Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Firing McChrystal: Weighing the Risks
I have been struck by the degree to which a lot of smart friends are in disagreement about what should be done about l'Affair Rolling Stan. In some ways, the argument about whether or not you dismiss Gen. McChrystal for comments made by the commander and his staff in this Rolling Stone article breaks down into unhappily familiar lines. Critics of the current strategy in Afghanistan unsurprisingly think McChrystal should be fired. Supporters of the strategy think that while the comments made to Rolling Stone were out of line, McChrystal should be retained in the greater interest of the war effort. Neither side, that I have yet seen, has acknowledged that either course of action would carry risk. The purpose of this post is to outline the risks of dismissing Gen. McChrystal as the commander of ISAF in response to the affair. This is an uncomfortable post to write. I very much admire Stan McChrystal and have looked up to him since my time in the Rangers when I fought in Afghanistan under his command. I know the man personally and worked with him last summer in an effort to analyze the war in Afghanistan and NATO/ISAF operations there. And so there may be a limit to how objective I can really be, but I'm a defense policy analyst, so I'm going to try and soberly analyze these risks without letting my admiration for McChrystal get in the way. I'll let you be the judge as to how well I succeed here.
Dismissing Gen. McChrystal
1. If you think the current strategy in Afghanistan is the right one -- and that is a big if -- this is not the ideal time to change commanders. (By contrast, if you feel the strategy in Afghanistan needs a radical change, this would be the ideal time to change commanders.) Shaking up the command in Kabul for the third consecutive summer would throw operations into temporary disarray. A new commander -- Jim Mattis, anyone? -- might not feel comfortable with all of his subordinates or staff and seek to change them, which would be his right as the commander but not so great in terms of continuity. Most crucially, the relationship between the president of Afghanistan and the new commander would have to be re-built. If you think the strategy in Afghanistan is the correct one, then, you are risking mission failure by replacing the commander and his staff at this stage in the conflict. You are in effect arguing that healthy civilian-military relations are more important than winning in Afghanistan.
2. In dismissing Gen. McChrystal, you may be dismissing the wrong American. The person who emailed Noah emailed me as well:
“It would be a travesty if we fired McChrystal and kept Eikenberry.” Not only is McChrystal the “only one with any sort of relationship with [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai,” says this civilian NATO advisor. But Eikenberry “has no plan, didn’t get COIN [counterinsurgency] when he was the commander and still doesn’t.” Plus, the advisor adds: “The Embassy hates Eik. That’s not necessarily an indictment (I’m no fan of the Embassy). But it contributes to the dysfunction and it means that half the Embassy is focused on keeping Eik in line.”
I would further add that Amb. Eikenberry has been, in my opinion, as intemperate in his comments and actions as Gen. McChrystal. Ahem.
Retaining Gen. McChrystal
1. Here is Article 88 of the UCMJ:
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.
If you do not dismiss Gen. McChrystal, what message does that send to junior officers? The president aside, both Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Mullen have an obligation to hold their four-star field commanders up to the same standard to which they hold lieutenants. Failure to enforce the standard establishes a new standard. And no officer is irreplacable.
2. But the same person who made the point about McChrystal and Eikenberry also noted that in every single review of best practices in counterinsurgency, unity of effort is at the top of the list. "Every. Single. Review." It's obvious we are not singing from the same hymnal in Afghanistan. Can we ever as long as McChrystal and Eikenberry serve alongside one another? I am not sure, which is why I suspected that Eikenberry would leave his post. But in the end, Eikenberry might be the one who stays, and McChrystal might be the one who leaves. I still think it would be best for one of them to go.
