Initially I had high hopes about the way he seemed to get that this is a battle of perception and alliances. If he is this ignorant of the perception he creates in American news media, and is foolish enough to jeopardize his intimate alliances with loose talk, does he have any hope whatsoever of succeeding in Afghanistan? I say no, he’s demonstrated complete incompetence in this realm.
Of course, because the ability to perform violent acts on other individuals is all that really counts.
There’s a few moving pieces here.
1. Speaking out to the press about someone higher up than you in the Chain of Command. - If McChrystal was a lower ranked officer speaking about his CO to a local paper, he’d probably not even be given the chance to resign. He’d be put up on charges and most likely have a dishonorable discharge on his record. (Or not, it does seem they’ve gotten a lot more lenient about letting miscreants slip out of the armed forces without permanent stains on their records these days.)
2. Specifically, speaking against or deriding the civilian military leadership. - From a political perspective, I think Obama not only comes off weak, but will in fact be acting weak if he doesn’t get rid of McChrystal. I understand the Presidency may be a bit “too big” to be a place where you engage in a dick measuring contest but you do need to make it clear who runs the ship.
3. Being at McChrystal’s rank and saying things like this at all to the press. - Putting aside the issues of chain of command and respect for the civilian leadership, I have to question McChrystal’s competence. His position in Afghanistan is one in which an ability to handle some local political issues is probably at least as important as his ability to conduct a military operation. He’s not running a base or a platoon, he’s in charge of a huge war effort with over 100,000 men and tons of interactions with foreign and local military forces. This is a guy who needs to understand politics as part of his job.
Saying what he said, to whom he said it, means that he either doesn’t understand politics or he’s simply stupid. Either of those is unacceptable for someone in his position.
Well, that’s how it was when it was greasers vs. Jocks - back in the days of REAL America!
-Joe
Just curious - not trying to criticize the previous admin. My recollection is that it was no secret that the military brass was less than thrilled with the plan for invading Iraq. At that time were any criticisms of the civilian leadership by the military expressed in a manner similar to this present incident?
The most vocal General criticizing the Iraq invasion plan was Shinseki, and from what I recall, he did so while testifying before Congress rather then going to the press. There was a General (head of Central Command, I think ) during the last bit of the Bush administration that did an article with Esquire critical of Bush’s Iranian policy, and he ended up resigning over it.
Remember that the military has had a strong Republican orientation for decades now, especially during the early Bush administration. It’s been declining lately, but only to the benefit of self-proclaimed independents, not Democrats. That just might affect attitudes towards the President.
Stick a fork in him–he’s done. It’s all over except the actual resignation and announcement of a replacement.
After a 30-minute meeting with the President, McChrystal has reportedly left the White House without attending the planned war meeting that he was purportedly recalled back to Washington to attend in person. (He usually attends this meeting by video link from Afghanistan.)
Am I correct in thinking that, if McChrystal woke up one day a week ago and thought “I hate this job”, he could have simply resigned, political pressures be damned? I mean, he’s not under enlistment any longer. If he just quit, he wouldn’t be collected by the MPs or anything. Am I wrong?
I guess I don’t understand the argument that he was “trying” to get fired to get away from Obama. Even if it were true, there had to be more graceful ways to wrap up your career.
I don’t buy that either. For one thing the’yre using his strategy over there, so if he gets fired people would still blame him. McChrystal does sort of sound like the kind of guy who would not only say these things around a reporter, but approve them and not see it as a problem. And while I’m not a big fan of RS’s non-Hunter Thompson political journalism, I think the worst thing in that article was not the comments McChrystal and his staff made. It was the implication that he’s pretty much calling all the shots in Afghanistan because the political side of things is discombobulated, so he has all the power and doesn’t know what to do with it.
Yea even if he couldn’t fully quit the military without sacrificing his benefits, I think its pretty safe to say Obama and Petreaus don’t particularly want someone in charge of a major military operation whose heart wasn’t in it, and would find a way to have him reassign if he made clear he wanted out.
Plus its hardly a sure thing that this will actually get him fired.
Because it’s his strategy that is being followed in Afghanistan. He devised it, advocated for it, and undermine his boss with the press to get it approved. Now, it doesn’t seem to be going all that well.
If he’d just walked away, he’d be a quitter and the value of his strategy would be openly questioned. Getting removed from command, however, means he can point to it later and point out how everything was going according to plan when he was undermined by the politicians.
Whether it’ll turn into Wimpy Democrats vs. Patriotic Military in 2012 will be another matter, of course.
-Joe
He’s never been enlisted. He is a commissioned officer. Once an officer serves out their initial committment (4-5 years), they can generally resign at any time. That being said, there is currently a “stop loss” provision currently in effect to prevent officers from resigning during wartime.
At the level McChrystal is at, though, none of this is relevant. You don’t want someone in charge of a major military operation who doesn’t want to be there. A theater commander serves at the pleasure of the President, and if the President thinks that the commander is doing a poor job, or is being insubordinate, or whatever, he’s gone.
Sir that was VERY interesting to read … as a retired ‘staff puke’ currently working as a Department of the Army staff puke myself I was facinated by your talking about Truman’s relief … thanks for sharing that honestly.
When a military leader is before Congress, that’s actually the one time when they are supposed to answer the questions fully and honestly. Even if it means they directly contradict or disagree with policies and strategies advocated by the President. The whole reason Congress brings political leaders in for questioning is so they can get the “real story” and communicate with top military officials in a manner in which they can offer their true, genuine, professional opinions and beliefs without having to fear reprisal from the President.
Now, that’s the “textbook” situation. The real situation is even though they are supposed to be 100% open, honest, and frank with Congress (it goes against their duty not to), in reality when generals go before Congress they essentially try to toe a very tight line. They say enough so that they aren’t accused of being uncooperative with Congress, but they also limit what they say enough that the President won’t punish them for it. Is the President supposed to punish a military leader for speaking openly when summoned by Congress? No, however the reality is there are a lot of ways to deal with people which aren’t “punishments.” The President has essentially unlimited “back room” power over the military leadership and traditionally this is why most of the time when top military guys speak before Congress you see them walking the tight rope of going along with the questions as best they can while trying to avoid doing anything that will get them in hot water with the White House.
Interestingly enough, according to the Rolling Stone article McChrystal voted for Obama; not sure what his party registration is.
He shouldn’t have said even that much. Senior officers are expected not to publicly align themselves with a party. They are supposed to serve the country.
Only one week ago Obama was saying he was looking for an ass to kick. That was all part of changing Obama’s academia image. He’s seen as an idea guy and not a leader.
McChrystal may be a victim of Obama’s image change. He can tell the world he’s a decisive leader and has a big pair. Yeah baby, McChrystal is fired!
That image change won’t last long. The oil is still gushing out and hitting beaches. But, McChrystal picked the wrong time to diss the prez. His ass is grass and Obama has the lawn mower.
He’s a general with combat experience. Everybody mentioned is a career politician with no military background. More than likely he views them as useless airholes. I don’t see him taking any crap even though what happened falls under his responsibility.
McChrystal is holding all the cards. He doesn’t need the job which currently consists of living in Hell’s warmer region. Getting out of there would literally represent a significant lifestyle upgrade. He can earn more money writing books and lecturing while drawing retirement. The only way he can be hurt is if they keep him on.
On the TV (so no cite…CNBC if anyone cares) they announced McChrystal has been relieved of his command.
ETA with cite: