the locals and putting chopped off heads on stakes around thier post. I'm glad McChrystal's gone, he voted for Obama for God's sake so he definitely didn't have very good judgement to begin with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek

[Beskar]

Rolling Stone is a magazine about music, and they got a scoop like this?

[Devastatin Dave]

Rolling Stone is a magazine about music, and they got a scoop like this?

The General and the reporter were stuck (can't remember where) during the whole Iceland Valcano thing. the General asked the guy to come to Afganastan with him. I alomost feel the General did all this on purpose to eaither a) let the cat out of the bag that the war was being f'd by this administration, or b) he just wanted to feel like a rock star and let his narcisism take over.
Rolling Stone is hardly a music rag. Its always been pretty political. Its been orally pleasuring Obama for a few years now...

[Subotan]

There has been a militarisation of American politics that's unsettling. It is creating all sorts of policy problems: no politician can afford to be seen as 'soft' (so policy options are limited to 'send in the troops' and 'send in more troops', the war on terror has installed the doctrine of permanent state of war, the military (sometimes openly) disdains the politicians (the representatives of the people, although there is a scary amount of Americans who feel the military is the true representative of the people)

That's Military Keynesianism for you.

Interesting though experiment: If we imagine that American foreign policy in, say, 6 years, had been widely successful, with the Taliban crushed, Iraq at peace, a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, North Korea in the process of being absorbed by the South, Iran under the control of the Green Movement, China making tentative steps towards democratisation etc., would a Presidential Candidate (From either party, although most likely Dems) be able to get elected on a promise to dramatically scale back the military, in terms of personell, equipment, healthcare provisions, overseas bases, nukes etc. on the basis that it was no longer necessary to spend as much money as America does on Defense?

I don't know enough about the American military, American society's attitude to the military, or the American political consensus on the military to answer that adequately. But I'm guessing that it would be unsettlingly difficult.

[PanzerJaeger]

Interesting bookend to this whole debacle by the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7856321/Barack-Obamas-firing-of-Stanley-McChrystal-showed-weakness-and-will-backfire.html).


Barack Obama's firing of Stanley McChrystal showed weakness and will backfire
He may have been hailed for his decisiveness, but Barack Obama sacked the wrong man and has yet to sort out his Afghanistan policy, writes Toby Harnden in Washington

For the Washington cognoscenti, the appointment of General David Petraeus marked the crescendo of President Barack Obama's Wonderful Week. In firing General Stanley McChrystal, Mr Obama, the ultimate cool cat, was transformed into Mr Angry. The law professor finally became commander-in-chief.

Obama, so the Beltway groupthink goes, turned a lose-lose situation into a political victory by asserting his authority over an insubordinate steely-eyed killer and replacing him with the ultimate warrior-scholar. He showed the doubters he was tough, and he traded up.


How wrong the conventional wisdom can be. Obama's actions in dragging McChrystal back to Washington and personally sacking him in as dramatic a fashion as possible in fact displayed weakness. They also avoided the real problem - his confused Afghanistan policy and dysfunctional civilian team.

No one would pretend that the profane, juvenile banter of McChrystal and his aides was clever or appropriate, never mind in the presence of an iconoclastic Rolling Stone reporter. The general, a legendary combat leader who engaged in fire fights in Iraq alongside SAS troopers while in his 50s, deserved to be reprimanded.

Inartful and ill-advised as the words were, however, they also spoke to a justifiable deep frustration within the US military in Afghanistan and contained a degree of truth about Obama's civilian officials that made the famously thin-skinned President decidedly uncomfortable.

McChrystal and his "Team America" vented about Ambassador Karl Eikenberry betraying them with a leak; portrayed special envoy Richard Holbrooke as an egotist in fear of losing his job; joked about Vice President Joe Biden being a bit of a blowhard; and suggested James Jones, National Security Adviser, was an ineffectual relic of the Cold War.

These are hardly controversial opinions - even within the White House. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff and a man whose salty language would make a sailor blush, probably says worse things about his colleagues to a reporter before breakfast on most days of the week.

