When I was a junior officer, and one or another policy that we’d perceived as idiotic came down the pipe, we used to dream of some theoretical flag officer that would throw his stars on the table in protest. The Stan Arthur case comes to mind, a damned fine warfighter tossed overboard for political purposes. Feelings were running high in the early 90s, and it was the opinion of many of us that CNO Jeremy Boorda ought to have stood up to the witch hunt, and placed his own career on the line. I think he might have felt that way too before he took his own life. For other reasons, ostensibly.
But those kinds of things are all as dust and air compared to winning a war the nation has committed forces to, or else bleeding the ground forces drop by drop with no prospect of success. With that in mind, this story makes sense. It may even prove true:
Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal’s team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn’t given sufficient resources (read “troops”) to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan…
If it’s true, as I’ve heard whispering, that the Pentagon has been sitting on McChrystal’s request for forces for weeks now without comment, without even asking further questions, frustrations must be getting high in the forward HQ, where good men are dying every day even as victory slips through our hands.
Some would argue that it’s no role of the forward commander to intervene in the decision making process at the National Command Authority level, that it’s wrong for him to inject himself into what is essentially the policy maker’s purview. But no decision is a decision in favor of the status quo, and if a forward commander cannot entirely commit himself to that decision, nor convince his leadership to support his strategy then he owes it to everyone to step aside.
After all, there will always be another man found willing to fiddle while Afghanistan burns.
Wretchard also has an entry well worth reading.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/09/22/policy-debates/#more-6032
Remember that the fish rots from the head.
These are my comments over to the ‘Mander’s place earlier today, regarding this situation.
———————-
I would offer that my first action would be to remove all US forces from NATO, then remove all NATO forces from Afghanistan.
Put the use of other nation’s forces and supporting resources on a case by case basis as they are offered (or not) and make US support for any crisis in Europe conditional upon EU (and any other nation’s ) support for US actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Like the Parent who ends up doing all the housework because the kids are not responsible enough to help out, the US needs to put it’s foot down and state in no uncertain terms that we will, from henceforth on, judge our friends by their actions, and NOT by their words.
The US should no longer be subsidizing NATO, or even maintaining a presence in Europe. How many times do we need to be reminded that we are only welcome (or, rather, tolerated) because of the money we spend there?
As to AFSTAN, let’s either go all in, or pull everyone out NOW. No more Vietnams. We go in to win and permanently change the political and cultural situation, or we get the h3ll out.
If POTUS and his sycophants aren’t willing to go all in or get out NOW, then any further US casualties should be charged to them as multiple counts of murder.
Just my 2-cent’s worth. OT, I know. But it’s something I needed to say.
—————————————
You are spot on, AW! Tim.
I have been a strong supporter for the necessary work in Af. With the new administration, I am in complete agreement as to your assessment of what further US casualties would amount to. These guys do not respect the US military (to make the most charitable assessment of their viewpoint), and I strongly suspect that they want to turn AF into VN to (1) tar the military and (2) blame something else on Bush.
No blood for Obama!
Our current experience with NATO brings to mind all of Napoleons’ admonishions against alliance warfare for just the reasons we are seeing playing out in Afghanistan.
But I disagree with Tim about all in or all out. There IS a “fourth way” besides the inconclusive meat-grinder (even if in slo-motion) sort of thing we’ve got going on now. I will say again for the nth
time that funding the Tribal Chiefs against the Taliaban would work wonders. Unlike us, they have staying power because they ain’t going anywhere and are the natural rivals–indeed mortal enemies of the Taliban. Funding them backed up with enough SF capability, airpower and a mobile reserve of ground forces left in-country will be cheaper, save American lives, and keep the Taliban out without turning the villagers against us. We will be loved from afar for our money and guns without the overstayed house-guest syndrome blossoming that so often happens in these cases, thus remaining grateful for our help rather than growing resentful for our dominate presence.
VX,
My apologies for not expounding enough. When I said “all in” it means we go all in to win. It doesn’t mean we have to go all Soviet on them, and I agree completely with turning the people and their leaders against the terrorists. You can’t win without their support.
