Stan McChrystal will be allowed to retire with four stars according to the White House, although he had not yet served the three years customary in that grade:
“The president believes and has talked with Secretary Gates about this, and we will do whatever is necessary to ensure he, somebody who has served the country as he has, can retire at a four-star level,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.
An Army spokesman confirmed Tuesday that McChrystal informed the military of his retirement on Monday, though he has not yet filed his official papers. The process of leaving the service takes several months.
The decision is both gracious and politically astute, but must be ratified by the Senate, which I think is likely.
VDH says of the McChrystal/Petraeus swap that the former had to go and that the latter is our only hope:
David Petraeus had earned a much needed respite with the CentCom command. Yet here we go again calling on his talents, after his recent brush with cancer and his fainting spell. The odds are against Petraeus this time; but I remain hopeful for this reason: if Petraeus cannot win Afghanistan, then it is not winnable for Americans. And I tend to think it is very winnable, if Obama cuts out the withdrawal talk, keeps his differences with Karzai private, gives Petraeus free rein, and brings in someone like Crocker on the diplomatic side. Right now we must have only the best. A General Mattis at CentCom would do wonders. A Crocker/Petraeus/Matthis team would be like finally getting Grant/Sherman in control.
No pressure, general.
I generally agree with Hanson but he unwittingly highlights the underlying misconception that bedevils us in his phrasing. Petraeus CAN’T win Afghanistan. Neither could McChrystal.
The military may win many battles and even campaigns on its own, but wars require the strategic commitment of elements of national power beyond the command of “mere” generals. That’s why we have a Commander in Chief. The only men who CAN win wars is the President, and even then only with substantial help from Congress.
…if Obama cuts out the withdrawal talk, keeps his differences with Karzai private, gives Petraeus free rein, and brings in someone like Crocker on the diplomatic side.
Yeah, sure. Can you say…pipe dream.
Kris, agree, will not happen.
As to gracious, only because it was politically advantageous for BHO. I would not call that gracious. A political move that may be perceived as gracious, or kind, but not by me. BHO did not make that call out of the kindness of his heart.
Hush money–it’s the “Chicago Way” after all.. (But of course it’s not the relatively small amt of additional pension payout that’s important to a guy like McCrystal, it’s that 4th star. THAT’S what’s most important to a career soldier–and Obama is smart enough to know it)
An Army spokesman confirmed Tuesday that McChrystal informed the military of his retirement on Monday, though he has not yet filed his official papers. The process of leaving the service takes several months.
Hah. Even if you drag your feet between stations and take a coffee break every hour, you have to be extra-creative to drag retirement outprocessing longer than four days.
Otherwise known as the face-saving “decent interval”–that’s all the “several months” process is–”face-saving”–for Obama, that is. He doesn’t want to be seen as giving a respected war-fighter (the polar opposite of himself) the disrespectful “bums-rush” so is hoping the cameras will all be somewhere else months hence when McCrystal walks out in civvies. Obama is more than willing to give McCrystal all the time he wants to avoid a major news conference a week from now by McCrystal with everything fresh in the public’s mind. America’s attention span is short and months from now all sorts of other things will be crowding out news air time and news-paper column space.
It took my father 2 days at Lackland. The worst part of it was equipment accounting and turn-in. Took 1 whole day (he ran a mess hall). The 2nd day was just catching the right people in their office.
Of course, Lackland, at the time, wasn’t all that big. It’s more than doubled in size since Kelly, next door, was closed and Lackland absorbed the airfield and ranges from Kelly AFB. I have to wonder what McChrystal has to turn in, or account for.
Perhaps the admirable team of Patraeus, McMaster and our great troops could win.
However, the despicable team of Obama, Clinton, and the anti-Amerikan insane clown posse that surrounds them can lose the war, especially with pull out dates, public disputes with our allies (if we still have any), and whining about military spending while larding up defense bills with unrelated pork.
Also, the enemy gets a vote. We do not fare well against rabid jihadis willing to kill any man, woman or child to retain their 8th century culture. This is a clash of cultures.
Odds are heavily against us, and the uniformed side is the only bright spot in a situation that can rapidly deteriorate.
I find *Fatuous Bob* Gibbs almost as insufferably smug as his Boss. How dare that wuss patronize McChrystal? McChrystal may have stumbled verbally into this mess, but he is a brave and good man. And, as I may have mentioned before, I think Petraeus is a great general — stalwart, honest, and an Artful Dodger of stupid Congressional questions that probably should never have been asked. Petraeus has great, unshakeable patience, a crucial quality in a military leader.
Marianne
I agree Marianne. Though I do wonder at the intestinal fortitude required to have that “great, unshakeable patience” when confronted with the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Biggs and P.BO.
It’s often said “We can’t kill our way out of A’stan.”
Baloney. Of course we can. We just aren’t willing to do so.
Until we’re WILLING to kill our way out of A’stan all our efforts at COIN, helping win hearts and minds, water & Ag projects and so on, are going nowhere.
Need to get back to convincing the region we are the strongest tribe. That we are indeed, “No better friend. No worse enemy.”
