The Runaway General (McChrystal Situation)

[Pangloss]

What a fast-moving story. On Monday night the press secretary handed President Obama a pre-release copy of a Rolling Stone article quoting General McChrystal and his aids as being critical of some administration officials, and today the general was recalled to Washington and called "immature" by the President himself right from the Cabinet Room.

 

Politico has a pretty decent run-down on the situation here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html

 

The actual Rolling Stone story can be found here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0

 

I have to say I read it front to back and I think it's a stellar piece of journalism. I'm not disagreeing with the administration -- it's definitely not the outright pasting that some pundits are suggesting, and it's mostly his aids doing the talking, but it is quite critical of certain individuals -- he's probably going to have to be fired. But I also think it's a sad statement about the situation. Isn't this the kind of man we WANTED to handle the situation over there? Yeah he blew it, and yeah it's not a perfect situation on the ground, either. But dammit, it's Afghanistan. It's six different kinds of messy, and we have to expect that.

 

Read the Stone piece, it's quite insightful about the situation on the ground over there. The last few pages are particularly compelling.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just to follow up on this, General McChrystal was relieved of duty a short time ago following a morning meeting with the President.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/23/AR2010062300689.html

[ParanoiA]

I don't know, I didn't read anything in that piece that I didn't expect out of a committed military man. Hello testosterone, that's the military for ya'. F*ck that person, screw that other guy and doesn't that one shiny shoe bureaucrat seem like a f*ckin snake? Where's the double shots and topless dancers?

 

I read the whole article, and just so happen to agree with its bleak message. I didn't, however, read any direct quotes from McChrystal about Obama. Just seems like the typical tug-of-war we get with civilian presidents and military generals. Not sure what the fuss is about. If McChrystal was openly criticizing Obama's policy, I never read it.

 

The piece is precisely about McChrystal. That's what I really took from it. All of the material about his aides, his crude remarks and simpler blue collar nature and respect painted a picture of the general for me and was entirely about him. I didn't get the sense he and Obama were adversarial or even poorly matched - I got the sense that this is what it's like when really powerful figures mingle and work together. A kind of behind the scenes reveal of such a relationship between huge positions of power.

 

Sorry, I guess I just expect this kind of relationship with any general and president. I never thought it was any cleaner than this.

 

That said, I hope McChrystal now gets more vocal than ever and shares the whole sorry mess with everyone. I've lost respect for Obama as a wartime president. I don't think he has what it takes. And I think it's because he just doesn't want to be there, and it morally challenges his nature and I sure don't blame him for that. Not being much a war fan myself, I understand the discomfort but I didn't run for president either.

[ecoli]

Shouldn't we want our top general to question policy when they don't agree with it? If our top military administrator thinks Obama is doing something wrong in terms of his armed combat policy, I sure as hell would want him to express that to whoever he could.

[ParanoiA]

Shouldn't we want our top general to question policy when they don't agree with it? If our top military administrator thinks Obama is doing something wrong in terms of his armed combat policy, I sure as hell would want him to express that to whoever he could.

 

You know, I really feel the same way. I didn't say it, because I'm not convinced it's sound reasoning.

 

On the one hand, I think we should want our leadership to question bad policy and we'd certainly be grateful if it resulted in changing that bad policy, or even as dramatic as removing a sitting president.

 

On the other hand, they can question all of this policy without going to the media about it and emboldening the enemy. It can't be wise to show the cracks in your leadership to your adversary - I would almost suggest that's the worst policy, by default.

 

So, I don't know. I'm torn.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think it's about criticizing policy. In fact, the impression I get is that Obama had been pretty much giving McChrystal whatever he asked for, and McChrystal played a big part in shaping policy. It's not like he wasn't allowed to speak his mind, or like he was ignored when he did.

 

That said, I really don't know what this is about. Reading the Rolling Stone article in question, it doesn't seem like anything worthy of a resignation. The candor was unprofessional, probably (I can't see that article written about Petraeus), but it wasn't even openly critical of Administration policy. Just disrespectful towards certain civilians, especially Karzai.

 

Basically, I really wonder what happened in that meeting before Obama accepted his resignation. To what degree was he "fired," and why?

 

I'll add that politically, this strikes me as a bad move for Obama. It will be way, way too easy to spin into a emperor's new clothes type narrative.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Sisyphus

[ewmon]

A subordinate has a duty to resolve his concerns on policies and orders with his superior. He did not suffer a momentary lack of judgment; this was a long time in the making for him and his team of yes-men ... the "bang" at the end of a slow fuse. A bad apple at the top rots the barrel faster than anything else.

