The Afghanistan plot thickens, as though that was even remotely possible:
The top US commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington in the wake of a magazine article that quotes him and aides criticising senior Obama administration officials and diplomats.
Gen Stanley McChrystal has apologised over the article in Rolling Stone.
In it, Gen McChrystal is quoted as saying he feels betrayed by US ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry.
The general’s aides mock Vice-President Joe Biden and say he is “disappointed” with President Barack Obama.
A White House official said Gen McChrystal had “been directed to attend [Wednesday's] monthly meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person” rather than by teleconference…
The BBC’s Quentin Sommerville in northern Afghanistan says the article highlights the long-suspected divisions between the US military and administration officials.
One of the main targets of the article appears to be Mr Eikenberry…
“Are you asking about Vice-President Biden?” McChrystal asks. “Who’s that?”
An aide then says: “Biden? Did you say: Bite Me?”
Another aide refers to a key Oval Office meeting with the president a year ago.
The aide says it was “a 10-minute photo op”, adding: “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was… he didn’t seem very engaged. The boss was pretty disappointed…”
Another aide refers to national security adviser, James Jones, as a “clown stuck in 1985″.
Of an e-mail from US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, Gen McChrystal says: “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke… I don’t even want to open it.”
Oh, boy.
This sort of thing is what happens when a senior officer and his aides, under pressure, blurt out the truth. Biden is indeed something of a stuffed shirt, and the president has been disappointing to many people who once hoped for more.
Update: Most of the general’s dissatisfaction appears to have been generated by friction with US ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who was himself a 3-star general and former commander of US forces in Afghanistan. The sometimes controversial COIN changes that McChrystal has instituted are changes to Eikenberry’s policies, while the ambassador has declined to release funds to sponsor the kind of local anti-Taliban militias and infrastructure upgrades in Kanduhar that made the Sons of Iraq game changers in the Sunni-dominated Iraqi province of Anbar. As for Holbrooke and Jones, well: Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Back story here.
Some officials said (McChrystal) has built his relationship with Karzai at the expense of candor. In some instances, he has chosen a less politically controversial path, U.S. officials said, citing his decision to work with Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president’s half brother, rather than stress his alleged criminal activity.
“If I don’t have credibility with President Karzai, then I think I can’t be an effective commander here,” McChrystal said. “And it doesn’t mean just getting along with him and telling him what he wants to hear. It’s convincing him that I’m being a reliable and honest interlocutor with him.”
Eikenberry, meanwhile, has had to deliver tougher messages about corruption and governance that often upset Karzai, and his rapport with the mercurial president has seemed to suffer.
During a lengthy policy review in the fall, Eikenberry argued against sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. And U.S. officials said he continues to think that the United States should find other Afghan figures, including provincial leaders, to work with rather than rely so heavily on Karzai. Eikenberry’s position infuriated Karzai, who often views U.S. support for “sub-national governments” in Afghanistan as a threat to his authority.
Eikenberry reports to State, and State is unhappy with the level of corruption in Afghanistan. McChrystal has chosen to deal with the devil he knows, who also happens to be the democratically elected president of a sovereign state, however corrupt that process may have been. State wants a perfect partner, McChrystal appears to have taken the longer view, declining to let perfection be the enemy of “good enough, for now.”
Analysis: If Eikenberry and McChrystal could have gotten along in the Iraq mold of Petreaus/Crocker , they would have done so by now – both are savvy enough to know that you can’t shape effective policy in Washington by dividing in public in Kabul. If they can’t get on the same page, one of them will have to go, and I suspect it’s going to end up being McChrystal.
And based upon the way Afghanistan was allowed to slide during Eikenberry’s military oversight, it’s nothing like clear to me that McChrystal ought to be the one to go. But that’s the way the stone will probably roll.
Update 2: It’s worth at least considering that this is not a gaffe, but a carefully considered way of getting out before the walls come down. If the war has become, for whatever reason, unwinnable, do you go down fighting, or do you engineer an exit? I know what I would do, but then I didn’t have a 3-star reputation to protect. Probably because I didn’t have a 3-star’s political instincts.
