…about the McChrystal fooforaw:
…surely officers in Afghanistan should know that the purpose of Rolling Stone magazine is not to emphasize either their competency or their insight. And as a general rule, anytime a liberal journalist wishes to empathize with a frustrated officer, it is usually to exaggerate the officer’s unhappiness and use it for his own political purposes, which rarely if ever are those of the military.
If an officer cannot figure out Rolling Stone, how can he understand the Taliban?
Somebody needs to lose their job over this. I’d sure like to see Holbrooke and Eikenberry go, but we probably won’t be so lucky.
Afghanistan seems to be becoming Obama’s Vietnam.
[Update a while later]
Don’t blame McChrystal — blame Obama:
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal should not lose his job because of the article about him in Rolling Stone magazine. If anyone deserves blame for the latest airing of the administration’s internal feuds over Afghanistan, it is President Obama.
For months Obama has tolerated deep divisions between his military and civilian aides over how to implement the counterinsurgency strategy he announced last December. The divide has made it practically impossible to fashion a coherent politico-military plan, led to frequent disputes over tactics and contributed to a sharp deterioration in the administration’s relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
The virtue of the Rolling Stone article is that Obama may finally have to confront the trouble. But the dismissal of McChrystal would be the wrong outcome. It could spell disaster for the military campaign he is now overseeing in southern Afghanistan, and it would reward those in the administration who have been trying to undermine him, including through media leaks of their own.
It’s the wrong thing to do, so it’s the likeliest outcome.
[Update a couple minutes later]
McChrystal’s real offense:
One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
Well, those rules of engagement are what the administration wants.
[Late morning update]
Why Obama can’t fire the general.
[Update a few minutes later]
The Rolling Stone article isn’t about a general’s insubordination — it’s about the administration’s mistakes. Well, this is what the country voted for.
[Update early afternoon]
John McCain: “Fire Eikenberry”
[Update a while later]
McChrystal has reportedly submitted his resignation. The best result might be for the president to not accept it. An even better result would be for him not accept it, but to fire Eikenberry and Holbrooke instead. But that won’t happen, unfortunately.
I have not had time to read the Rolling Stone article. If the reports about the article that I’ve read are in any way accurate, it sounds like he could be in trouble for violating Article 88 of the UCMJ.
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.
It sounds like his career is toast.
Well, it wasn’t the General who referred to to the Vice President by a derogatory nick name, my understanding is that it was someone on the General Staff.
If so, then that person should be brought before a court marshall. Look, I think Obama is god-awful in just about every way imaginable. However, as a former military member (enlisted and commissioned), there is no way I can tolerate an officer who does anything that undermines civilian leadership of the military. That is the path of the “coup of the month” club nations around the world. If we could legally remove Obama from office – even at the risk of President Joe Biden (shutter!!!), I’d be for it. But that’s not going to happen. Until he resigns, is found unfit for office, is impeached, or his term expires, Obama is Commander in Chief of the military. I don’t like it but I have to accept it. If I were still in the military, I’d have to obey his lawful orders even if I couldn’t stand him as a person. That’s just the way it has to be with no exceptions.
On the other hand Obama could choose to be merciful, like Commodus from Gladiator. “I can do merciful” or words to that effect. Give him a telling off and say that’s it as far as he’s concerned.
He could but I don’t think he should. Truman fired McArthur for crossing the line and undermining civilian authority over the military. Every military officer knows that line exists. If reason or conscious is forcing someone to cross that line, they should immediately resign. This is pretty much a legitimate case for zero tolerance.
What Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said, if not stopped right now, would be a step on the road to turning this nation into just another Banana Republic.
Alas the President of the United States is way ahead of him.
As usual, Victor Davis Hanson says it better than I can.
During the Bush administration and the so-called revolt of the generals (the retired ones, mostly), the media were quick to praise public dissenters as lone wolves who spoke truth to power about the ineptness in Iraq. But it is not good when military officers go public with complaints about their civilian overseers. One of the great contributions of Matthew Ridgway to the war effort in Korea was that he stopped officers’ public sniping at the Truman policy, much of which he was probably in disagreement with.
Later he aired his differences with Eisenhower, and paid a price, but in times of war, officers must make their views known through official (and thus private) channels, and may not freelance through the media. It was wrong during the furor over troop levels and the surge in Iraq, and it is wrong now. Generals provide input and can dissent privately, and then the president goes forward with the consensus and officers obey.
Those who cannot do so in good conscience resign; those who choose to stay, but snipe to the media, at some point will have to. The system works, and when high-profile officers go to the media to undermine their overseers (e.g., George McClellan, Douglas MacArthur), it starts to unwind.