[john5746]

I agree with ewmon, this was more of a last straw. I'm sure he offered his head, since he would demand it of a subordinate.

[ParanoiA]

I'm sure he offered his head, since he would demand it of a subordinate.

 

See, I'm kind of puzzled by this. He's maverick enough to shoot his mouth off, but then he does a 180 and apologizes and acts as if he deserves to be canned - even says he fully supports Obama's strategy. Then why in the hell did he shoot his mouth off to begin with?

 

Each act is in conflict with the other.

 

It feels more like a false display of respect and honor in order to save face of some kind. I'm just not buying it...something weird about all this.

[Sisyphus]

If you read the article, he's not really criticizing strategy. He's criticizing people.

[rigney]

If our country is to continue as America, no one should ever get their drawers in such a knot as to believe for a moment they can supersede the laws of this nation and continue to survive. Sorry McChrystal, but McAruthur was one of the most famous Generals in our history to cross that linel!! Shhhhhhhh!

What might the outcome have been had this super general had - had his way, who knows?

 

After brilliant offensives and the capture of Pyonyang in 1951, it appeared the Korean war was finished but the Chinese attacked the UN Forces, crossing the Yalu river with Four infantry armies, three artillery divisions, an anti - aircraft regiment and 260,000 men. The UN forces were forced to retreat and a standoff was achieved at the 38th parallel.

The U.S., during a lull in the fighting, announced that negotiations might be possible with both sides separated by the 38th parallel. As usual MacArthur rejected the idea of a negotiated settlement. MacArthur continued to make statements that were contrary to the official position of Washington, and specifically Truman. MacArthur had derailed the U.S. initiative by daring China to continue the war. The Pentagon received his message, which infuriated many high ranking officials. Acheson said that MacArthur had "shot his mouth off" for the last time. The next morning Truman awakened to the news of MacArthur's "sabotage". At that moment he could no longer tolerate the insubordination. Truman had considered firing MacArthur many times previous, but this was the last straw. Actually the order of Dec. 6 which MacArthur had disobeyed was explicit enough to warrant court-martial proceedings. MacArthur's statements were causing consternation in Washington as was his insulting personal letter to Ridgway. His advice letter to the House of Representatives again infuriated everyone. The British Government called the letter the "most dangerous" of an "apparently unending series of indiscretions". They claimed it was another irresponsible statement without the authorization of the U.S. or any U.N. member government. The Foreign Secretary complained that MacArthur wanted a war with China, and his leadership could no longer be tolerated. In reality, MacArthur did want to invade China, but in a dangerous way. He suggested using nuclear weapons against them if he was allowed to invade. On Apr. 6 a meeting was held with Truman to determine how to get rid of MacArthur. Truman insisted "I'm going to fire him right now".

Edited June 23, 2010 by rigney

[CharonY]

Also, from what I understand he was instrumental in devising the strategy to begin with. Thus he is unlikely to criticize himself.

[Dudde]