If you’re ready to cross over the tinfoil hat line, you may want to even consider it a kabuki theater organized all the way to the top masquerading as an exit strategy.
Wheels within wheels.
Update 3: Glenn Reynolds, via Politico -
McChrystal’s greatest crime is speaking the truth — that the White House is unserious about this war, and that its foreign policy team isn’t up to the job. And if he were saying this about a Republican administration, the press would be hailing him as a great hero, speaking truth to power.
Nonetheless, serving generals aren’t supposed to speak this way about their civilian masters, and so if the Rolling Stone reports are true, he should probably be sacked.
But once that’s over, we need to look seriously at the Administration’s neglect of the war in Afghanistan (and its neglect of events in Iraq, for that matter). In addition, McChrystal’s remarks, which sound kind of punchy, taken together with Gen. Petraeus’ collapse in front of Congress last week, suggest that out military leadership is worn out. That deserves attention, too.
And then there’s the Wapo’s Jackson Diehl:
The real trouble is that Obama never resolved the dispute within his administration over Afghanistan strategy. With the backing of Gates and the Pentagon’s top generals, McChrystal sought to apply to Afghanistan the counterinsurgency approach that succeeded over the last three years in Iraq, an option requiring the deployment of tens of thousands more troops. Biden opposed sending most of the reinforcements and argued for a “counterterrorism plus” strategy centered on preventing al-Qaeda from establishing another refuge.
In the end, Obama adopted what is beginning to look like a bad compromise. He approved most of the additional troops that McChrystal sought, but attached the July, 2011 deadline for beginning withdrawals. Since then both sides have been arguing their cases, in private and in public, to the press and to members of Congress.
McChrystal may be at fault for expressing his frustrations to Rolling Stone. He is not at fault for the lack of coherence in the Afghan campaign or the continued feuding over strategy. That is Obama’s responsibility.
Well, yes. But you surge to Afghanistan with president you have, not the one you wish you had.
Update 4: The emerging consensus among the chatterati is that McChrystal will have to go. Which is probably true, one of the risks of falling on your sword is that it hurts. But then the question becomes, who would replace him?
With the nomination of Marine General James Amos for Commandant of the Marine Corps, I happen to know that General James Mattis happens to be available for four-star work. The guy certainly has a way with words.
Update 5: The Rolling Stone article itself. Read for content – and not for the reporter’s reflexively anti-military spin – it’s not so bad, really. The “Biden who?” thing was about keeping his mouth shut if he had to answer a question about his previous disagreement with the vice president at a dinner party in Paris.
The article is not precisely a hatchet job, but it has handed a hatchet to McChrystal’s many foes. If the general does in fact tender his resignation – as is rumored – the real question will be 1) whether the president accepts it, and 2) who, if anyone, can rescue the mission.
Having offered to resign, the general has effectively taken the high road from a low spot. I wonder if the president has the courage – or wisdom – to match the general’s?
You really think it was an accident? I doubt McCrystal is so careless. It doesn’t fit the profile.
The timing couldn’t be worse for Obama, with growing doubts about his personal leadership qualities and questions about the fundamental competence of his administration.
I think he just raised the ante. “Go ahead and fire me. Punk.”
Agreed. I think that this is the Good General’s way of forcing the press to examine and consider what he said about the White house and State Department’s naivete and incompetency.
He’s falling on his sword, having done what he could to help the troops and complete the mission, in the hopes it will steer policy to the true course.
Ever been in a job with so little support, looking at the inevitable failure directed by higher HQ policy, and wanted out so bad you stopped caring about what anyone thought? That is what I think of when I read this- the General deserves to go, but like the original GW said upon his relief: “I am fairly out, and you are fairly in. See which one of us will be the happier.”
I would tend to agree. I don’t think any senior flag worth their stars’ precious metal content would be so dumb, especially in front of Rolling Stone – of all the tabloids. PeeBO’s plate is getting mighty full between oil, Afghanistan, 10% (or is it really 20) unemployment, deficits, and the impending implosion of the economy due to the looming tax burden on 01 Jan 2011.