We either need to say seeyah! & pull everyone out as soon as possible, or determine that we will do whatever it takes, however it needs to be done, to see this through.
Respects,
Amen Brother!
This is bigger than people appreciate.
Resigning in protest has not been a big part of the American military tradition. The last time I can recollect it happening was the ‘Revolt of the Admirals’. That was in 1948.
If McCrystal pulls the plug, he is in a superb position to hit Obama very, very hard. No organization stands in higher regard with the public. To have a senior officer resign in protest and publicly denounce Obama would be a lethal blow.
And McCrystal could start thinking about the color scheme for the Oval Office.
Sorry Mike M/
American’s have an institutional dislike of Generals who are seen to be thwarting their CinC with as much an eye to the office as over policy differences over the course of the war. As un-popular as Truman and the Korean War was, and as popular as MacArthur was;the general public basically gritted their teeth and supported Truman even as they gave MacArthur a ticker-tape parade when he returned. MAC had NO CHANCE to win the Presidency, and he knew it, so he chose not to run, but rather, faded away.
And as you point out, resigning in protest is seemingly not our tradition.
Besides “The Revolt of the Admirals” Maxwell Taylors resignation and publication of his protest book “The Uncertain Trumpet” is the only other case I can think of. And, as Lex points out, there is always someone to take his place–which is why many good men have suffered in silence, thinking “apres moi, le deluge.” Only problem with that is, as Lex also points out, “silence is consent’” and one who stays sinks or swims in the eyes of history tethered to the mast of a ship not of his own making. For an ethical man who loves his country it’s a close call and a tough decision either way. I do not envy McCrystal.
I would add tho, that McCrystal has unique leverage–as he is the hand-picked savior of Gates and Obama in a war loudly and publicly proclaimed by Obama as the “right,” the “key” war where ALL of our energies should be focused. Very hard from Obama to back down from that limb.
Very hard from Obama to back down from that limb.
VX, with respect I disagree. Obama has spent the past 8 months backing down from one limb or another with amazing skill and alacrity.
What’s one more, even if our brave warriors are out there on that limb with him.
Well, Kris, you may very well be right about Obama backing down–but are, I fear, very wrong about the troops. Obama is, it seems to me, perfectly capable of leaving them out there by their lonesome even after he has slithered down–and blaming any dire consequences on the short-comings on their commanders.
That’s what I meant VX. Obama will back down off the limb, leaving our warriors dangling. I agree that he is capable of it – and will likely do it. Honor, integrity and principles are only words in a dictionary to P.BO. Unlike our warriors, who live them every single day.
Oh and before we get too far with Afghanistan, let us not forget how Obama feels about the Middle East in general. He issued a statement to Israeli and Palestinian leaders in New York today, telling them he is impatient for them to work thru the peace process. Because this whole unrest in the M.E. has only been around for 8 months, not the 2,000+ years I read about … in junior high school. Next thing you know, Obama will be telling us he located unicorns in Iowa.
VX, normally I’d agree with you…but not this time. MacArthur had a boatload of political baggage. If he had not been protected by FDR, a court-martial would probably have hammered him for the lackluster defense of the Phillippines. Eisenhower, on the other hand, was a much stronger candidate…and by 1960, MacArthur was too old for the office.
If I thought that McCrystal was going to resign deliberately to make a political run, I would not think well of it. But I think this is a real threat to resign as a legitimate protest to the abandonment of the mission in Afghanistan. I see Afghanistan as Obama’s Vietnam…he won’t put in the resources to win, but won’t take the political heat of disengaging.
Which will not play well with the American electorate. And the current run of potential Republican candidates lacks anyone with strong national security credentials…or all that much support.
I have said before on this subject that successful COIN ops are IMPOSSIBLE as long as their are adj. “safe” areas there in PK ala Laos/Cambodia in SEA and in the Algerian conflict. Hence my view that arming and working thru the tribesmen–as opposed to trying to protect them with extended patrolling, etc,. is the way to go.
And as for Obama? We know from his recent track record alone that that he is capable of throwing ANYBODY under the bus–so I wouldn’t be getting too comfy in Af if I were McCrystal.