Team America, of course, was a bit dismissive of Obama himself and that cannot have gone down well with the self-regarding occupant of the Oval Office. Even more difficult to take must have been the warm words they had for Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, who large numbers of Democrats and even many Republicans now wish had prevailed in 2008.

If Obama wants to succeed in Afghanistan, he probably needs to fire Holbrooke and Eikenberry, neither of whom has been able to establish anything like the relationship with President Hamid Karzai that McChrystal painstakingly built up.

The post-McChrystal situation is replete with irony. Obama, who won the Democratic nomination on the back of his anti-war rhetoric, is now doubling down on a war being run by George W Bush's Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, and Bush's Iraq commander, Petraeus.

It has not escaped the attention of the anti-war Left that although firing McChrystal was justified as a way of asserting civilian control over the military, the result is the opposite. Petraeus is a much more popular figure than Obama and has deeper ties across the full spectrum of the Washington establishment than any general since Colin Powell (who, incidentally, Obama consulted about firing McChrystal).

The reality is that Petraeus can pretty much do what he wants now. Obama probably wouldn't sack him if he kneed Biden in the groin. Petraeus, as was his acolyte McChrystal, is rightly sceptical about Obama's promise to start withdrawing troops from July 2011.

No military commander likes an artificial timetable imposed on him, never mind a nakedly political one designed to suit Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.

In getting rid of McChrystal, Obama has also risked hastening the departure of Gates, who vies with his ally Clinton for the title of most effective and respected Cabinet secretary.

Gates (like, another irony, McChrystal) - is beyond reproach in the leaking game in which Holbrooke and Eikenberry, or their ciphers, have engaged. He is notorious for firing senior officers and officials but advised Obama to keep McChrystal.

His reward for that private counsel was to have White House officials brief reporters about it to boost the image of Obama as the take-charge decider.

Little noticed amid the McChrystal kerfuffle was the announcement that Obama's wunderkind budget director, the nerdy but lusty Peter Orszag (a 41-year-old divorcee, last year he fathered a child out of wedlock with one glamourpuss and became engaged to another), was departing the administration. A prime reason, Orszag has let it be known, has been his inability to get on with Larry Summers, the Holbrooke of the economic team. The feuding between the staffs of Orszag and Summers had made McChrystal and Eikenberry look like best buddies.

So Obama would do well to avoid congratulating himself on winning last week's news cycle by brutally ending McChrystal's illustrious career. He has further alienated the broader military constituency and done nothing to curtail the in-fighting among his top foreign policy officials, who are apeing their economic counterparts.

With members of his inner circle like Emanuel and David Axelrod likely to return to Chicago after November's mid-term elections, Obama could find the White House a very lonely place next year.

[Lemur]

Let's just note for the record that Toby Harnden's entire business strategy involves attracting links from Matt Drudge's site, which makes Harnden the most echoey subdivision of the rightwing echo chamber. (Exemplum gratum: were you aware that 2008 was the year of the Matt Drudge election? (http://www.tobyharnden.com/blog%2005_06.htm) Neither was I. But boy did it get traffic.) To cite him as a source for a rightwing argument is roughly akin to citing Michael Moore for a leftwing argument; the source leaves much to be desired.

He makes about fourteen separate arguments for why Obama sacking McCrhystal is the Worst Decision of All Time, apparently following the throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks school of rhetoric. Certainly the most amusing one is that by losing McChrystal we're losing our super-special access to Hamid Karzai (who kept McChrystal from beginning the Marja offensive for hours while he conducted a Presidential nap).

There's plenty to get frustrated with the current President, and plenty of legitimate attacks on his actions that you can make. Harnden's shotgun approach, however, only serves to inflame those already convinced of his conclusions. "Preaching to the choir" is the most apt metaphor for this sort of exercise.

[PanzerJaeger]

You read way too much Andy Sullivan. You're starting to mimic him almost exactly (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/how-pathetic-is-toby-harnden.html). ~:)

In any event, I know Mr. Harnden may not be up to the standards of your "Military Reader"... err officer... whatever, but I did not post the editorial to cite any particular argument, as we seem to have hit on them all already. I just liked it and wanted to share. Shame on my giving nature! :shame:

Now that you've played the man, how about the ball?