Speaking truth to power is only appreciated by those out of power, it appears.
Send Obama to Afghanistan to community organize it into shape! Why didn’t anyone think of this before?
That’s the ticket! Grand idea.
ACORN and SEIU would fit right in. Mayhaps they can post some clips on You Tube to show the success of their efforts.
But in a poor country, there is no money to extort for Union dues…they’ll decline to attend…economy being what it is and all. Stay home and suckle at the taxpayers milk glands…
Oh, I don’t know. There’s the poppy crop and the mines. Plenty of revenue potential in those, and I’m pretty sure neither ACORN nor SEIU cares how the revenue is generated.
And SEIU will help all those poppy juice cutters by unionizing and get a bigger share of the street price for Heroin in NY and LA, and keep those horrid corporate Heroin farmers from cheating those poor Afghans.
Hey, it worked for Tomatoes in Florida.
Yet more evidence of the lack of leadership skills and executive experience on the part of the empty suit in the Oval Office…um…I mean on the golf course.
McChrystal is probably wrong in the way he revealed his personal views of the chain of command and the diplomatic partners to whom he is shackled.
However, Obama, Eickenberry, James and the rest of the cabal of incompetents McChrystal complains about are FAR MORE WRONG!
Out nation suffers, and our troops die and the war in Afghanistan is spiraling down to defeat, if not already defacto one. Was that the “change we can count on?”
Nice way to blow the story about how we are funding the Taliban (with US Taxpayers $$$) via warlords right off the Front Pages…POTUS’ media friends will bury the corruption story and how we are funding those that kill our men….To crucify the one man we need now more than ever.
The Media would rather bluster about McCrystal letting his gueard down and saying what is already known…That the OBOTS are lightwieghts and well out of thier league…no news there…McCrystal should be given the “Compassionate Constraint” medal for holding back this long…
That said, he is in an Article 88 UCMJ bear trap and will have to weather the storm…He’s a Spartan at heart and should come out this with another battle scar to add to his already lengthy collection.
Let’s be honest, for better or worse wearing read tabs, four stars or bagging groceries being caught dumping on your boss and his minions is never going to end well.
Not knowing all the facts and circumstances of that particular time and place nearly sixty years ago, I’m seeing the makings of a General MacArthur do-over here. However right General McChrystal may be in his assessment of the AF and our National Command Authority, I think Lex nails it in saying that when the stones roll it will roll over the good General.
I’m somewhat in agreement with Flatlander that General McChrystal knows, or thinks he knows, what he is doing in taking on the White House, but in the end P.Bo is his boss…and a boss has the power to hire and fire over such a trivial matter as one’s ego. Again, that stone will roll, and General McChrystal is pretty much downhill of that bad boy.
For the General’s ploy to work he has to count on an exit strategy with the WH that works, which in my case would be ‘either support me fully in the work I do in the AF, or count on my becoming your single greatest critic…a very vocal critic, mind you…once you fire me and I return to the private sector.’
Don’t forget about ADM Fallon’s firing a couple of years ago…
Byron York in the D.C. Examiner claims people who have known McCrystal say his personality is such that this was an accident waiting to happen. Perhaps so. Because as others have pointed out already abut the RS article, if McCrystal felt he wasn’t gettng the support he needed and/or was being actively hamstrung/backstabbed by State, there are many time-honored ways to anonymously leak in order to get the word out.