In conclusion, I believe there are grounds for dismissal or other discipline under Article 88 of the UCMJ. But I also believe the president has every right to say that while Gen. McChrystal's statements to Rolling Stone were shockingly inapparopriate, there is a greater good here, and that greater good is stablizing Afghanistan. In the end, your opinion on whether or not Gen. McChrystal should be dismissed might come down to whether or not you think the current strategy is the correct one for the war in Afghanistan. My own prediction is that Gen. McChrystal will be retained. As much as critics of counterinsurgency like to blame Gen. McChrystal (and nefarious think-tankers, of course) for the current strategy, the reality is that the civilian decision-makers in the Obama Administration conducted two high-level reviews in 2009 and twice arrived at a national strategy focused on conducting counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. I suspect the president will not replace the man he has put in charge of executing that strategy with just 12 months to go before we begin a withdrawal. On the other hand, there are those who will argue that the principle of civilian control over the military is more important than whatever national interests we have in Afghanistan. And that is a legitimate argument to make. We just need to be honest about the risks both courses of action carry with them.
Civilian control of the
Civilian control of the military, even if one has doubts about the particular civilian in question, along with the example set for those further down the food chain trump the other arguments. Plus his demonstration of utter stupidity.
Count me as one critic of
Count me as one critic of the current strategy who thinks he should NOT be fired!
Love him or hate him, GEN McChrystal is an inspirational figure in the Army officer corps. He and GEN Petraeus will be critically important in the eventual rebuilding of the US Army. Institutionally, we need his voice and leadership.
I, for one, think that GEN McChrystal would make a great Army Chief of Staff. GEN Casey has miserably failed in that position and has less than a year left in his tenure.
Could McChrystal be transitioned to the CSA slot? This may not be a bad compromise.
I'm more concerned about keeping his perspective and leadership in the Army than I'm concerned about keeping him in Afghanistan.
On balance, has anything McChrystal done even approached the gross incompetence of GEN Casey in Iraq circa 2004-06?
Could McChrystal be
Could McChrystal be transitioned to the CSA slot? This may not be a bad compromise.
So that we could have two straight CSAs who got the job by failing in operational commands?
There are risks to all
There are risks to all strategies. The bottom line here is that the strategy of the US in Afghanistan is incoherent because its foundation is a functioning, legitimate, centralized government of Afghanistan, which we do not have and by no rational expectation will we ever have. Everything follows from that. It also means that as long as it's the strategy, it really doesn't matter who's in charge.
As for Stan, I certainly didn't approve of his appointment last year. It was my opinion that the best possible commander for Afghanistan would be a Marine or an officer with understanding and appreciation of unconventional warfare and the so-called "soft skills" that make UW a most difficult enterprise, not a door kicker. Afghanistan is an UW environment. But I remember when UW got the boot in Special Forces in the late 1980s and the Rangers were welcomed with open arms. Well, that's what the Army wanted for Special Ops--no subtlety. The door kickers got promoted and the UW officers didn't. So what we got was Stan and what Stan represents--sheer arrogance. I've been waiting for Stan to put his foot in his mouth in a major way, and now he's done it.
But you're probably right. Stan's the face of the Obama "strategy" in Af'ghanistan and as long as we've got that strategy, Stan's the one to carry it out. Such as it is.
The only rational, practical, and moral strategy is an exit strategy. For that, we'd need a new team. Get rid of them all--Holbrooke, Eikenberry, and McChrystal. We might need a new CENTCOM CINC too. The problem is, who's truly qualified to think and act in those terms?
The Marines are generally pretty good in pulling our asses out of the fire. So, let's put the Marines in charge in pulling our asses out of Afghanistan.
If I knew only knew about
If I knew only knew about that portion of the UCMJ I wouldn't have said all those terrible things about the Secretary of Transportation when I was interviewed by Rolling Stone.
Most of the same arguments
Most of the same arguments could have been used over in the firing of the Canadian Afghanistan commander last month. The Canadians bit the bullet on that one.
I note you weren't quite as equivocal with McKiernan's firing.
