General butts head publicly with the White House

[JB3]

Understood. And yes, if he canceled a strategy just because of this insubordination it would certainly be questionable judgment.

Here's the problem though; McChrystal is the most qualified and most knowledgeable person in the military right now to carry out that strategy. Even those that might prefer him gone acknowledge that. Obama has a choice; he can a) either admonish the general and make it clear that this was not acceptable and if it happens again he's done, or b) Fire McChrystal and take the very real risk that because of the loss of his leadership even more soldiers will die and the Afghan war will deteriorate to the point that it cannot be won. I don't care what your opinion on the war is; the loss of McChrystal would be a devastating loss at a time when they would need him most.

 

[JB3]

What progress made in Afghanistan? We're just getting deeper into the quagmire. President Obama is the Commander-in Chief. McChrystal should be fired for insubordination.

They're rooting out insurgency and training Afghan troops. The problem is that, while McChrystal's strategy HAS been working, support from Obama has been, well, lukewarm at best. The fact that McChrystal said what he said should be sufficient indication of that.

As I said in my previous post, Obama will take a massive risk if he accepts the resignation or chooses to fire McChrystal.

 

[MercuryJones]

Here's the problem though; McChrystal is the most qualified and most knowledgeable person in the military right now to carry out that strategy.

Possibly. It's rather a no-win position.

My own position is that he has to go. Insubordination can't be tolerated, and McChrystal has a history. No matter what his value, his continued presence in-role can have a pervasive corrupting influence.

If Obama decides to keep him on I won't gripe, because I understand why, but my gut would be to let him go.

 

[JB3]

Possibly. It's rather a no-win position.

My own position is that he has to go. Insubordination can't be tolerated, and McChrystal has a history. No matter what his value, his continued presence in-role can have a pervasive corrupting influence.

If Obama decides to keep him on I won't gripe, because I understand why, but my gut would be to let him go.

Mine would too. But in a situation like this, the gut decision probably won't be the right one.

What he could do is demote him and keep him on as a strategic advisor or some such nonsense.

 

[JayHawk]

Afghanistan is done.

Well BP at least you live up to your initials with that sort of quote....

 

[BostonPirate]

Well BP at least you live up to your initials with that sort of quote....

it's been ten years, and we have to stop calling it the afghan war. We are going to have to adjust our way of thinking and just accept that afghanistan, like S. Korea, will be a patron state, will always be a source of tension, and will have a permanent american presence.

Obama was stupid to not see that. It was a populist promise that can't be realized.

lets turn our attention to the borders of pakistan. Let afghanistan make its money by renting us a permanent base. God knows the central gov't can't function and wont for anytime in the forseeable future without us, so it is mutually beneficial.

we won the war when we overthrew the taliban, and last time I checked they were still out of power. Afghanistan is not an enemy. Our enemies live next door to it in Pakistan, al qieda up in those border hills.

If the afghanis want to have constant civil war, at some point, it starts being their war and not ours. I don't think we need to be a global police force.

SO for me afghanistan was completed when we routed the terrorists over to pakistan and toppled the nutso taliban.

Now it is a usefull diplomatic tool. I say we retreat to our bases, run operations against al qieda in pakistan, and whack the taliban when we can.

 

[kallipolis]

Until the last weeks of the Vietnam war the United States was winning .......or so we were led to believe, by a patriotic American media.

This infighting between the United States administration, and its military high command does suggest that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the current military strategy. Hopefully a more enlightened diplomatic initiative will encourage the participants to talk with one another and create a compromise whereby all foreign forces leave Afghanistan.

There cannot be a military solution to this war. The Taliban, and the puppet regime in Kabul must seek an accommodation that enables Western forces to withdraw from Afghanistan.

The economic downturn has brought a fresh sense of urgency to the absolute need to seek a diplomatic solution to this conflict.

Stanley McChrystal has understood that he alone should not bear the blame for the failure of The Coalition forces to defeat their enemies. Diplomacy must now replace the failed military strategy.

 

[JB3]

Until the last weeks of the Vietnam war the United States was winning .......or so we were led to believe, by a patriotic American media.