[Lemur]

Now that you've played the man, how about the ball?
If you're citing the famous Backroom maxim, you're gloriously, deliriously misunderstanding its meaning. Were I to put you into play, I would be playing the man; by pointing out that your source does you no credit, I'm playing the ball, which you helpfully lobbed from the sidelines. You put the ball into play, I gave it a little tap.

And as I said, Harnden's strategy involves putting about fourteen different points into play, almost all of them arguable and/or spurious. Pick one and we can go at it like gentlemen; I refuse to respond to scattershot, incoherent arguments, beyond pointing out that they are, in fact, scattershot and incoherent.

[PanzerJaeger]

Your very specific Backroom-oriented definition aside, I am actually pretty confident in my usage of the term. You directed the vast majority of your attention to the writer of the editorial I posted (the man) without saying much about his specific points (the ball), except to say that he had several - which is somehow worse than having only one.

Frankly, I find the new found interest in editorial integrity odd, coming from a guy who posts random comments from anonymous blog readers and ascribes them important-sounding titles to give their points more weight.

Now, I am not able to confirm or deny a specific business agreement between Mr. Harnden and Mr. Drudge as I have not taken to time to investigate; and to be honest, I don’t really know how such an agreement would change the points made in the editorial. I do know that Mr. Harnden does at least work for a major periodical and is at least willing to put his name behind his comments, unlike a certain military reader I know.

[Lemur]

Did we drink a bad cup of coffee this morning? Where's the cheerful Panzer we all know and love?

Let's address your points in order:

(1) There's nothing Backroom-specific about the definition; rather, the maxim is used most often in the Backroom, while applying to the entire Org. Not sure where you're going with this line of argument. It's weird even by your standards.

(2) Explain to me how the marital problems of Peter Orszag have any relevance to an essay about Obama, McChrystal and Afghanistan. Harnden's problem is not that he makes too many points; it's that they're all over the place. I addressed one in my initial response; feel free to respond at your leisure.

(3) You keep flogging that COIN post from Sully, as though you think you've found a winning ticket with it. Try one more time; lucky number four! You may have begun this thread with a thesis which has failed to gain any traction with anyone, and you may have failed to carry the day with any of your arguments in-thread, and you may be finding yourself to the far-right of National Review, Fox News and just about every military commentator, but by gawd Lemur went too far when he inferred that an anonymous military commenter was an officer! Keep at it, you've almost carried the day!

(4) So you can't defend Harnden, won't defend Harnden, and none of it matters anyway. Masterful.

As I said, pick a point that Harnden made that you think is surprising, relevant, and/or true. Copy/paste debating is beneath you.

[Vladimir]

:laugh4:

I think Lemur visits the backroom to have passionate yet somewhat reasoned conversation with patrons while most of us are here to drink, vent our frustrations, and throw knives at the wall. ~;)

All under the watch full eye of a large, bald bartender with a huge meat cleaver and a few shadowy men in hoods.

[PanzerJaeger]

Did we drink a bad cup of coffee this morning? Where's the cheerful Panzer we all know and love?

Present and accounted for, sir! I'm as chipper as always, just a bit surprised that someone whose modus oporandi is posting clippings from random and certainly biased blogs to support/make his points threw such a fit over that editorial. :shrug:


Let's address your points in order:

Sure thing! :grin:


(1) There's nothing Backroom-specific about the definition; rather, the maxim is used most often in the Backroom, while applying to the entire Org. Not sure where you're going with this line of argument. It's weird even by your standards.

My only argument is that I did, in fact, use the term correctly, despite your definition.


(2) Explain to me how the marital problems of Peter Orszag have any relevance to an essay about Obama, McChrystal and Afghanistan. Harnden's problem is not that he makes too many points; it's that they're all over the place. I addressed one in my initial response; feel free to respond at your leisure.

Editorials often bring together disparate events to paint a broader picture. It's really rather common. You seem to be under the impression that I posted the editorial as some sort of thesis on the subject, not because I thought it was an interesting opinion.