The point I think you elide is that, if this is allowed to stand, the number of people in the hierarchy who will start talking to the press, given the obvious lack of consequences if they do, will overwhelm the number of available reporters. I don't think you can do third-party COIN without strong message discipline on the home front, and this erodes it uncomfortably.
Oddball advice from the
Oddball advice from the peanut gallery: First, demote McChrystal on the spot. Give him acting powers as needed to command forces in Afghanistan.
Secondly, assemble a court-martial under article 88. After finding of fact, issue Presidential pardon.
General is under President's thumb, COIN has continuity, everybody wins except McChrystal, who nonetheless has a chance to redeem himself.
Fantasy, I know. But, two cents, and a penny here, a penny there...
At the end of the day,
At the end of the day, Stanley McChrystal is still Obama’s guy for the job. Removing McChrystal for insubordination would effectively undermine the current strategy for Afghanistan which still borders on the precipice of failure. If McChrystal is relieved of his command, the move would be emblematic of a much larger indictment of the current strategy. Sure, no officer is irreplaceable, but McChrystal is no ordinary officer. It took years before COIN came out of the shadows, it could be just as long to find another McChrystal who fully grasps what needs to be done to rescue Afghanistan from failure.
The administration needs to close ranks, seal their lips, and just wait out the storm. McChrystal ultimately used the wrong forum to express his feelings towards his colleagues involved with the Afghan conflict. Obama has been placed in a precarious situation nonetheless, but I doubt dismissing an enormously competent general is going to get him out of it.
This 'affaire' seems to me
This 'affaire' seems to me to be mostly media fluff, stoked by the silliness and egoism of DC. Based on the article itself, there is no underlying news or story here. In the whole RS article, the only direct reports about McCrystal's words or actions have to do with his dis-interest in going to a fancy dinner and his exasperation, right before said dinner, at getting an e-mail. McChrystal's comments about Biden seem more associated with trying to figure out how to deal with what he seems to perceive as poor communication.
All of the other things--the comments about Obama, Jones, Eikenberry, Holbrooke, et al., are all asides and comments--that is, hearsay, from his staff members. They seem affected by the groupthink one might naturally expect to occur in such a situation (groupthink, after all, is not just common beliefs--its also a set of other effects, including the association of a moral character to the group and its beleifs, and disparagement of those who do not share them). Such effects, moreover, are more likely to be found in subordinates, rather than leaders, afflicted with group think.
Yes, it was silly to let the reporter have such access. And perhaps McChrystal needs to reign in his staff a bit. But honestly, there is no evidence--nothing--here that suggests to me that McChrystal is guilty of treating anyone with particular contempt (certainly of the sort associated with Art 88) or that could be the substance of a civ-mil relations problem.
Tom, the Eikenberry slag was
Tom, the Eikenberry slag was also a direct McChrystal quote. Just bein' pedantic.
"I very much admire Stan
"I very much admire Stan McChrystal and have looked up to him since my time in the Rangers when I fought in Afghanistan under his command. I know the man personally and worked with him last summer in an effort to analyze the war in Afghanistan and NATO/ISAF operations there. And so there may be a limit to how objective I can really be"
"... there may be a limit to how objective I can really be"" That's just what the Washington Post's ombudsman said about AM's September book review of Jon Krakauer's "Where Men When Glory" in which AM ridiculed the existence of the Army's Tillman cover-up as a "conspiracy theory." On Nov. 2nd AM posted about what he called "Kraukauer's crappy book report" .
You can see my previous comments in "Where Men Win Glory" -- Andrew Exum & the Whitewash of Gen. McChrystal's Role in the Cover-up of Pat Tillman's Friendly-Fire Death"
at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2010/01/new.html
. . .
It's rather ironic to see all this talk about firing McChrystal again (remember last September?) Especially when just last year, President Obama fired Gen. McKiernan for no reason other than Petreaus, Mullen, etc. wanted McChrystal as the savior of the Afghan war. In doing so, President Obama ignored McChrystal's involvement in torture at Camp Nama and McChrystal's central role in the cover-up of Tillman's death and the fabrication of his Silver Star.