This is the sad state we arrive at by electing this miserable excuse for a world leader. The general has to resign which is a real shame. A general is not just any officer. He has to stand for principles even if the person he serves under is as completely unworthy as BO is.
What I put on Facebook a moment ago:
I couldn’t help but think of a quote from Marx that applies to the McChrystal situation…. “I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members….” The fact that McChrystal voted for Obama should have been enough to call into question his judgment and maturity…. 😉
BBB
The situation in Afghanistan is untenable in the long term. The war was warranted, but it should have been done in the spirit of a punitive expedition: this “nation building” nonsense cannot happen in Afghanistan. The borders are too permeable, so insurgents can recover strength easily. The US is a naval power and Afghanistan is a landlocked country. So resupply is difficult and expensive.
I could see two ways of a long term presence working: a) invading/getting the cooperation of Pakistan or Iran so you would get a viable sea supply route. b) getting the cooperation of a major regional power or two to stabilize Afghanistan (e.g. China, India).
Actually, if you read the article, which is finally up, you find that:
1) The “don’t patrol where you’ll draw fire” is McCrystal’s policy, not Obama’s.
2) McCrystal is not nearly as critical of Obama as the pull-quotes would seem.
The “don’t patrol where you’ll draw fire” is McCrystal’s policy, not Obama’s.
Who cares? If the president isn’t objecting, it’s implicitly his policy.
McCrystal is not nearly as critical of Obama as the pull-quotes would seem.
As it would seem to whom? I haven’t thought that he was particularly critical of Obama, at least explicitly. I thought it was his aides who were.
Rand – McCrystal can hardly complain about a policy if it’s his policy.
Several others here have said it as well as I can, McChrystal (either by saying these things himself, or by permitting it to be said by subordinates in his presence without his comment) must resign. Military deference to civilian authorities (even one as unworthy as Obama) must be paramount here. Whether or not we sympathize with McChrystal’s circumstances or not, if you want to pick a fight with the commander and chief in public, resign in protest, a courageous act that has unfortunately gone out of style.
With all of that said, I cannot say that I would regret seeing McChrystal go. For once, I can agree with Chris G, these excerable Rules of Engagement are his, not Obama’s, and they are killing our soldiers and making the mission impossible. The sooner that McChrystal is gone and a general with the commitment to reverse these policies (or resign and tell the rest of us why he did) the better.
Did I say he should complain about it?
The situation in Afghanistan is untenable in the long term. The war was warranted, but it should have been done in the spirit of a punitive expedition: this “nation building” nonsense cannot happen in Afghanistan.
It doesn’t help if you’re trying to build the wrong nation. See
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
and the accompanying map at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3882
and ignore the analysis presented at that second link.
Not that I’m generally impressed with what Ralph Peters has to say, judging by his Wikipedia page.
About 15 years ago, I attended a luncheon of the Order of Daedalians — a military pilots’ organization (http://www.daedalians.org). It was in the O-Club on an Air Force base somewhere out west, and the wing commanding general was present.
When they open, they give a toast to the flag, their fraternity, their fallen comrades, and finally the Commander-in-Chief. The Toastmaster gives each toast, and the group (about 150 at that luncheon) repeat it. That happened all the way up to the “Commander-in-Chief,” and no one, including the wing commander (a brigadier general), responded. After a moment of awkward silence, someone in the group said: “I won’t drink to that son of a bitch.” He was referring to Bill Clinton, of course.
There were some disapproving murmurs, and some half-hearted repeats of the toast. But I noticed that the wing commander wasn’t one of those repeating…
That was a different military, still steeped in tradition, still not “chickified.” It really took me by surprise, because I had spent 12 years in their midst.
That anyone would disrespect our current “commander-in-chief” is no surprise. It would surprise me if anyone respected him. He’s a joke on this country, perpetrated by tenured leftist professors in every college in America.
What surprises me is that there is still a *man* left in the military. It’s good to know.
The war was warranted, but it should have been done in the spirit of a punitive expedition
I think that might be right. Which brings up the question of how we should be fighting this war?
McCrystal isn’t the right tool in any case. This war should be fought with spies and assassins if we ever want to get serious about fighting the right fight. We need to come to terms not with just who the enemy is, but what the enemy is… foreign or domestic.
Drones and women might be the right way to fight this war.
Get Americans out of there and empower the women (make them the conduit of foreign aid and trade), with drones providing military support and aid drops (to women groups only). Help women with education, military training and so forth, training some of them outside Afghanistan if need be with them going back to run the country how they wish to run it. Also offer Afghanistan women the opportunity to emigrate.
Continually developing better drones will help greatly, but women are the main weakness of extreme Islam, it can not long survive without their oppression – so give Afghanistan women a better alternative.
Pete, you’re on to something. Saturation bomb them with feminists. It’s a two-fer!