Says the CNN story: The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who “has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict”.
No matter what his plans were:
(A) Lots of other good commanders know them too, and any others can pick them up in a hurry, and even have time to make better ones if possible, which it may be, and
(B) If he’s really pissed off everybody he needs to work with, there are many other commanders who could execute those plans better than he could.
All liability here. He isn’t going to need his return ticket to Afghanistan.
The meeting was actually a regularly scheduled one between Obama, McChrystal and the other relevant higher-ups regarding the war that takes place every month. It just usually happens with McChrystal teleconferencing in from Afghanistan, now he has to go in person to get yelled at and see if he keeps his job.
And I think you hit something important here. In the Fallon case, it was a significant difference of opinion over policy, strategy, etc. You could argue that, while he shouldn’t have said it publicly, if he fealt strongly enough that this was the only way to get his point across, then maybe he fealt he did what he had to. By contrast, McC seems to just be venting about stupid frat-boy stuff - which doesn’t seem to have any greater goal attached to it. Seems much more stupid to me.
In general I’m really torn by this type of stuff. I agree that, publicly, senior brass in the military need to toe the President’s line. However, I really really hope that, behind closed doors, they are allowed to share what they really feel and that there is open communication between the key people.
Well, by all reports high level gov’t meetings regarding Afghanistan strategy have been pretty contentious affairs, so at least the current Administration group think hardly seems to be a problem.
Who is this Obey character? He says from the latest CNN article: House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, called McChrystal the latest in a “long list of reckless, renegade generals who haven’t seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design it.”
Really? We have a “long list” of reckless, renegade generals? Bullshit. The most high profile of any of those would be MacArthur, and even despite his hubris, he was almost always right, helped win WWI, was extremely decisive in WWII in the Pacific Theater, was a visionary in the military administration of the post-war occupation of Japan, etc. He publicly blundered over Korea and was rightly removed from command. That was far, far different than McChrystal running his mouth over frustration over politicking in the war he’s been ordered to lead.
Fuck this guy Obey. And furthermore, a good President/politician can and normally should defer to military expertise when conducting warfare, provided information is reliable, actionable and you have the right person for the job.
McChrystal is a highly decorated, highly motivated soldier. He ran his mouth when he shouldn’t have. Shit happens. Political hand-wringing over the conducting of wars is nothing new, nor is the frustration of military leadership when trying to accomplish a mission ordered by said political leadership with restraints that may be unreasonable, or with goals that are vague or pie-in-the-sky overly idealistic.
I think part of his problem is that due to the Iceland volcano cloud the reporter’s 2-day interview turned into spending a month with the General and his staff. I think at some point they forgot that the RS reporter was not actually ‘one of the guys’. So he got to see and hear a lot more then anyone originally intended.
It says in that article the the General eats one meal a day and sleeps for four hours. I recall hearing that about some other general, Schwarzkopf I think, only sleeping four hours. What’s with that? I can understand losing sleep if you’re in the middle of an invasion or something, but in the long term, doesn’t it hurt one’s performance and judgement more than the extra time would help?
Maybe he opened up and said all that stuff because he was subjecting himself to sleep-deprivation interrogation techniques.
I suspect its bullshit. Napoleon famously only slept four hours a day, which I imagine is the origin of “famous general X only sleeps four hours a day” tales.
No, Chinese forces crossed the Yalu river (separating China from North Korea) before the UN forces reached it. MacArthur, or President Truman, didn’t threaten China with invasion, but after the Chinese became actively involved in Korea, MacArthur began to try issuing his own foreign policy regarding China and then publicly criticizing President Truman’s limitations on the war in Korea.
I wonder how different the world may have turned out had MacArthur been given free reign in Korea like he was in the Philippines and the conflict and occupation of Japan.
We’d have widespread deposits of Trinitite type minerals, from that time the general got a little overly frisky at a critical juncture of the Cuban missile crisis.
MAD doesn’t work if your generals are prone to haring off on their own initiative.
PBS had a couple retired generals who say McChrystal should be kept. I don’t see it. There are lots of generals itching for a chance to get a big command. I think he is replaceable. He dissed the administration and if he was kept, he would feel like he won and can do whatever he wants. He has to go.
Eh, were this the first instance, I’d say its silly to let him go, and they ought to just give him some sort of formal rebuke, tell him not to do it again and let him return to his command. At the end of the day, some minor name calling isn’t really worth disrupting a major military operation for.
But this is the third time in a year the guy has been in the spotlight for playing the same game. And before that he was implicated in two different scandals during the last decade. And even with that, I’d be tempted to say he ought to be left alone if there was evidence that he was getting the job done, but his current efforts in Afghanistan seem to be making considerably less progress then anticipated.
I’d say accepting his resignation is justified, if for no other reason then the fact that if they don’t, the evidence is pretty good that if left in place, in six months we’ll be back here again.