I don't know, I didn't read anything in that piece that I didn't expect out of a committed military man.

~~~

I've lost respect for Obama as a wartime president. I don't think he has what it takes. And I think it's because he just doesn't want to be there, and it morally challenges his nature and I sure don't blame him for that. Not being much a war fan myself, I understand the discomfort but I didn't run for president either.

 

+ 1 with pretty much ParanoiA's entire first post - McChrystal is the kind of guy I think should be leading in the president's boots ...not the "let's kill it" mentality, but the balls to back up what you started and get on a patrol in a deadly part of a warzone to see what your guys are going through.

 

It's unfortunate that he was fired, although from the article it kind of seems he'd prefer to be out of the position of power for the whole operation and back into a more subtle leading role where he doesn't have to play so many politics.

[padren]

What I want to know honestly, is if McChrystal was just shooting off his mouth, or if this was the result of systemic failures to communicate. If the lines of communication have been open all along and he suddenly decided to voice these views in Rolling Stone of all places, then I think he definitely went over the line - it's not the right channel for such complaints.

 

If this was the only channel left to him due to some sort of attitude problem in Washington then I'd say the administration has a larger problem than just this article. It doesn't look like that yet - I haven't seen anything that would imply McChrystal was getting tied down without being able to offer candid feedback.

 

It looks to me like the "failure in people skills" occurred on the part of McChrystal, who perhaps held his tongue to Obama when he shouldn't have, or should have found some way to relieve his reservations before they blew up in the form of a magazine article. I don't know enough about the background to consider that opinion conclusive though.

[Pangloss]

This is one of those events that doesn't seem to fit neatly into ideological niches. I heard both Democrats and Republicans approving of the firing, and I also heard both liberal and conservative observers (including both Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly) say that the article didn't seem that bad.

 

I'm not sure exactly what this event tells us. Perhaps it says something about President Obama's sensitivity to disloyalty, but if it does I don't know that it will be something specific to him personally -- it could be more of an "office" sort of thing (President Bush was notorious in his demand for loyalty). Or perhaps it says something about the need to have subordinates, at that level, stay on message 24/7.

 

Perhaps time will tell.

[padren]

This is one of those events that doesn't seem to fit neatly into ideological niches. I heard both Democrats and Republicans approving of the firing, and I also heard both liberal and conservative observers (including both Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly) say that the article didn't seem that bad.

 

I'm not sure exactly what this event tells us. Perhaps it says something about President Obama's sensitivity to disloyalty, but if it does I don't know that it will be something specific to him personally -- it could be more of an "office" sort of thing (President Bush was notorious in his demand for loyalty). Or perhaps it says something about the need to have subordinates, at that level, stay on message 24/7.

 

Perhaps time will tell.

 

I agree with you, I do feel like overall it's a loss though. I can't help but to think that if this is the best way for the tension that apparently was present in the situation to resolve, that there had to be better outlets that just couldn't be accessed, due to some failure in at least one of the people involved.

 

We are in a tight situation in Afghanistan, having the man at the head of our operations there recalled and go through this mess really doesn't help our situation. If there was anything either the administration could have done, or McChrystal himself, then an opportunity to help streamline our objectives (even if they need to be reconsidered) and get out has been missed.

 

Regardless of where blame sits, it's certainly both a setback and a failure for Americans to execute their collective intentions as a nation all in all.

[DrDNA]

What's the big deal?

Personalities clash and presidents and other "leaders" rearrange their organizations all the time.....

[ewmon]

What's the big deal? Personalities clash and presidents and other "leaders" rearrange their organizations all the time.....

Sure, but not the top man in the middle of a war (if an endless war could be said to have a "middle".)

 

I have no doubt that McChrystal is a soldier's soldier, but he knows Clausewitz's seminal On War states that, "War is a continuation of politics by other means". I think McChrystal no longer wished to abide by it. So this as well as our troop morale and our military's global image were the reasons why he's gone.

 

McChrystal lost the bubble, compromised our national security, and most likely extended the war which will result in unnecessary deaths. All for a couple of cheap shots at the pols.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not sure exactly what this event tells us. Perhaps it says something about President Obama's sensitivity to disloyalty, but if it does I don't know that it will be something specific to him personally -- it could be more of an "office" sort of thing (President Bush was notorious in his demand for loyalty). Or perhaps it says something about the need to have subordinates, at that level, stay on message 24/7.

 

And you know, I don't have much of a problem with that either, actually. I was listening to commentators and pundits berate Obama over this yesterday, about it being personal and how he is "decisive" to fire people for offending him, but "indecisive" about supporting the troops. Put that way, sure it sounds petty and imbalanced.

 

But I don't think these same commentators would be saying that if this was Bush dealing with a dissenting general throwing his staff under the bus to a music magazine. They would call the general unpatriotic, borderline traitor and how this emboldens the enemy and harms the troops and blah blah blah.

 

I don't think it's a flaw for the executive to demand loyalty. If that's what this is about, then I really can't blame folks for playing their roles faithfully.

 

I'm still just a bit confused about McChrystal's intent. His apology seems to suggest he had no idea that his comments were controversial. I find that difficult to believe.

[iNow]

This is one of those events that doesn't seem to fit neatly into ideological niches.

