The McChrystal Profile
Take some time today to read the profile that has Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, in so much trouble.
What disturbed me about the piece was not so much McChrystal's comments on the civilian leadership -- that conflict goes back to last summer -- but the signs that his strategy might not be counterinsurgency in the Iraq mold. I've heard from soldiers in Afghanistan that McChrystal's rules of engagement are hampering the coalition's ability to confront and defeat the enemy -- a criticism explored at length in the Rolling Stone article. And I've heard from foreign policy experts in D.C. that McChrystal may be too enthralled by his love of special forces to appreciate the importance population security plays in successful counterinsurgency operations -- a conjecture sustained by the profile's description of McChrystal's ever-changing plans for Kandahar.
So the profile is disturbing on several levels -- not least of which is the total absence of judgment displayed by McChrystal's cooperation with Rolling Stone in the first place.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: The McChrystal Profile
The Washington Post suggests that Duncan Boothby, Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s just-resigned civilian PR guy, gave McChrystal bad advice about talking to Michael Hastings, author of the Rolling Stone article.
I think this is spin. McChrystal had to know what he was doing by talking to Hastings. This isn’t, by any stretch, Hastings’s first story about the frostiness between McChrystal and Obama, as trueslant.com’s Michael Roston points out today . As far back as October, Hastings was writing – obviously, with great inside sources – about the tension. In that post, nearly a year ago, Hastings quoted an email from a “former US military official”:
A month earlier, in Sept. 2009, writing about the same topic, Hastings wrote, also on trueslant.com:
I think the question could be: Why is McChrystal trying to get himself fired?
Jun '10
Re: The McChrystal Profile
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Subchapter X, 888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
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.
GEN McChrystal can, after privately informing his superiors of his opinion (a duty, in fact), either say "Yes, Sir" and carry out his orders to the best of his ability or he can resign. These are the only two legal options he has. Anything less, especially from someone in his position, is tantamount to treason.
Re: The McChrystal Profile
If McChrystal really wants to be fired, he may get his wish. Here's Sens. Lieberman, Graham, and McCain:
From the oil spill to the (lack of a) budget to Iran to Afghanistan, the Obama administration increasingly looks like it is in over its head.
Re: The McChrystal Profile
I wonder if Hillary will chime in ...
May '10
Re: The McChrystal Profile
But here is also an easy way for the President to take back some authority. Fire the guy. And when McChrystal writes a critical book and launches his exploratory committee, no one will be surprised.
Politics doesn't matter -- any General overseeing our forces at war (not to mention an active offensive) that has time to sit around and whine to Rolling Stone about his boss suffers from a serious lack of judgment.
Re: The McChrystal Profile
I agree with you, Trace. Though I doubt McChrystal is going to run for president.
Speaking of Hillary, Ursula, the Rolling Stone piece was filled with interesting tidbits, among them further evidence that Secretary Clinton fully supports COIN in Afghanistan. Other tidbits: McChrystal voted for Obama (!), enjoys Bud Light Lime, and edited the West Point literary review.
Re: The McChrystal Profile
Matthew, yes, many of tidbits/anecdotes in that article repulsed. Only made me think what a vile bunch they are to hang around with (if it's an accurate portrayal), but I don't like to be thinking that about our national heroes, so I put it out of my mind. At any rate, the facts about Hillary from there only make me wonder what, if anything, she'll say ....
Re: The McChrystal Profile
Sorry for typo, meant to write "repulsed me." Also, further evidence McChrystal knew exactly what he was doing ... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38842.html
Jun '10
Re: The McChrystal Profile
I find little that is praiseworthy about this administration, but the moment that the President fires McChrystal I will assuredly give Obama that accolade. The strategy and RoE may be reprehensible and unwieldy, and the politics of it just as ugly, but there is absolutely no place for a general officer in a theater of operation to publicly denigrate his civilian leadership. To allegedly allow such an atmosphere of disdain to promulgate through his staff is unbecoming.
The honorable course, as Mr. Robert E Lee captures in his above comment, is for McChrystal to carry out his duty, or resign. He is free to hold whatever private views he has, or work them through the appropriate chains. But this exercise of judgment, intentional or not, reflects badly not only on the President, but on the military command. It creates a mess that implicates all, and it impacts especially those warfighters putting their lives on the line for us. They deserve much better.