Mattis and Patreus: dogs of war. Let ‘em loose.
bah,,, edit: make that “Petraeus”
You’re assuming the President wants to win in Afstan, a pretty questionable assumption. I find it more likely that he (and his evil minions) are much more interested in political posturing. It’s what they know.
That’s my point.
We can win;
if we (collectively) want to win;
if we are willing to (could get political support) do what it takes to win.
Give Mattis the job and leave Petraeus in his present post:
(I am aware that quote is out of context)
“On February 1, 2005, Lieutenant General Mattis, speaking Ad libitum at a forum in San Diego, said “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.” Mattis’s remarks sparked controversy and General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement suggesting that Mattis should have chosen his words more carefully, but would not be disciplined”
Maybe its me and the lateness of the day but the General Mattis quote does little except to portray the General as knuckle draging Neanderthal…is such a thing possable ? Best
Nah! He’s right. It is fun to shoot certain people. Men that slap women around would probably be at the top of my list.
Sounds more like Mattis is a Warrior’s Warrior. Nothing wrong with that when you need that sort of man. And, alas, we do now.
Have you ever heard Mattis speak, Snake? I have. Full 40 minutes at a Midway Memorial dinner. The man is brilliant, eloquent, sharp, witty. He captivated that audience of Sailors, Marines, local politicians and various strap hangers like myself.
Mattis is the consumate warrior monk who plies his trade by day and studies on it by night.
I come at this with the attitude of the eternal company grade officer… made 04 in the reserves but that dosen’t count…
…as I said, my comment was prompted solely by what Gen Mattis is quoted as saying…in what sounds like a casual venue…off the cuff remarks, friendly crowd, some drinks maybe?…unfortunate things get said… the Commandant get involved…a hand slap for the old gent… cut him some slack…not surprising.
…that said… and I’m sorry to go on like this, but whenever I hear or read about a senior officer…05 and above…of whatever stripe going on and saying that combat is a “hoot” and “its fun to shoot some people”…I think Sweet flippen Jesus… here it comes…its easy for you to say…you’re at a podium or in an air conditioned trailer somewhere or at a cool 1000 ft above me in the deepening sh*t…screaming orders over the radio, as my RVN BnCO ( one uber dick-head he was) once did…I get a tad exercised and my company grade-ness rears its ugly head…because, as most here know, its at the true tip of the spear…the operational/company/platoon/squad level were the Generals mission gets brought down to earth and accomplished…and it will get accomplished but know well that my people…some poor/glorious grunt,scout,tanker,cannon cocker, ect… be he Dog or Jarhead is going to pay the piper….I sure hope its worth
Cynical…you bet…but this is where I’m comming from… it’s not a hoot or terrible lot of fun to be down-range of live fire…
… nor is it a hoot or terrible lot of fun to watch some poor fu*k who was trying to kill you only moments before exsanguinate in agony at your feet…draw his last breath, loose control of all his bodiliy functions and die…Best
PS, Sorry I went on so…Happy 4th and make sure to fly the flag
I am not historian enough to know who Belisarius was, but VDH’s mention of Petraeus as Bellisarius caused me to look him up. A bit unnerving to discover he was the last of the winning Romans..
Bellisarius was a Byzantine — Rome had fallen a century before he was born, and Bellisarius was a *winning* general because he didn’t organize his army around the Roman model. The Roman Army’s strength was its infantry, but Bellisarius was a horse soldier, and created a corps of heavy cavalry capable of scouting, skirmishing, and breaking an enemy line.
It would be more proper to call him the first of the great medieval generals rather than one of the last of the Roman ones.
Constantine is often regarded as the 1st Medieval monarch, which I would agree with. Bellisarius did start the move away from the heavy infantry Roman model, which was a major break. The Horse was not a good adjunct to an Army until the invention of the Stirrup. I think Bellisarius had the stirrup whcih allowed the rider to meld with the horse. prior to that, a rider’s position while mounted was somewhat precarius.
“….prior to that, a rider’s position was somewhat precarious.”
Hey, tell me about it! Bareback w. an Indian-blanket as a pad is how I learned to ride! (Probably break my a** if I tried it now.”)
You may have this somewhere before. maybe way back when in your early 50s.
You are too old for that trash. KnowwhatImean?
Lawn chair + Barbancourt = ?
Much safer.
Only the western part of Rome fell then, the eastern remainder soldiered on, more or less, until 1453.
Yes, I use the word ‘Roman’ loosely, as including the “Eastern Roman” Empire, to describe one who embodies classic Roman values. Even in his own time Belisaurius was evidently seen as such, and he was the last general ever to receive a “Roman Triumph” albeit in Constantinople.
He served the Emperor Justinian, in the 6th century AD, so it is doubtful that he used the stirrup. His cavalry were probably closer kin to Alexander’s companion units than to mounted medieval knights.
I haven’t seen anything definite that sates when the stirrup was invented. It was soemwhere in the 6th to 8th century. Some one here may “Know,” but I haven’t seen a definite source yet. Without it Cav wouldn’t accomplish much. The early Romans had Cav, but it was always an auxiliary to infantry and wasn’t of a great deal of use.