I think you'll find that there are a significant number of events which could be equivalently described if you just look for them. Not everything falls neatly into one of two polarized buckets, despite attempts from some to force it so.

 

 

I'm not sure exactly what this event tells us. Perhaps it says something about President Obama's sensitivity to disloyalty, but if it does I don't know that it will be something specific to him personally -- it could be more of an "office" sort of thing (President Bush was notorious in his demand for loyalty). Or perhaps it says something about the need to have subordinates, at that level, stay on message 24/7.

We also in the public have zero idea of what other encounters and exchanges between the two of them may have fed this decision. This thread seems to be treating the Rolling Stone article as if it occurred in a vacuum, but I'm inclined to think there were other grievances and tensions which reinforced the decision. Again, though... we in the public simply don't know, and we need to bear that in mind.

[Pangloss]

What's the big deal?

Personalities clash and presidents and other "leaders" rearrange their organizations all the time.....

 

Well at least part of the drama stems from the fact that it doesn't usually happen in such a public manner.

 

 

And you know, I don't have much of a problem with that either, actually. I was listening to commentators and pundits berate Obama over this yesterday, about it being personal and how he is "decisive" to fire people for offending him, but "indecisive" about supporting the troops. Put that way, sure it sounds petty and imbalanced.

 

I agree.

 

 

I'm still just a bit confused about McChrystal's intent. His apology seems to suggest he had no idea that his comments were controversial. I find that difficult to believe.

 

Yeah it seems a bit off to me as well. There may be some small piece to the story that we just haven't heard (as iNow points out very well above).

 

 

I think you'll find that there are a significant number of events which could be equivalently described if you just look for them. Not everything falls neatly into one of two polarized buckets, despite attempts from some to force it so.

 

As I often report here. And that's what makes politics interesting.

[waitforufo]

Obama had to fire McChrystal. A general is responsible for his staff. Their comments are his comments particularly when talking to reporters on the record. Since they were speaking so freely, they gave the impression that their comments were common in McChrystal’s inner circle. McChrystal’s comments were not so benign either. If Obama had not fired McChrystal, the military would have lost all respect for Obama, or at a minimum had their disrespect confirmed.

 

With regard to the selection of Petraeus. I found t that to be a bit of a surprise. Isn’t he “General Betrayus”. That’s what Obama’s best friends at MoveOn.org called Petraeus. In fact they just removed “General Betrayus” information from their website after Obama selected Petraeus. While Obama was a Senator the Senate voted to condemn MoveOn.org for their NY Times “Betrayus” advertisement, but Obama chose not to vote even though he was in chambers. Also while Senator Obama publically chastised Petraeus for is poor command abilities as demonstrated in Iraq. So if he wasn’t any good then, why pick him now?

 

Instead of picking Petraeus, Obama picked McChrystal. I seem to remember that he wanted someone more aggressive who could bring the war in Afghanistan to an end quicker. I also remember him taking quite a bit of time to make the selection. Well aggressive people are often brash as well. They also surround themselves with brash people. So now Obama has had to replace his personal pick to run the war in Afghanistan. This says something about his ability to pick military commanders and his ability to command the military.

 

One thing that can be said for sure at this point. The Afghanistan war is now Obama’s war.

[rigney]

C 'mon you guys, most of this prattle I'm reading here is just that, prattle. If you thnk for a moment this guy is and was the first and only officer to ever be kicked to the curb, read your history!! And if you think this bit of rhetorical grieving, one way or another is going to change things, you're wrong. We have kids over there dying practically every day to keep our asses free over here. Maybe these "hard assed" GIs would have liked to keep McChrystal as their boss, but he can't expect to kick his boss in the nu-s and expect it to work in his favor. As I said before, Mc Arthur was the perfect example.

Edited June 24, 2010 by rigney

[Pangloss]

But I like prattle....

 

Good memory on "Betrayus", waitforufo. Given Afghanistan's and the troops' enthusiastic welcome of his selection, I wonder if MoveOn.org regrets that moniker now. They certainly aren't touting it on their front page at the moment, and the ad referenced in this ABC News article from 2007 (talking about the ad) seems to have been removed from their site.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3581727&page=1

 

(Of course, the fact that the military surge (if not the final political goals) actually succeeded might have something to do with that as well.)

[Genecks]

...compromised our national security, and most likely extended the war which will result in unnecessary deaths. All for a couple of cheap shots at the pols.

 

Yeah, ok.

I live in America, not the Middle East.

If the enemy comes in America, the enemy will not be met with human rights by the general republic.

 

It's nice to see a report like this.

 

Regardless of the source the McChrystal chose, it was effective, thus showing that it's more about what an article says than who publishes. Being published in a subpar source and for people to discuss an article's important from a subpar source often says, "Hey, something unusual and extreme needs to be read." Hint: I think the Rolling Stones sucks. Maybe it's improved lately. I don't know.

 

Sometimes... I think people should just let the Middle Easterners battle it out. Let them duke it out.

If they were to get nukes, they wouldn't shoot them very far. It'd only be to the neighboring country, and that's it.

Let them have their war, battle it out, and get it over with. It seems like we're not letting the Middle East have its great historical battle.

It's like trying to stop two animals from hurting each other and supporting one side (it's a form of human selection).

Otherwise, just nuke them. Nuke the hell out of both areas. Tell people to get the hell out and stay out. Put McDonald's and Wal*Marts all over the holy land.

It's a losing battle as long as the religious zealots who want the land and find it important are still around.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

I think you misunderstand why the US is in Afghanistan.