Re: The McChrystal Profile
McChrystal should ultimately go. Can't have soldiers dissing the civilian command in public. But Obama's problems here go deeper than any one general or strategy. As a candidate, O cynically (and stupidly) got the War on Terror exactly backwards. It was always Iraq that was the smart, necessary and winnable war. Afghanistan was the incipient quagmire where we had to put on a quick show and get out. Now, hemmed in by his campaign rhetoric (which was engineered to attack Bush without looking weak on the war) Obama's endangering an important victory in Iraq and letting us get drawn into a disaster in Afghanistan. Our can-do military can win anywhere with enough manpower--but how much is too much? The temptation to secure Afghanistan in order to kill bad guys in the borderlands and protect Pakistan is huge, but the truth is: there is no Afghanistan to secure. It's not a country at all, just a lot of tribes who all hate each other because this one stole the other's bride before Alexander was Great.
Re: The McChrystal Profile
Yes, Jim, exactly. Thanks for expressing it so well!
May '10
Re: The McChrystal Profile
General McChrystal shouldn't have said this stuff and will probably get what's coming to him (and I have no doubt he knew that the second he made these comments to a Rolling Stone reporter; no one this smart and disciplined goes off the cuff unless he has a reason for it). Truman deserved to sack MacArthur and should have been commended for it. It doesn't make the Generals wrong, though.
May '10
Re: The McChrystal Profile
Not only am I in total agreement with Andrew Klavan, that Obama has the validity of the wars backwards, but I don’t see any objective for Afghanistan, or even an understanding of the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, or even the vast differences between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Iraq we could work with the locals to win their hearts and minds, which is what happened after the surge, and the locals would turn in and turn on the Islamists radicals that had “drifted in.” In Afghanistan the Taliban are not only not Islamist radicals, they are in fact strict Sharia Moslems, but they are also local. Between 2005-2009 many Taliban, that had been “run off,” afterwe joined the war with the Northern Alliance, returned to their villages..and at least one was elected to the national legislature.
Iraq, a seed that if nurtured will grow into a democratic state in a sea of religious tyranny. Afghanistan, doesn’t want us, or Al Qaeda..or anyone that isn’t handing out money around. They have never had a strong central government, and don't want one now. Iraq was used to exactly that.
May '10
Re: The McChrystal Profile
McChrystal is too smart to be this dumb. There has to be a method to this madness; although I say that almost every day about the decisions this administration makes. Sadly, I have yet to find an explanation that is rational in the real world as opposed to the academic ivory tower (now being played by the White House) that currently houses our chief executive.
Maybe the General figured he was doomed either way so he needed to let it be known how our Commander in Chief is running the mess that is Afghanistan. That being said I wholeheartedly agree that we can't have military generals criticizing our civilian commanders in public; no matter how poor of a job commanding he has done.
I agree with Drew that most of the reason for this mess is because of irresponsible campaign rhetoric that the President feels compelled to stand behind. Its almost as if his military strategy was purposely devised to fail, which, in the end, will probably make him more popular with his core supporters. Then again, it's probably just more evidence of an overall incompetency to govern.
May '10
Re: The McChrystal Profile
Mike Riscili: I agree with Drew that most of the reason for this mess is because of irresponsible campaign rhetoric that the President feels compelled to stand behind. ...Then again, it's probably just more evidence of an overall incompetency to govern. · Jun 22 at 1:38pm
I highly doubt this would have happened if Obama didn't have zero leadership skills. The president isn't supposed to be unprepared and intimidated when he meets with military officers at the Pentagon, either. If he doesn't act like the boss it's no wonder he's not respected as the boss.
Re: The McChrystal Profile
McChrystal likes Bud Light Lime, Matt? That does it.
He had to go.
Jun '10
Re: The McChrystal Profile
The most tragic thing in all of this is that no one wins. McChrystal acted unprofessionally and completely out of line as has been stated. As a result, he deserved to be fired. However, the President, as Andrea points out, has zero leadership skills and as a result is already in a deficit of respect. By "being forceful" and firing McChrystal, Obama does not regain his position as an admired leader. Instead, he continues to be a poor and disengaged leader who made one right choice. So, in the end, McChrystal loses his job, his attitude disrespects the soldiers who have served beneath him, and our President will continue making the same choices he has been making since Last January. On the upside, Petraeus is in town and may have some fresh ideas. However, I'm inclined to agree with Andrew and Don and say that, "we're not in Kansas anymore."