Of course McCrystal may have already figured all of this out–that Obama will let him “twist slowly, slowly in the wind ”
dribbling in just enough troops to let him (Obama) claim he is doing his best in supporting him during a time of “budget constraints” and then shit-canning him when things turn out badly, claiming it is McCrystals’ fault and that he, Obama, has done all that he can, “but one can only do so much,” yada. yada. yada. I think Mike M @1:12 and I have seen this movie before–Obama will avoid responsibility at all costs. As someone commented over at Wretchards’ place, Obamas’ entire career rests not on accomplishments, but on “working the angles”–whether it be not leaving a legislative record by voting “present” or getting ones’ political opponent disqualified and off the ballot in one case or exposing him to ridicule by getting court records unsealed in another–it’s all about working the angles. Working the “minority” thing to get on Harvard Law review, but not publishing anything that could expose him as the intellectual lightweight he obviously is on the other. He is, in short, a classic BS artist where glibness has been mistaken for intelligence.
(And it takes one to know one.
Once in the UK a comely divorcee I was dating looked up into my eyes during one of our more tender moments and asked: “Are you really smart, or are you just glib?” I knew right then I was going to have to drop her like a hot potato–her powers of analysis were far, FAR too keen for my own good. LOL)
Would agree with AW1 on NATO and its lack of worth. It’s nothing more than a club for wannabes, and their lack of guts and integrity are costing us in Afghan. We’d keep the Brits as they are occasionally dis-enfranchised cousins but still family. BHO has no real interest in winning any war except the one for the minds (and money) of the next voting public. I don’t believe KIA/WIA don’t mean jack-s__t to him, and he will not “fully resource” the war. The shame is that it is the poor grunt on the ground that invariably loses in these struggles, and while we “evaluate getting the strategy right”, we forget the fact that the Soviets stuck in 140,000 troops, in addition to 250,00 Afghan soldiers and still got their butts whipped. Unless we start a policy of KEASD (kill every armed swinging d__) we will lose since we aren’t willing to stay another decade or so with 150K or so in country and make sure the country can survive with a legit gov and a peaceful populace. We all know that the posturing for 2012 is already taking place and BHO’s ability to deny the loss of Afghan will be furthered by his increased UAV attacks in Pakistan, where we all know Al Qaeda – the real enemy – is hiding out.
G-Man/
Sorry to disagree–not with the fact that KEASD might not work–but that the Wilsonian idealistic part of the American publics’ psyche (or I should say neo-Wilsonian; Wilson was a cold-blooded SOB on the tactical level even as he was a strategic utopian idealist–the utopian idealism seems to be the part that has stuck) simply will not permit it. Far better to enlist the non-Taliban Tribal Chiefs to do it for us with our blessing and money–which they will only be too happy to do so with gusto. And as I’ve said before, THEY have staying power–they ain’t going anywhere.
[...] Neptunus Lex: …a forward commander cannot entirely commit himself to that decision, nor convince his leadership to support his strategy then he owes it to everyone to step aside. [...]
Actually, for a guy I have so little use for, Jim Webb acted honorably when he disagreed with the decision to decommission 16 1080 class frigates in ’88. And resigned as SECNAV to show his dissatisfaction.
While it might sound like mutiny and perhaps isn’t workable, how about the people most at-risk, the line grunts, making it clear that their service contract is not a one-way deal. If their boss(es) aren’t going to actively support them, then they should refuse to put their lives on the line. I’d support that. I can say that were I being asked to day-to-day face IED’s etc., and in such a rotten place, too, that my morale would be damned low enough to ‘just say no.’
SteveC, that WOULD be mutiny. Can McCrystal even resign from his position? He can of course, retire or resign his commission. I don’t off the top of my head recall whether he was subject to Senate approval, as the theater commander. If not, he can’t resign that job.
As to ‘kicking NATO out of NATO’, by all means, get them out of the A-stan. Half the trouble in A-stan isn’t the allied troops, though, it’s the incredibly confused chain of command that allied warfare always seems to generate. Get rid of it. If NATO wants to run an operation, they can pony up the majority of troops and take the responsibility for success or failure.