I've literally just posted "The Emperor's General" -- President Barack Obama and the Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal’s Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman’s Friendly-Fire Death. This document discusses the events surrounding McChrystal's nomination and promotion last year and the bi-partisan cover-up to protect McChrystal. There's also quite a bit of McChrystal biographical info pulled together there.
You can find this doc at http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2010/06/emperors-general-president-...
. . .
Obviously, I'm not a big fan of McChrystal. By all accounts he's been an excellent SF soldier. Maybe he's the best hope for Afghanistan. I don't know enough to comment on whether Pretreau's and CNAS COIN strategy makes sense. But, he pissed me off with his treatment of the Tillman family. I don't really care about retaining McChrystal for the "greater interest of the war effort".
But instead of seeing McChrystal fired over insubordination, I'd rather see those involved in the Tillman cover-up to suffer some consequences. At least public embarassement. eg President Obama, Congressman Waxman, Senator Webb, Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Thom Shanker, etc.
If people are looking to the
If people are looking to the UCMJ for an answer, you're barking up the wrong tree. Beyond the fact it's tenuous (and I mean tenuous) imagine the logistics of anything related to a UCMJ process for a 4 star. You either serve the President or you don't at those heights. And if you don't, you go home.
And you're darned right its a travesty happening at this point in the war. And that's why one word sums this up: Selfish. It was selfish what was said. Selfish that they allowed this reporter to do this story right now, and selfish by all those who fired way past their lateral limits with a reporter in house.
Explain that to all those families of sailors, Marines, soldiers and airmen who lost something of themselves, if not their lives, fighting there and now might see our last best chance at keeping ourselves out of a semi-permanent (for genrations) presence in Afghanistan/Pakistan that might be ended at least in part because people who should know better can't keep their eyes on the ball. Hello to 20-30 years of drones and operators roaming those parts picking off people. I hope that's not where this leads, but today didn't move us any further away from that.
1. Another rock and hard
1. Another rock and hard place for this administration.
2. General McChrystal is very much needed.
3. General McChrystal has been disloyal -a mortal sin in any military worth its salt.
4. Fired people who were disloyal. Can see no reason why the CIC shouldn't.
5. Consequences be damned.
6. Given a situation where virtually all of our effective foreign policy is channeled through the military, am uneasy about tolerating disloyalty in that organization.
7. Regardless of what decision is made, am sure we'll be afflicted by a fine set of unintended consequences.
8. Best wishes to all concerned.
V/R JWest
Couple of points: first,
Couple of points:
first, it's interesting that the Transportation Secretary is singled out; are general officers free to be as rude as they like about the Attorney General or the Health and Human Services Secretary?
second, seriously, the Eikenberry point brings up the central failure of the US effort in Afghanistan from its inception: its complete inability to grasp the importance of unified command. It's point one in Nagl's list of "how to win at COIN", IIRC. And the US not only can't muster a unified coalition command, it can't even manage a unified US command. Aren't there still US troops running round the border region outside ISAF control, reporting only to CentCom? There certainly were recently. Unbelievable. And I'm willing to bet that Eikenberry, McChrystal and Petraeus are all in the dark to some extent about what CIA is doing in the area.
The debate over McChrystal's
The debate over McChrystal's future seems largely divided between those who think 1) his comments are a firing offence and he ought to be fired, and 2) his comments are a firing offence but current COIN efforts in Afghanistan need his presence, and therefore he ought to be reprimanded and allowed to continue for now.
I think, however, that the entire episode opens up another set of issues: if he and his staff are this thoughtless with a freelance Rolling Stones reporter, what other damage might they be doing behind the scenes in the highly sensitive relationship with the Afghans--the sort of thing that wouldn't make front-page news in the US, but could be equally important in the long-run in Afghanistan?
It's been well-established that McChrystal doesn't have "good media skills." However, good media skills aren't necessarily rocket science: you simply don't say things to reporters that you don't want everyone to read the next day. More to the point, they're also good diplomatic-political skills. If you criticize the President, the VP, the US ambassador, and the US AfPak envoy all in a few days with a reporter in the room, what are the chances that similar comments haven't been made within earshot of (and about) allies and the Afghans themselves? In turn, what effects might that have on cooperation, local perceptions, and the credibility of US commitments? The locals aren't entirely stupid, after all, and outsiders frequently underestimate the extent to which their gossip, banter, and backbiting has very real (but less widely reported) local effects.
In short, in a COIN fight that is in part about politics and messaging, can you afford to take that risk?
I can't speak for others,
I can't speak for others, but for me, the decision has little to do with whether I agree with the strategy, but do the actions constitute insubordination. If the general is insubordinate, then he must go. No general should be considered so important to our cause that he (or, perhaps one day, she) can openly disparage the civilian leadership without repercussions. Who cares what it means for Afghanistan, it means an undermining of civilian control of the military for the United States, and that is unacceptable.
"first, it's interesting
"first, it's interesting that the Transportation Secretary is singled out; are general officers free to be as rude as they like about the Attorney General or the Health and Human Services Secretary?"
The Coast Guard used to fall under the Department of Transportation before being moved over to Homeland Security.
Is the talent pool in the US
Is the talent pool in the US Army so shallow that if McChrystal were to be fired that all hell would break loose in Afghanistan? Hasn't that already happened? Seriously, changes of command, untimely deaths and other things regularly lead to change -- planned or not -- in our armed forces. Civilian control is a constant. Do we have a strategy or a cult of personality?
The Transportation Secretary
The Transportation Secretary is responsible for the Coast Guard except in times of war. That job is specified to make sure you cover the USCG.
Does anyone find it
Does anyone find it interesting that the Secretary of Transportation is specifically protected in the statute? I wonder if that is a relic to a different time when he had jurisdiction over some part of the war effort, or if it has to do with his jurisdiction over the Coast Guard or Merchant Marine.
Say what you want about Administration officials, but who could have anything bad to say about Ray LaHood?
Does anyone find it
Does anyone find it interesting that the Secretary of Transportation is specifically protected in the statute? I wonder if that is a relic to a different time when he had jurisdiction over some part of the war effort, or if it has to do with his jurisdiction over the Coast Guard or Merchant Marine.
Say what you want about Administration officials, but who could have anything bad to say about Ray LaHood?
Uscg is part of dhs now. And
Uscg is part of dhs now.
And quit loooking at the ucmj. You're wasting brain cells.
H. has it right -- USCG is
H. has it right -- USCG is DHS now, not Trans anymore.
"....both Gen. Petraeus and
"....both Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Mullen have an obligation to hold their four-star field commanders up to the same standard to which they hold lieutenants."
Perhaps in the perfect bloodless world of the JAG corps and E-ring action memos, but not in this current fight. It isn't fair and it isn't right, but generals (especially senior ones) have always operated with more freedom than lieutenents. The fact that any potential disciplinary action is still an open question says it all. If McCrystal had been a O-3 or lower, he would've been out on his ass already. Different ranks, different standards.
Great analysis. I was
Great analysis. I was waiting for your views on this mess. I agree Obama will probably keep McChrystal, for the greater good.
Firing Gen McC-- McChrystal
Firing Gen McC--
McChrystal is preparing his letter of resignation. Although his plan is not working, he will run for office saying if only they would have listened to me.
Obama should not accept it.
If there is going to be a pharmekos, let it be McChrystal.
McC is pre-staging the blame for the eventual Epic Fail of COIN in the Graveyard of Empires.
There is no “winning” in the Graveyard, and McChrystal has now realized that…he is throwing blame chaff.