OTOH, perhaps he is foolishly under the illusion that he holds the hole cards in that he is seen as the hand-picked General of both Gates AND Obama to pull the Af thing off and that, while Obama may regard Af as merely a distraction/impediment to his domestic agenda, he doesn’t want to be seen as being the President who *lost* the very war he himself (Obama) said was the one truly important one. If so McCrystal is deluding himself. Obama, natoriously thin-skinned as he is, will simply fire him and then blame McCrystal for whatever occurs, claiming McCrystal screwed things up so bad that they were un-fixable in the time-frame which “everyone” signed onto going into the surge w. the fixed bug-out date. Obama really doesn’t care about breeding grounds for terrorism. The more threats to America the better the reason to consolidate his power domestically. Obama wanted a General to take Af (but not terrorism) off the nightly TV news, not defeat the enemy. The “surge” was forced upon Obama by Pentagon PR leaks. Now he has the perfect excuse to fire McCrystal, halt casualty-producing active COIN ops and shift to almost exclusively bombing from the air w.o. producing US cas. Holder will hold off the “war-crime” anti-UAV crowd–besides, only white people can produce war crimes. Nobody will dare charge Obama with those–his Generals, Majors and Ssgts, maybe, but NOT a “progressive” with a middle name of Hussein who is also a “person of color.”
But I also think that he just might have taken a reading on which way the wind was blowing and didn’t like what he saw, so thought better
Concur with all. The other point that occurred to me after posting earlier is that Gen. Petraeus will, necessarily, be brought into the spotlight. On the one hand, if he defends his Commander-In-Chief, as he technically should, Gen. McChrystal comes away looking like the loose cannon that some suspect him of being. On the other hand, the less likely one, Gen. Petraeus could defend his subordinates concerns, which would really set off the White House. Imagine two senior command figures descrying the White House’s (mis)management of the war. I don’t expect Gen. Petraeus to go that route, but it would, IMO, be the higher of two roads.
As for comments from SecDef and JCS, I believe they’re generally seen as the President’s lap dogs…happy to lick their master’s face. They’ll get a fair amount of face time on MSM, but not many are going to take what they have to say with much more than a grain of salt…or a cuppla shots of Barbancourt.
Methinks Obama will be tarred by this no matter which way it goes. McChrystal was his boy and he fired McKiernan to put his boy in. If the Obamabot isn’t supporting his people, and supporting a bad relationship between the military and his coterie of Chicago thugs, then it comes to down the Obamessiah. Just a bit more tar waiting for the feathers.
re Update Two: There’s four stars on McChrystal, not three.
Disregard the last 2 sentences–should have been erased.
It was so funny to hear the chattering tongues on Morning Joe this morning, including those with the inside scoop. What a difference a day makes! Back when dissent was patriotic, four stars dissing the commander in chief was a good thing.
Now? Off with the heads of the insubordinate!!!!
I know, VX, I know — expecting consistency from this crowd is setting yourself up for disappointment. I’m not disappointed — completely predictable.
…and State is unhappy with the level of corruption in Afghanistan.
Because it hasn’t reached the level in Washington? Darn those underachievers…
Ain’t that the truth?!?
Far more important than BHO or any General -how in the world is this being received by the troops on the ground that are still going thru the meat grinder?
Terrorists and their support groups have to be on their knees saying “Allah Akbar”.
I’ve been wondering the same thing… Makes me sick to my stomach.
Ron,
You nailed it. I look at the open contempt that Yon has earned for his contempt of the command and strategy in AF from milbloggers and wonder, did they miss that he was out there watching this train wreck happen and started to openly express contempt for a chain of command that is idiotically executing an idiotic strategy by imposing tactical stupidity?
I’m one of those that think that there’s war or not war. There is no in between. It looks like AF is striving for a twilight.
and gosh! corrupt politicians in AF, who’d of thunk? It’s not like we have that little problem.
…And Curtis is still pushing his fetishistic worship of Mike Yon to new heights. Maybe we should hire an ex-SF NCO without any under-fire military experience, and a huge ego to run our Southwest Asia strategy?
NOT helping, Curtis.
Yon offers sufficient value to me that I still read him. Need to use filters of course, but (excepting THIS blog), where do you not need to.
Plus, anyone that sole sources their info deserves the ignorance they get.
A few other blogs are beating the bushes trying to drum up support for banning all civilians, embeds, reporters/journalists, etc. from “war zones”. Sorry, I am as disinclined to let that happen as I am to allow a career military person jump right over into being a Presidential candidate. IMO, neither scenario is good for our country.