(3) You keep flogging that COIN post from Sully, as though you think you've found a winning ticket with it. Try one more time; lucky number four! You may have begun this thread with a thesis which has failed to gain any traction with anyone, and you may have failed to carry the day with any of your arguments in-thread, and you may be finding yourself to the far-right of National Review, Fox News and just about every military commentator, but by gawd Lemur went too far when he inferred that an anonymous military commenter was an officer! Keep at it, you've almost carried the day!

I considered pursuing that avenue as I thought it was a rather sketchy thing for you to do. However, I decided to respect what I thought was ceasefire of sorts reached in prior discussions and let it go. Of course, the hypocrisy of you then going after the source of what I clearly posted as an editorial – an opinion - caused me to reconsider.

I do find it rather odd that you seem to be criticizing my inability to change people's minds, as if minds are changed frequently in the Backroom, or that I'm even interested in such a goal. I gave that up many years ago. I post here because I enjoy sharing my opinions and reading those of others.

Finally, I’m not sure why you would think that I would put much stock in where I stand on a particular issue vis-à-vis Fox News.


(4) So you can't defend Harnden, won't defend Harnden, and none of it matters anyway. Masterful.

Defend him from what? Your lame parroting of an Andrew Sullivan blog posting? Are you prepared to defend Sullivan from any criticisms of him I can pull off the internet?


As I said, pick a point that Harnden made that you think is surprising, relevant, and/or true. Copy/paste debating is beneath you.

Sure. You took issue with Harnden’s assertion that losing McChrystal’s good relationship with Karzai is a bad thing. However, you seem to be reading from a very old set of talking points. Karzai is our partner in the region, whether we like it or not. Obama and team could have chosen to pursue their campaign to discredit him, but it was decided, surely out of necessity, that he had to be kept around. So, considering how important the local government is to COIN, I think it is certainly better to have a commander on the ground with a good working relationship with the local leadership than have one that will have to build such a relationship amid the most critical of stages of the conflict, or to not have a good relationship at all.

[Lemur]

My only argument is that I did, in fact, use the term correctly, despite your definition.
Yes, I invented that reading of "play the ball not the man," and I did it all on my own. My sole reason was to confound you. Curses! Foiled again! "Play the ball, not the man" has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks or the personalization of debate; it really means that you can never question another poster's sources. How did you find me out?


You seem to be under the impression that I posted the editorial as some sort of thesis on the subject, not because I thought it was an interesting opinion.
If the entire rambling essay is naught more than an "interesting opinion," why are you going on about it, then?


You took issue with Harnden’s assertion that losing McChrystal’s good relationship with Karzai is a bad thing. [...] Karzai is our partner in the region, whether we like it or not. Obama and team could have chosen to pursue their campaign to discredit him, but it was decided, surely out of necessity, that he had to be kept around.
At last! Something resembling substance! Wheeeeee!

First of all, please substantiate Obama's "campaign to discredit [Khazai]." By all accounts, President Khazai has been at turns ineffective, unpopular, corrupt and duplicitous. As I understand it, based on nothing more than reading, the civilian government in Afghanistan is the single biggest weakness in our COIN strategy. Correct me if you've heard differently.

Given this, how crucial is McChrystal's relationship with Karzai? What was he accomplishing with the President that another commander, with the initials D.P., cannot? Your essayist presents this relationship, and its end, as a completely understood disaster that we need not substantiate. I call male bovine fecal matter.


So, considering how important the local government is to COIN, I think it is certainly better to have a commander on the ground with a good working relationship with the local leadership than have one that will have to build such a relationship amid the most critical of stages of the conflict, or to not have a good relationship at all.
Again, every intelligent analyst I have read on the subject agrees that the civilian government is our #1 weakness in Afghanistan. Not the generals, not the money, not the diplomats, not Obama, not the previous administration, not troop morale, not the various strategies, and so on and so forth. The lack of a legitimate, effective civilian partner is the insoluble imponderable.

I'd like to see you address this, frankly, since most of the time your interest in Afghanistan appears to begin and end with how it serves as a talking point contra Obama.

Let's say P.J. is made President tomorrow. What do we do about our civilian partners in Afghanistan? And no, this is not a dodge or a changing of the subject, although you have dismissed every such thought exercise as such previously. It is not enough to robotically criticize every move our President makes; please demonstrate that you have given this some sort of thought beyond the partisan snipe line.

