Gen. McChrystal

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

For those of you who haven't heard...General Stanley McChrystal, the guy in charge of our efforts in Afghanistan, various aides, and some soldiers blabbed in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine about how much the Obama administration's management of the Afghan war sucks. The RS mag comes out on Friday. McChrystal issued an apology but has been summoned to Washington to meet with Obama and his Al Capone baseball bat to "explain his statements."

Many soldiers agree with McChrystal as they disagree with the big no-no of talking smack about the CIC publicly. Afghan pols are rallying to McChrystal's side.

CNN is claiming that McChrystal is going to tell Obama, "You can't fire me, I quit."

Here's Jeb Babbin's take:

http://biggovernment.com/jbabbin/2010/06/22/obama-cant-fire-mccrystal/#more-135594

Here's Monica Crowley's take:

http://biggovernment.com/mcrowley/2010/06/22/mcchrystal-goes-rogue-again/

Byron York has a good piece on the Washington Examiner's website but it's doing a number on my browser.

Here's what I think. It's not a good thing for a general to be mouthing off about the CIC's policies, character, etc.. McChrystal and his aides may have gone too far by going to the media with this. It sets a bad precedent.

But I can, even as a civilian, understand his frustration. Obama and his military-hating cronies are not committed to winning. Political considerations have overtaken military strategy. Either McChrystal pulled this stunt as a way to get Obama's attention--and the public's attention--back on Afghanistan or as a way to get off a sinking ship.

We have never learned the lesson of Vietnam...we cannot let politicians, the media, and eggheads run a war. They don't want the soldiers to get their uniforms dirty. You're more free to kick @$$ if you're on a football field than on a battlefield thanks to ROE that read like they were written by a 21-year-old hippie chick. If you commit to a war, you go in all of the way or you stay home. Winning comes from not the hearts and minds crap, but from utterly psychologically crushing the enemy and making them sorry they ever messed with you in the first place. My plan for Afghanistan would have been along the lines of turning the Hindu Kush mountains into a parking lot and wiping out every Taliban mo-fo without mercy. Take nothing off of the table. Once it's all said and done, you can send in the missionaries and start the work of turning the place into the next Japan or Germany.

Comments

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

If you commit to a war, you go in all of the way or you stay home. Winning comes from not the hearts and minds crap, but from utterly psychologically crushing the enemy and making them sorry they ever messed with you in the first place.

My view, exactly.

Whatever the reasons, I hope he doesn't let Obama and his bullies beat him down. Although it seems they already have, if he issued an apology.

[majorsamfan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's not just a big no-no...it's like against the uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) or something.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I'm a visiting lefty, so obviously you'll want to take my comments with a grain of salt, but I think your reading of the situation is not quite in line with the facts, notably informed by the Rolling Stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236) which started the furor.

You maybe skeptical of the the “hearts and minds” approach, but McChrystal is not. The COIN (counterinsurgency) strategy which he advocates is explicitly opposed to the use of ovewheming force to compel the coöperation of the Afghan populace with the nascent Karzai government, which we support.

COIN does call for a strong military presence, however. McChrystal asked for another 40,000 troops to implement the strategy, and Obama signed off on both the strategy and the deployment of 30,000 more troops to execute on it. Obama has given the General most of what he asked for.

Also, as for the “lesson of Vietnam,” please forgive me as I shift from facts to interpretation and put on my liberal hat. I think you would do well to read up a bit on the “dolchstosslegende,” (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dolchstosslegende+vietnam) perhaps starting with an article I found from Harper's. (http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080)

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

Byron York in his piece mentioned this and it's true a lot of the rules of engagement and other policies in Afghanistan are McChrystal's.

As for the rest of it, heard it many a time before.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Either McChrystal pulled this stunt as a way to get Obama's attention--and the public's attention--back on Afghanistan or as a way to get off a sinking ship.

What? Obama's been focusing on Afghanistan far more than the previous administration, and it's one of the few major campaign planks he's actually followed through on. As jonathankorman said, McChrystal's virtually been given a blank check to do what he likes in Afghanistan, so it's weird that McChrystal feels the need to bite the hand that feeds him.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

Whatever the case may be, there's definitely friction between McChrystal and his staff, and the administration.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

I disagree that Gen. McChrystal should've aired these feelings in this way and at this time. There was an excellent article about how, in the end, this boils down to rotten leadership from the CnC. The article is here (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/22/did-obama-reap-what-he-sowed-with-mcchrystal/) at HotAir and makes the case that McChrystal isn't the first to go to the media with problems with the war but Obama should never have allowed anyone to do so, but he did and this breakdown in discipline is the result (seems like it was OK when it was an opinion the President liked, but now that someone is making him look foolish its time for heads to roll). Not that excuses anything, but you reap what you sow.

That said, I am very concerned that Obama will dismiss Gen. McChrystal at a critical stage of the war. If he does this, he will have a convenient scapegoat to blame when things go south, which they will, due to the abrupt change in leadership.

It was also implied that Democrats might decide to alter or even withhold funding for the war over this. That would be the most ridiculous political stunt in a long time, to put the success of an entire war in jeopardy over some name-calling.

Edit: love this passage over at Big Government:

Shortly after President Obama assumed the Commander-in-Chief duties, he retired the existing commanding general in Afghanistan and hand-picked his successor: General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal was always known as a brash and outspoken military man, an expert in counterinsurgency, greatly respected by the troops under his command, and as having little patience for fools.

His requirement to have to answer to Obama, then, was a trainwreck waiting to happen.

[link (http://biggovernment.com/mcrowley/2010/06/22/mcchrystal-goes-rogue-again/)]

[sreya.livejournal.com]

*snickering* Yeah, that Big Government passage is a good one.

[sreya.livejournal.com]

On the McChrystal issue specifically, I have to agree with those saying he should have kept his mouth shut. Sorry, it's part of being a military officer, and while it sucks, there ARE good reasons for it. It'd have to be something really serious for me to accept an officer speaking out like that... I can't even think of a good example off the top of my head.

But on the way to run a war - I'm a big believer in international norms, and support the concept of international criminal law. But the ban on "disproportionate use of force" really makes my head spin, because that's how you win a war. If you limit yourself to your enemies' abilities, the war is going to drag on forever, which will ultimately kill more people, usually most of those civilians. This goes double when you're fighting an enemy that targets or abuses civilians, be it genocide, mass rape, forced labor, or some other abuse. It's actually one of those issues I hope to really dig into some day and do some writing on, because most of the scholarship these days definitely makes me feel like the theory has taken precedence over reality.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Didn't know Crowley was at Big Government, good for her.

She may be right: heads, I win; tails, you lose.

[trevelyanl85a2.livejournal.com]

It's sad really how Obama's so uninformed and has a complete lack of respect for the military.

And apparently McChrystal resigned today? :(