We have already lost...the general has the raw data feed from the boots on the ground…he knows the truth.
Now McChrystal would LIKE to be fired or replaced in advance of the bitter cup of fail that is coming to him.
I think he should have to be in charge of overseeing the withdrawal….better yet…let him tell the media his strat is Fail, and we have already lost.
Such hubris can only be punished by forcing him to witness i think.
ate.
"I suspect the president
"I suspect the president will not replace the man he has put in charge of executing that strategy with just 12 months to go before we begin a withdrawal."
But wouldn't you have said a day ago that "I suspect the general and his aides will not trash-talk the man who put him in charge of executing that strategy with just 12 months to go before we begin a withdrawal."
I think your May post on how civil-military relations in 2010 are all hunky-dory needs to be updated.
It's true that a lot of the
It's true that a lot of the comments were attributed to staff, rather than to McChrystal. But I find this exchange pretty telling:
“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal says with a laugh. “Who’s that?”
“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: Bite me?”
The unidentified junior officer not only made the derisive comment, he/she made it in McChrystal's presence, in an effort to win his favor, and with no apparent concern that it would be deemed inappropriate. It reflects an attitude that McChrystal no doubt created among his subordinates.
Taken from Zenpundit: Lex:
Taken from Zenpundit:
Lex: If this is subtle move by the General, it might be to force something like:
1) President Obama has said in the past that the Afgan war is the necessary war and a priority
2) The General sees the administration not acting that way currently.
3) This could be just to shake things up and get attention/focus back on Afghanistan (even if it means his head).
or
1) The General knows the US strategy needs more time then the current US plan.
2) He knows a sudden change in the commanding general will delay things even more…while a new commander comes in and sets up…
3) During this interim, the fight continues…
4) …the new commander would likely use a similar strategy
5) …this would stretch out the time-line and give more chance for US success (even though the General goes off into retirement).
or
1) He knows he’ll get fired…
2) …but he figures the odds are good he’ll take out (or at least weaken big time) General Jones and the Ambassador with him.
Andrew, There is another
Andrew,
There is another perspective to view this from that I believe is more germane to the issue of McCrystal's continued command or not.
Namely, are we going to "Go" or "Stay".
If we intend to "Go" next July 2011, then McCrystal's departure (firing or resignation) won't impact our withdrawal very much, and is appropriate even if only to reinforce civilian control over the military, and of course, to ensure proper due deference to one's Commander in Chief.
If we intend to "Stay" beyond next July 2011, that too lends itself to McCrystal's departure (firing or resignation). McCrystal's departure in a "longer war" will be but one of many more bumps on the road to "wherever" this road leads to.
Viewed just from the perspective of whether we "Go" or "Stay", I come to the inevitable conclusion that McCrystal must go.
or 1) McChrystal is
or
1) McChrystal is preparing his letter of resignation.
Although his plan is not working, he will run for office saying if only they would have listened to me.
2) runs on the repub ticket in 2012 with Palin.
Funny - it seems I've heard
Funny - it seems I've heard all the arguments made in favor of keeping McChrystal (command cohesion, timing, legenday "brilliance", etc.) somewhere before...Truman and MacArthur anyone?
No one is irreplaceable, but one fundamental principle is - civilian control of the military. This general went over the line. He needs to go.
I think some people are
I think some people are getting it backwards. If McChrystal stays on at this point, with one rebuilding-season (aka "Afghan winter") to go, then it really means the drawdown really is still coming, hard and fast. With less than a year left, he's already a lame duck, anyway, goes the logic.
If the commander is replaced now, any sane replacement is going to demand (and undoubtedly get) an extension of deadlines to have a chance to make a difference with his own campaign plan. So what Obama does here signals what he intends to do middle of next year very strongly.
joke line says the
joke line says the resignation is in.
1. Responding to Paladin
1. Responding to Paladin Six's point, senior officers do have greater privileges -- on the premise that they're held to higher standards.