You seem to believe that there is some sort of clear path to victory. You demonstrate this belief by consistently claiming that President 44 is deviating from it. So it is not in any way out of order to ask, "Tell us, P.J., what is this path to victory, and what does your notion of victory look like?" Bonus points if you can construct your answer in terms that require less than five decades.

[Louis VI the Fat]

http://matousmileys.free.fr/popcorn2.gif

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, I invented that reading of "play the ball not the man," and I did it all on my own. My sole reason was to confound you. Curses! Foiled again! "Play the ball, not the man" has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks or the personalization of debate; it really means that you can never question another poster's sources. How did you find me out?

I don't understand how you cannot see that the term can be applied to your attacking the author of the editorial instead of his points. :shrug:

And now I'm questioning your understanding of what a "source" is. I wasn't sourcing anything with that editorial. If I had cited it as proof of X, Y, or Z, then yes, noting that it is opinion-oriented would have been appropriate. However, attacking an editorial, clearly posted as such, for bias is a little bit like attacking the NRA for being pro-gun rights. That is, it is excruciatingly obvious.


If the entire rambling essay is naught more than an "interesting opinion," why are you going on about it, then?

I'm not. I have barely mentioned anything about it in this whole exchange.

As I have said, what I am surprised about is that a member who constantly posts opinionated, and occassionally sketchy, blog entries to back up his opinions launched such a scathing attack on an editorial that I posted - which wasn't even in support of any particular point. I would say it was the pot calling the kettle black, but my "kettle" didn't even rise to the level of your "pot".



At last! Something resembling substance! Wheeeeee!


:laugh4:

And your parroting of Andrew Sullivan that started this exchange was literally full of substance!

:laugh4:




First of all, please substantiate Obama's "campaign to discredit [Khazai]." By all accounts, President Khazai has been at turns ineffective, unpopular, corrupt and duplicitous. As I understand it, based on nothing more than reading, the civilian government in Afghanistan is the single biggest weakness in our COIN strategy. Correct me if you've heard differently.

I am referring to the very public row the two leaders had a few months back. Please don't confuse my words as a defense of Karzai. I agree that he is all of those things and probably more, but he is also the president's chosen partner in the country. The one thing that could be worse to our war effort than a good relationship with Karzai is a bad one.


Given this, how crucial is McChrystal's relationship with Karzai? What was he accomplishing with the President that another commander, with the initials D.P., cannot?

Considering the high context, tribal nature of Afghani politics, I would say it was pretty important. D.P. may be a hero in America, but that may or may not translate to Karzai's administration. Regardless, building a relationship will take time and effort, which is time and effort that could and should be focused elsewhere during this critical stage in the war.


Again, every intelligent analyst I have read on the subject agrees that the civilian government is our #1 weakness in Afghanistan. Not the generals, not the money, not the diplomats, not Obama, not the previous administration, not troop morale, not the various strategies, and so on and so forth. The lack of a legitimate, effective civilian partner is the insoluble imponderable.

Again, I agree. Apparently, though, the White House has decided that he is our only option, so I cannot see how destroying a good relationship between him and our top commander in the field can be seen as anything other than a negative. secretary Gates seems to agree.



You seem to believe that there is some sort of clear path to victory. You demonstrate this belief by consistently claiming that President 44 is deviating from it. So it is not in any way out of order to ask, "Tell us, P.J., what is this path to victory, and what does your notion of victory look like?" Bonus points if you can construct your answer in terms that require less than five decades.

Ahh, Lemur's classic "solve Afghanistan in a discussion board post or you're not allowed to criticize my prez!!"

Well, I can tell you that my solution would involve giving my top commander the troops he requests and not imposing an arbitrary timeline on him based on my own reelection campaign. ~:)

[Lemur]

I don't understand how you cannot see that the term can be applied to your attacking the author of the editorial instead of his points.
Epic reading comprehension fail, which you clearly have no intention of correcting. Let's move on from your cul-de-sac.


