The Lincoln Test
Abraham Lincoln put up with a lot from general-in-chief of the Union Army George B. McClellan. McClellan derided Lincoln in front of his staff and made no effort to hide his contempt for the president at social gatherings. Even in his face-to-face meetings with Lincoln, McClellan proved high-handed. Lincoln kept him on all the same--as long as McClellan proved effective in his job. Drilling and equipping the army, creating the huge logistical machine needed to feed, clothe and house the army--at all this McClellan shone. Then came the time to fight. After McClellan's Peninsula Campaign of 1862 ended in failure--McClellan lost the opportunity to capture Richmond and then, at Antietam, permitted Lee, commanding a smaller force, to maneuver the battle to a draw, preserving the Confederate army--only then did Lincoln remove McClellan. ("If Gen. McClellan does not want to use the army," Lincoln famously remarked, "I would like to borrow it for a time.")
Maybe the test Lincoln applied to McClellan applies to McChrystal as well. Has McChrystal mouthed off? He has indeed. But has he proven effective in Afghanistan? Has he done his job? Still more to the point, does the president--does anyone?--have any reason to suppose a different commander could do the job better?
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
This is not a case of mere insubordination. When you speak against the One, the charge is properly known as blasphemy. McChrystal should be forced to stand in bare feet during a snow storm at the White House gate begging His forgiveness.
Re: The Lincoln Test
I don't agree, Peter. I think he has to go. And by recent (unconfirmed) accounts, he has offered to. The McClellan example isn't really all that appropriate -- Lincoln, at least, didn't think all of that drilling and equipping was anything more than stalling, than avoiding the fight.
It's simply unacceptable for a military commander to publicly disrespect his Commander in Chief. No matter which specific Commander is in Chief.
Jun '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
If it's a courtesy resignation, there for the President to either accept or reject, I think the President will not accept it. Obama still has his deadline for withdrawal, and it would just take too much time to get McChrystal's replacement up to speed. I think Obama will hope it makes him look secure and magnanimous, to let it go."Who said I was thin-skinned?"
May '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
`Paules, at the risk of garnering another infamous Rob Long post making fun of emoticons... :D :D :D
Didn't Lincoln also say of McClellan "he has a case of the slows"?
I'm glad McChrystal is resigning. His public comments were inappropriate even though they were probably motivated from a perceived lack of support from the Commander in Chief. Hopefully, the new general will have the needed support of the Commander in Chief to finish the task.
Jun '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
Agree. The right decision for the President to make is to accept the resignation. Anything less ultimately undermines confidence in the authority of the Commander-in-Chief among the ranks of our fighting men and women. Old-fashioned as it may be, honor still matters. Failure to punish such alleged contempt will do nothing but erode morale - already pushed to the limits due to what appears to be an indecisive, ineffective strategy with unworkable rules of engagement. McChrystal has not proven effective, so it would seem.
But I also agree that a change in command will be highly disruptive to the whole effort. McChrystal and his aides' lack of discipline and decorum deserve a substantial part of the blame for what happens then. It didn't have to happen.
Jun '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
I agree with Peter. This whole episode is so high schoolish. Lincoln was a one in a million president, but it would be nice for a president to aspire to more than he is. I cannot imagine any recent Republican president caring that much what a general thought about him if he did his job properly, George H.W. Bush or Nixon excepted. I may be very wrong about the first President Bush, too. He was in the Service, so he was probably very aware of what servicemen said about their Commander in Chief, in private.
May '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
Maybe I'm cynical, but I think for Obama everything is a political calculation. Which is worse politically: McCrystal on 60 Minutes and free to speak his mind, or McCrystal still in the saddle after humiliating the Administration? Don't know the answer, but I bet that's the question.
May '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
Why is everyone talking like the only options are to fire him or give him a slap on the wrist?
A career soldier who disrespects his commander should be knocked down the ladder, but not fired. I would strip McChrystal of his current command and possibly his rank, then assign him a lesser command (keep him in the war) and continue to include him in strategic planning.
Jun '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
Re: "Lincoln was a one in a million president."
No, good sir, he was a second generation Founding Father. The men who cobbled together the U.S. Constitution represented a polity of five or six million. Lincoln took the next step by preserving the republic during a horrendous civil war. Today we are a nation of 300 million plus.
The budding republic produced one Tom Paine, one Ben Franklin, one George Washington, a Thomas Jefferson, his protegee James Madison, and the family Adams. What might a republic of 300 million produce?
The answer infuriates me because big 'R' republicans don't understand small 'r' republicanism. The American Republic is loaded with new Paines, Franklins, Jeffersons, Madisons, and maybe even another Washington or Lincoln. Not to mention Bells, Edisons, Fords, Buffets, and Gates's.
God save the American Republic!
Jun '10
Re: The Lincoln Test
What you describe - relieving McChrystal of his command, is in effect a firing. We're not talking about throwing him out of the service, necessarily. Relieving a general officer of his command is in effect, to fire him.
Re: The Lincoln Test
Over at TWS, I ever-so-politely disagree with Peter Robinson and a growing number conservatives on the fate of General Stanley McChrystal.
McChrystal is an American hero. And it's certainly true that the problems we're having in Afghanistan are not McChrystal's fault. As the New York times story on Obama's Afghanistan policy makes clear, the administration is in disarray, with internecine fighting on the rise and constructive dialogue on the wane.
It's precisely because of this infighting that McChrystal is no longer the right man for the job. After the Rolling Stone article and its aftermath -- including the trip to the Woodshed/White House today -- McChrystal will be too weakened internally to shape administration policy. In order to succeed, the US commander in Afghanistan has to be someone who has the respect of President Obama and can speak forcefully to the president and his advisers about the changes that must happen.
Re: The Lincoln Test
With one more war, Petraeus would match Winfield Scott.
Re: The Lincoln Test
Old Fuss and Feathers, Jr. It's worth it, I think. Could be arranged.