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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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, are we? Should I call that sentiment un-American, or would that constitute a tautology?

A worthwhile anecdote:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Not a big fan of civilian control over the armed forces, are we? Should I call that sentiment un-American, or would that constitute a tautology?

A worthwhile anecdote:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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:

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

"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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

- 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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

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:

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.

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

My sympathy-o-meter has bottomed out.

Quote:

---

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.

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:

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

And at last the real threat is revealed: Canada.

:yes:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And at last the real threat is revealed: Canada.

---

I preferred your unedited post.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

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...062300689.html

1:30

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alternative Universe PanzerJaeger

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.

---