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

[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.

[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.

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 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.

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.

[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.

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.

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 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. 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. 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.

[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.