However, attacking an editorial, clearly posted as such, for bias is a little bit like attacking the NRA for being pro-gun rights. That is, it is excruciatingly obvious.
Bias? I said the essay was sloppily written, that the author was a known hack, and that the source did you no credit. "Bias" is the least part of that argument, but whatever, carry on.


And your parroting of Andrew Sullivan that started this exchange was literally full of substance!
You keep invoking Andrew Sullivan as though he were a mystical figure who could imbue your rhetoric with weight, your arguments with substance. It's quite fascinating, actually. Invoke him again! Keep mentioning Sullivan! You're on a wining streak, there! (How did you get so obsessed with the man, anyway?)


Ahh, Lemur's classic "solve Afghanistan in a discussion board post or you're not allowed to criticize my prez!!"
Ah, Panzer's classic, "If I can dismiss the poster without answering a legit question, I'll dance away in my pink ballet slippers, laughing my silvery bell of a laugh." I spelled out, in terms you cannot or will not address, why asking for your take on victory in Afghanistan is legitimate. If you'd like to be taken as something more than a spoiler and a partisan snipe, you can address that issue someday.

As I said, your interest in Afghanistan seems to begin and end with Obama. This thread has done nothing to dispel that impression.

[Gregoshi]

:tumbleweed:This is like watching a classic western showdown - except the one gunslinger is in Dodge and the other in Tombstone. :7cowboy:

[Lemur]

True dat. Honestly, I'm getting bored, but I'm keen to see how far Panzer will take his last-word-itis. So for the sake of science I will soldier on.

[Gregoshi]

Ah, will he leave Dodge before you leave Tombstone? How about you two call it a "draw"? :laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

You keep invoking Andrew Sullivan as though he were a mystical figure who could imbue your rhetoric with weight, your arguments with substance. It's quite fascinating, actually. Invoke him again! Keep mentioning Sullivan! You're on a wining streak, there! (How did you get so obsessed with the man, anyway?)

Wait, now I’m obsessed with ‘ol Andy? You constantly link to him, mimic his opinions on other editorialists nearly word for word, and even elevate random, anonymous readers of his blog to importance, even granting them military ranks! And I’m obsessed?



Ah, Panzer's classic, "If I can dismiss the poster without answering a legit question, I'll dance away in my pink ballet slippers, laughing my silvery bell of a laugh." I spelled out, in terms you cannot or will not address, why asking for your take on victory in Afghanistan is legitimate. If you'd like to be taken as something more than a spoiler and a partisan snipe, you can address that issue someday.

Amazing! You accuse me of dismissing your “legit” question while ignoring the very next paragraph, where I, in fact, address your question.



As I said, your interest in Afghanistan seems to begin and end with Obama. This thread has done nothing to dispel that impression.

And this thread has also done nothing but reinforce my impression that you’re still carrying water for Obama. I guess there isn’t much we can do about other’s impressions. :shrug:



Ah, will he leave Dodge before you leave Tombstone? How about you two call it a "draw"?

I think we’ve been through the good, the bad, and certainly the ugly in this little exchange. I’m done.

[Lemur]

And I’m obsessed?
Yup, I think you're got some kind of twisted bromance for Andrew Sullivan. You have suddenly become unable to write an entire post without referencing the man; clearly you have feelings. Don't be ashamed. It's 2010, after all.


You constantly link to him
Yah, that's in your imagination, darling, but that's okay; manly attraction can cloud one's judgment. Obviously the one link to him in this thread has assumed ... strong, throbbing proportions in your mind. Indeed, since I linked to him that once, it's been hard to get you to talk about anything else. Obsess much?

For the record, I also linked to National Review, NPR, Washington Independent and Clive Crook in this thread. But none of them got a bee in your jockstrap quite like Andy Sullivan, whom you've been mewling about ever since.


I think we’ve been through the good, the bad, and certainly the ugly in this little exchange. I’m done.
But are you capable of resisting your impulse to get in the last word? Inquiring minds want to know.

P.S.: Nice italics, by the way.

[Gregoshi]

But are you capable of resisting your impulse to get in the last word? Inquiring minds want to know.
That is a tough thing to say Lemur and not be self-applicable. :inquisitive: You could let me have the last word and both of you can save face. :laugh4:

No they cannot...but I can.