Ron, Yon is just one of many possible sources, and after the last few months follies I just don’t have the energy to sift the wheat from the chaff in his work.
My main objection here is that this fiasco somehow validates Yon’s recent descent into narcissism. Not so. A careful reading shows several stories woven into a single thread for the Stone piece, along with a healthy dose of fatuous naivete from McChrystal’s staff. They went to Paris, let off steam, and did so in front of a reporter. Bad idea.
This in no way “proves” that Yon is the most recent incarnation of Nostradamus, or that he is some sort of military-journalist-genius, with powers & abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
I thought that part of the reason for McChrystal’s appointment by Obama was that McChrystal would agree with the horseshit ROE proposed by the Obama minions. Now I doubt that McChrystal’s replacement will be any different.
This war is going to come to a bad end–just like the Russkis, we’re going to lose it–but for a different reason. Flaming incompetence at the top will get you that result.
“Well this is a fine kettle of fish, Stanley.” H/T Oliver Hardy.
Are you really that old?
“It certainly is” Stan Laurel
Honest question: Does any of this verify Micheal Yon’s reports, or is that another issue altogether?
Best regards, Peter Warner.
First Michael Yon said he had “incontrovertible evidence” that McChrystal was conducting a smear campaign against him. That was how many weeks ago? Did he ever produce it?
He said his embed was ended to prevent him from telling America that we’re not winning the war. Because… no one else has ever said that. Ever. Yon would have been the very first reporter to criticize the war effort.
When it was suggested his embed was ended due to his inability to work and play well with others, he flourished a letter from PAO to “prove” his embed was ended because his time was up and there was a waiting list. Inconveniently, this is precisely the version of events Yon claimed was a lie when it first came out, but no matter. Times change and a good writer must change with them.
On Gordon Liddy’s show the other day he said he has no idea why his embed was ended. Which is odd, because he had previously said it was ended to keep the truth about the war hidden. Or possibly those lying PAOs were telling the truth? D’oh!
Personally, I believe all of these stories. Is there any reason they can’t all be true? And I think that McChrystal’s willingness to talk to the press proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to keep the media from saying we’re losing the war. It’s kind of a shame that the Rolling Stone article concluded that we’re losing, but the important thing to remember is who said it first.
I’ve come to see Yon as a contrarian indicator. If he thinks it over, we may well be on the cusp of something good.
I’ve never believed that Obama really wanted to win in Afghanstan. Since that is not the main act, I have long proposed that Obama’s real goal is to politically neuter Petreious and the US military. They form part of his opposition.
McChrystal is just refusing to go along with Obama’s destruction of the reputation and crushing of their morale of the military as happened after Viet Nam. He sees the lives of his soldiers at risk from Obama’s strategy.
Either way, McChrystal’s career is screwed. My guess is that he’s “taking one with him.” He understand the primacy of civilian leadership but knows that dissent by a military leader is a political act and decided that the nation was better off this way.
As a civilian, I admire his courage and his self-sacrifice.
As always the MSM has dived into the tank for BHO. As Krauthammer said “Just as the sun rises in the East the MSM ……………..”
And the point is, Coco? As in: why are we not surprised?
“In the end, Obama adopted what is beginning to look like a bad compromise.”
With regard to war-fighting strategy, all compromise is BAD compromise.
You’re on the right track there, sarg. Obama was dragged kicking and screaming into endorsing a surge only because the Pentagon’s leaks publicly embarrassed him plus he was on the record as saying that the war in Af was the “good” war. Of course he only said that as a club with which to beat Bush about Iraq policy. Now he’s saddled with Af which, as everyone knows, he views mainly as a distraction from his domestic policy. So he compromised and tried to placate his critics on the right by sending “something”—and partially (nothing short of abject surrender would have totally appeased them) placate his leftoid base by trying to win on the cheap by sending 30k rather than the 60-80K McCrystal viewed as ideal. This in itself sowed the seeds of the internal doctrinal tensions we now see surfacing as limited means try to accomplish out-sized ends.
