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

Top commander in Afghanistan, that is.

McChrystal Apologizes for Criticizing Obama Team

Quote:

---

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 on that 2011 deadline.

:shame:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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:

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:

PJ's pronouncement earlier was, "The war in Afghanistan was lost in November of 2008." That should tell you most of what you need to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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

---

Full article here.

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:

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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 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.

Quote:

---

Also, tell us what should be done with a commanding officer who bucks civilian authority. 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.

Quote:

---

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

---

- Georges Clemenceau

Quote:

---

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.

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:

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

The head of his Chief of Staff should roll.

Meanwhile, assuming

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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

---

:laugh4:

Would McCain have done any better?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|R|AntiWarmanCake88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|R|AntiWarmanCake88

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

And vis versa.

---

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

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warman

it is usually the polictiaions fault for causing a nation to lose a war

---

If only armies were allowed to decide for themselves, no wars would ever be lost and both sides would win every single time!

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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 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 has gone live at the RS website.

Good analysis here:

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, 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:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki

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.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Even National Review 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.

Rolling stone should get most of the blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

[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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

Gates advocated keeping McChrystal.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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 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.