Yes, he can. No different than Fox Fallon’s resignation as CENTCOM. All three and four star jobs are nominative — that is, you get the rank, because you have the job (unlike all ranks and jobs below that). Don’t have the job, don’t have the rank. Biggest problem for him, is unlike the Fox, he won’t have the necessary TIG to retire as an O-10. Net effect is about $18K/yr. in retirement pay potentially lost.
When I worked at the CAOC in Vicenza during Allied Force, I saw the NATO command structure in use, in an offensive campaign. I am convinced that it cannot function in any role other than what was originally intended — a defense of Western Europe. The national caveats make synchronization impossible. Might work in a static defense — will never work in an air campaign. Probably won’t work in an insurgency.
After eight years of off and on bumbling in Afghanistan while being distracted by Iraq, many seem too quick to want a snap decision following an intentionally and inappropriately leaked report, designed to publicly pressure a biased result.
Fortunately, due process and appropriate strategic policy review still remain operational at the highest level, despite Pentagon politics and machinations pushing for a snap decision.
When the General dictates the mission of his own command, rather than executing the mission assigned from above as he is pledged to do, he legitimately risks the same fate of our “American Caesar,” Macarthur.
Trust Flit to characterize the General for a leaked report.
What next Flit, does he still beat his wife and kids? Who do you imagine “dictates mission statements”? We’re just silly fighting men and we follow our leaders. Do I need to factor in what both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say alongside what Obama says on top of what the Mc says? Can you make it any more confusing?
And it’s not really mission we’re talking about, but execution. The overall mission hasn’t changed – make Afghanistan governable by means of civil- and military-focused assistance, ie, building infrastructure and aiding good governance/removing the Taliban, al Quaeda, and whoever else from the equation. The general has, rather, reported that the current means for doing so aren’t working, and need to be changed.
Sounds like someone’s doing his damn job, really.
McChrystal 2012?
Works for me, with or without Palin on the ticket.
I don’t know his politics, but his career, and guts, indicate that he would place our country first, and understands the “enemies foreign and domestic” which threaten it.
Tim’s thoughtful and spot on comments (as usual) pretty well sum up the rest of the situation, and solution.
“The American general in charge of allied troops in Afghanistan is clear why they are failing. “A military force,” he said on Monday, “culturally programmed to respond conventionally (and predictably) to insurgent attacks, is akin to the bull that repeatedly charges a matador’s cape – only to tire and eventually be defeated by a much weaker opponent.”
“Since taking over in Afghanistan after Gen David McKiernan was prematurely sacked in June, McChrystal has switched the emphasis away from hunting down insurgents and has concentrated instead on looking after Afghan civilians.” (Harry Underwood, FirstPost).
Flit – kind of big change in heart for a specops guy ain’t it? Me thinks McChrystal brings some political baggage behind him between the Tillman snafu and his Task Force 6-26 so BHO/G can conveniently can him if/when the opportunity is ripe. They canned McKiernan to get a new direction and replace him with one who has “pressed for the use of counter-insurgency tactics”. So moving from offense to defense is immediate result COIN tactics? Sumpins up summers.
G-man — Yes, it was/is a big change of heart, I must confess.
But sometimes, WTFDIK.
I’m with ya on this one.
G-Man, COIN tactics in this case are not defensive. They are offensive.
Just like people thought convoys were a defensive measure. They weren’t they were offensive. The U-boats had to close the convoy to fulfill their mission, making them easy targets for the screen.
Similarly, the Taliban has to close with the population to have any effect in Afghanistan. That’s why we need to be with the population. Force the Taliban to come fight on turf of our choosing. And to do that, you need a larger force. It’s as simple as that. It ain’t rocket surgery.
Why doesn’t McChrystal resign NOW. Same applies to EVERYONE in the military. Every single soldier in the military NEEDS to resign. These soldiers need to say NO to giving citizens the poison [soul condemning] swine flu shots and say NO to the NWO fags.
If people would just seriously WAKE THE HELL UP NOW, the NWO can be DEFEATED. There is STRENGTH in numbers.
Dude,
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over….
I’m hoping that you forgot to add a sarcasm tag to the end of your rant, because if not, it shows a real serious ignorance of what soldiers do.
And don’t do.