Seems the good General has just resigned.
With respect to Mattis, the white board at the White House looks something like this:
Pros: Apolitical; Understands Chain of Command;
Cons: Marine; Speaks Plainly; Interested in Winning;
Agreed. Color me happily stunned if it turns out to be him.
The cons would kill him with the sorry lot in the WH these days.
Obama will never appoint a Marine as CinC in A’stan. Especially one who is interested in killing our enemies, advancing American interests, and winning the war. i would be amazed if Obama offered and even more stunned if Mattis accepted the handcuffs they will put on any CinC over there.
Knowing Mattis as the true professional, he would take the position if offered, but he would make “removing the kid gloves” a requirement going in. R.O.E. need to reflect the seriousness of the situation. A little fear goes a long way!
Lotta turmoil back in DC as well. Unfortunately, confidence in leadership has a certain amount of momentum that’s difficult to reverse once it starts down a bad path.
On a good note: it looks like Raymond Domenech will be able to take over when Rahm leaves. He seems to understand the Administration’s leadership style and should be able to deliver comparable results.
He’s only stated outloud what many are thinking silently. I suspect we’ve seen the last of McC. It would be pretty entertaining to watch the Circus try to find the replacement, if it wasn’t such a serious matter.
At the BBC’s update of Lex’s topmost link, “He [McChrystal] adds: “Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honour and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard.” After reading the entire article, I doubt the first sentence and concur in the second.
And, as VX pointed out this morning at 8:43 am, above, “Byron York in the D.C. Examiner claims people who have known McCrystal say his personality is such that this was an accident waiting to happen.” Again, after reading the article, I’ll say that Byron York must have talked to the right people.
When I learned in the article that McChrystal had voted for Obama, I really began wondering about how sharp he was, and the soldiers described near the end of the article must have thought about the same — but for different reasons.
A general who began believing his own press clippings?
Sorry, but I don’t see much “personal honour and professional integrity” on display (even taking into account the author’s bias).
Meant to say “the Rolling Stone” article — which Lex kindly provide a link to in his Update #5.
Why is everyone using this to disparage the President. You might disagree with his policies, but McCrystal is the one at fault here. And where, by the way, are the military officers in the chain of command above McCrystal? If a Navy Captain was accurately quoted in the press saying the same things about Roughhead and other senior officers do you think he would keep his job? McCrystal owes it to his oath and his honor to speak frankly and honestly to power. He also owes it to his oath and his honor NOT to speak thus to the press while a serving officer. If he wanted to say these things, he was duty bound to resign first.
Now, why is the President being put in the position of having to fire him, or not. Why isn’t Patreus requesting the relief and retirement of an insubordinate officer who reports to him? Frankly I am not happy with Obama – but I am also not happy with McCrystal’s lack of judgement and integrity. And I seriously wonder about the integrity, honor, and honesty of the entire senior professional military above McCrystal for not actively and publicly condemning these actions as unsuitable for any serving officer.
If, as alleged, McCrystal is a loose cannon around the press, then his immediate superior should have made damn sure that this exposure to Rolling Stone did not take place.
Obama obviously had little experience with military officers and the military in general. You think this incident is going to help? How can you expect him to trust and respect the professional opinions and judgment of senior officers when they pull this sort of crap on him?
What’s the difference between a reporter in your command and a cobra in your boot when you wake up? Not much.
Either one will kill you if you don’t handle them with great skill and care.
Question is..Why doesn’t a General know this?
I left a comment at The Donovan’s place, kinda imagining meself as Gen’l Mc Chrystal, called on the carpet in the Oval Office.
Imagining oneself as a career military guy in a serious service, answering silly questions from a silly pretend President, and not giggling, well, that would take some manly self-control.
Question is..Why doesn’t a General know this?
Interesting commentary by Monica Crowley addresses this very matter.
I don’t think, at this point, that General McChrystal is playing chicken so much as he is preparing to end his career with dignity and integrity. Should I ever meet the man…first Guinness is on me…or Bud Light Lime…whatever.