This infighting between the United States administration, and its military high command does suggest that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the current military strategy. Hopefully a more enlightened diplomatic initiative will encourage the participants to talk with one another and create a compromise whereby all foreign forces leave Afghanistan.

There cannot be a military solution to this war. The Taliban, and the puppet regime in Kabul must seek an accommodation that enables Western forces to withdraw from Afghanistan.

The economic downturn has brought a fresh sense of urgency to the absolute need to seek a diplomatic solution to this conflict.

Stanley McChrystal has understood that he alone should not bear the blame for the failure of The Coalition forces to defeat their enemies. Diplomacy must now replace the failed military strategy.

The military strategy has not failed. What has failed is the political will to allow the strategy to work as it was meant to.

 

[grantt]

It's revealing that nobody has disclaimed what Rolling Stone reported.

McChrystal has offered his resignation. The General's, and everyone else's, choice to speak with the magazine is their concern. The troubling assessments of Obama and his administration revealed in the article is ours.

Interesting, even after you brought it up, Nick, still no one has questioned any or all of the Rolling Stone report.

Now, as far as I have heard, McChrystal has not denied anything. I hope that the meeting with Obama is open to what was said, or allegedly said.

 

[NickCole]

saying Obama has contempt for the military is trollish and illogical.

its kinda creepy.

Neither trollish nor illogical to draw the conclusions he did from what Rolling Stone reported from General McChrystal and his aides, which has not been disclaimed. It may or may not be a correct conclusion but it's certainly not trollish.

What's kinda creepy is being so invested in protecting a public servant from reasonable scrutiny and criticism that you try to have it dismissed by ridiculing it as trollish.

 

[NickCole]

Interesting, even after you brought it up, Nick, still no one has questioned any or all of the Rolling Stone report.

Now, as far as I have heard, McChrystal has not denied anything. I hope that the meeting with Obama is open to what was said, or allegedly said.

Not much point in McChrystal and Obama discussing what was said. It is what it is, and the great crime is its truthfulness. It's evident Obama's not much engaged in what doesn't interest him, which is pretty much everything that's not about him and PR -- that's clear from Afghanistan to the Gulf of Mexico.

This is a fascinating situation because it's hard to believe McChrystal, et al, didn't know what they were saying, whom they were saying it to and the probable result. It's possible so many people were brain farting at the same time, but it seems almost like they wanted this to get out even if it meant resignations and firings. So now the ball's in the President/CiC's court and we'll see how Obama plays it.

 

[kallipolis]

The military strategy has not failed. What has failed is the political will to allow the strategy to work as it was meant to.

But the military strategy has failed. And miserably so. Why is McChrystal being so forthright, and even courting early dismissal from the army? McChrystal knows that The Taliban can count on recruiting more manpower as the Coalition governments lose interest and withdraw their forces as a result of increasing casualties, economic malaise at home, and a realisation that no progress is being made that will signal a successful conclusion to a nine year campaign.

As for the "strategy", since when is vague hope a strategy? The Coalition forces have been in Afghanistan for some nine years. Casualties are the highest they've ever been. The Kaubl government that is being propping up is known solely for its corruption, cronyism and incompetence. The army and police are universally loathed for the same reasons. Karzai blatantly rigged his own re-election. Local control is largely in the hands of warlords, and opium production is the only thing that's soaring.

The Soviet Union placed some 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan with no restraint on how they dealt with their enemies. They lost, and withdrew to Russia to lick their many wounds.

The UK ambassador to Afghanistan has just resigned and made his views very clear when stating that a military campaign, alone cannot secure the objectives of the coalition governments.

Unless there is a clear will to compromise and negotiate with the various warring factions in Afghanistan, the coalition is faced with another military defeat for the United States, that resembles the chaos the Americans created in Vietnam and the surrounding region.

 

[kallipolis]

This blog entry struck me as being sufficiently pragmatic to encourage me to believe that McChrystal should survive his tet a tet with President Obama. But of course the president's hangers on, otherwise his entourage of advisors, and experts might feel much too aggrieved to forgive and move on with the "strategy."

I quote:

Jenn Kepka, in her Saturn Smith blog on Open Salon, cannot see what the fuss is about, instead focusing on the general's record in Afghanistan.

Are there really still presidents (and vice presidents) who believe they are loved and feared completely on the fields of war? Are there really that many diplomats in Washington who have such fragile feelings that they must vent their displeasure in person, removing a general from the theater of war, to feel their honor has been adequately satisfied?

 

[NickCole]

This blog entry struck me as being sufficiently pragmatic to encourage me to believe that McChrystal should survive his tet a tet with President Obama. But of course the president's hangers on, otherwise his entourage of advisors, and experts might feel much too aggrieved to forgive and move on with the "strategy."

I quote:

Jenn Kepka, in her Saturn Smith blog on Open Salon, cannot see what the fuss is about, instead focusing on the general's record in Afghanistan.

Are there really still presidents (and vice presidents) who believe they are loved and feared completely on the fields of war? Are there really that many diplomats in Washington who have such fragile feelings that they must vent their displeasure in person, removing a general from the theater of war, to feel their honor has been adequately satisfied?

Regardless of Obama's honor (or lack thereof) or his feelings, what's objectively relevant here is chain of command. It was flatly wrong of McChrystal, et al, to tell Rolling Stone for publication what they said of the President and his administration. He should resign or the Commander in Chief should fire him.

But it won't surprise me if Obama doesn't. Afterall it was fine with Obama that his nominee for Treasury Secretary who heads the IRS was aligned with Wall Street and was a tax cheat. And Obama hasn't fired Interior Secretary Salazar, who promised to overhaul the corruption out of MMS, didn't do it and allowed the errors leading to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Heck, Obama didn't even know if the head of MMS had resigned or been fired.

Although, that said, it's true that Obama's been publicly embarrassed (there's nothing embarrassing to him about tax cheating or oil messes far from where he hangs out) and that may hit Obama where he lives. It'll be interesting to see how the Frat Pack play this one.

 

[MercuryJones]

Kalli, that's bogus.

It's not about the President being loved. It's about normal expectations of anyone in uniform and the Military Code of Conduct.

 

[MercuryJones]

Interesting, even after you brought it up, Nick, still no one has questioned any or all of the Rolling Stone report.

Well some of us have Nick on ignore so there's that.

 

[BostonPirate]

Well some of us have Nick on ignore so there's that.

I have him on ignore so I missed it too.

I guess the answer to the whole did you read the article arguement is just this....

It should never have happened. it was conduct unbecoming an officer and I am not interested in hearing it. I won't give his actions and interests validity or attention due to the way he conducted himself.

He gave the military leadership a black eye. I don't want to reward the behavior.

 

[MercuryJones]

I mistakenly referred earlier to the Military Code of Conduct when I should have referred to the Military Code of Justice.

What McChrystal did is covered under Article 88 of the Code:

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

And here is the explanation.

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

Emphasis added, above.

Regardless of the reasons to keep McChrystal - and Keith Olberman voiced some last night - I don't see a way to do it.

 

[BostonPirate]

thanks for posting that, jones.

"shall" is a non negotiable word there.

if this guy walks away with his job, any lingering support I have for Obama will end.

 

[palemale]

It's revealing that nobody has disclaimed what Rolling Stone reported.

McChrystal has offered his resignation. The General's, and everyone else's, choice to speak with the magazine is their concern. The troubling assessments of Obama and his administration revealed in the article is ours.

I haven't read the article yet, but I did read what Huffington Post termed the "most notable quotes" from the interview. I'll have to pick up the magazine. However, if what Huffington Post printed represents the most substantive comments from the interview (and I don't know if they are), I would not call them "troubling assessments" so much as griping and complaining about Obama and some of his staff. You know, a lot like CE&P on JUB. If those quotes are representative of what is in the interview, I'm not surprised the administration didn't respond. Why should they?

Bush handed Obama a shit sandwich in Afghanistan. That war was lost two months into it. The government there is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent. No matter how well the military performs, they can do nothing about the lack of political will among Afghanis to build a stable, functioning country.