This just in from the UK Telegraph: General Stanley McChrystal offers resignation to President Barack Obama
Yeah, right…What feels better? Accepting someone’s resignation, or going all Donald Trump on them and saying “You’re fired!”?
Yes, sports fans. In WunWhoWon’s case, the question is rhetorical…
Figures. I always thought he was an honest man.
Mongo,
I would think so – if an officer of McChrystal’s rank really was blindsided during an interview with Rolling Stone then he really just doesn’t have a lot going on upstairs and deserves to be fired on that score alone. I’m not yet in so pessimistic a place that I can believe an officer like McChrystal has that little media savvy – but in some ways this makes it much worse, particularly if he believes that President Obama* and his entourage are undermining our military in Afghanistan. This is quite bad on a number of levels, especially considering that if the jihaddis ever do get their act together enough to mount a half-way effective terror campaign in the US we will need not just effective civilian-military cooperation but a deep bond of trust between the military and politicians – if the alienation on the fringes of the Democratic Party toward the military becomes more mainstreamed (and vice-versa) then the military becomes a political football in a divided (and potentially highly dangerous) domestic environment. I know, lots of hand wringing in the context of two big ifs, but it has been a long time since this level of insubordination in the midst of a major military operation has occurred.
(whose genius in picking Biden becomes clearer every day – how many patriotic American conservatives literally would have to interpose themselves between our President and harm,if only to ensure Biden never is in the Oval Office)
The really shaky part of Islamic terrorism coming here is the deep distrust between much of the population and the Police. The Police are far too politicized to trust, and too many are becoming loose cannons.
Simultaneously, if we do get terrorism here, the civilian population, and not just the Police (who are civilians, whether they admit it or not) will have to pack heat. The left will really love that.
Sorry, Mongo, but if McChrystal did this deliberately I have to call it a coward’s way out, instead of standing up & resigning like a man. Even if they politically savage him, and drop him two grades in rank, he still quits with a pension & benefits which are the envy of most Americans.
If you don’t support the mission, if you can’t support the mission, then quit. It’s just another application of “lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
McChrystal took the rank, he took the pay, and I expect him to take the responsibility too. They don’t promote men to flag rank just for the extra milk & cookies.
But then, I propose a radically different point of view: the Stone article was both faithful to the facts & accurate, the General and his staff are a bunch of idiot jackasses who think they’re smarter than everyone else, and the Stone reporter was accurate in his description of McChrystal as a lifetime bad-boy who can’t color within the lines, and shot himself in the d**k.
…Of course that interpretation leads to the question: didn’t anyone do any deep background on this guy? If nothing else, someone can be a good line officer but a terrible staff or theater officer.
I’m left wondering how McChrystal got this job in the first place. Wouldn’t running a “hearts & minds” counterinsurgency campaign require a leader with excellent political skills? Hard to imagine Gen Petraeus or his staff mucking it up in this fashion. McChrystal must have done a great job killing the bad guys at JSOC, but this war — as presently conducted — seems to have little to do with killing at all. The unfortunate conclusion is that he was a bad hire.
Richard North has the following to say on the matter at hand. If he’s even in spitting distance of the truth, the times we live in have just become a tad more interesting.
North sees it a bit differently than I do. As far as Obama taking the hit, we agree. As far as the military needing an alibi and scapegoat, I don’t agree. Obama already gave them a scapegoat in his own person by refusing to fulfill the request McChrystal made on the manpower front. Also the Ambassador is a moron that has been trying to ruin things over there instead of sticking to the normal portfolio of an Ambassador.
Just as Bush ahd Bremer in Iraq, Obama has Eikenberry in Kabul. Bush didn’t deal with the incompetence of Bremer, and Obama is doing the same with his moron in Kabul.
[...] Rolling Stone – “This sort of thing is what happens when a senior officer and his aides, under pressure, blurt out the truth. Biden is indeed something of a stuffed shirt, and the president has been disappointing to many people who once hoped for more. [...]