2. If military standards were primary criterion, this would be a no-brainer.
3. Political Advisors are likely weighing what's more Presidential, better for domestic politics, world politics.
4. Coherence / unity of effort & command come from identifying and following a plan or a man.
5. When circumstances change, don't try to change circumstances (said GSP Jr)
6. Ergo change the plan or the man, depending on which is inappropriate.
7. Or both.
V/R JWest's bruvver
McChrystal can see failure
McChrystal can see failure in the wind and doesn’t what his name attached to it. What better way out than to be removed by a Democratic president. Then would follow the eternal ’stabbed in the back’ narrative as to why the war was lost (NB stabbed in the back narratives date from WWI and probably are eternal)
If our strategy in
If our strategy in Afghanistan is that dependent on one person being available to run things then that's a real problem by itself. What if McChrystal became seriously ill? Who would take over then? It seems to me that there are lots of people fighting the Afghan War who will still be doing their jobs whether McChrystal comes back or not. I think Obama has to relieve him of his command because I don't see how it would be possible for the President to maintain confidence in him after this or that this won't be exploited by McChrystal's adversaries in the Administration. And I don't really buy the idea that this would mean some huge setback because anyone he appoints in his place should be able to move forward quickly. Isn't that what these guys are trained to do? Saddle up and ride out.
Clearly, the UCMJ's framers
Clearly, the UCMJ's framers set out to protect the ancient military traditions of taking the piss out of the State Department, moaning about the budget, and making Smedley Butler-like statements about oil companies. You will notice that Article 88 clearly asserts that you are within your rights to abuse Foggy Bottom as much as you like, which presumably includes the CIA, USAID, etc, etc, that the Treasury isn't named either, and neither is the Department of Energy. (Which is odd, seeing as they make the nukey bit in your nukes.)
A long, long time ago I was
A long, long time ago I was a Warrant Officer. I read Article 88 a few times and realized that, as a WARRANT (in those days) it didn't include me so I was free to speak my mind. It was one of the major benefits to being a Warrant, appointed as an officer and gentleman by the Secretary of the Army, not commissioned by act of Congress. Today all CWO's are commissioned so they are subject to the article. A different world.......maybe not a better one.
I hope McCrystal realizes,
I hope McCrystal realizes, that he has undermined the authority of the President. He should have been more responsible in his words. We are now going to look bad in the eyes of the Afghans no matter what decision is made. If he retains command and shows up for a meeting with a star short of what he previously had it will look bad. If the President pardons him he will look bad and weak, not the way we want to look to our allies and enemies in Afghanistan.
Changing commanders unfortunately is the right answer, I hate it but it will happen eventually. I know a little about ciub and I know building relationships is very important but the army is full of a new generation of talented officers who embrace the fundamentals of stability and support operations. We just have to pool our talent, if the next guy in line sucks pass him over.
I'm positive that at some point a more talented leader who could keep his mouth shut was fired for less.
I'm more interested in
I'm more interested in whether McChrystal's criticisms were accurate, than if they pissed off our "civilian leadership." There is way too much angst about military commanders telling the country that we've elected idiots, or at least elected jerks who appoint idiots. I think our military commanders owe greater allegience to the country's citizenry and the Constitution than it does to the POTUS. We should learn to appreciate honesty, no matter how brutal or inarticulate or how much they piss off the empty suits in the Executive Branch.
I don't see that McChyrstal challenged civilan control. He just challenged civilan monopoly of the available information of how things were going. The civilian controllers have ample recourse: they just need to be more competent. Then they don't have to "control" the message or the messanger.
Didn't we have all sort of media handwringing afte 1975 about how they wished our military commanders had been more honest and forthright about the strategy, tactics, and progress of the war in South Vietnam? Why did they let Macnamara and Johnson and others sanitize everything. Friday Afternoon Follies at MACV, anyone? Here we go again!
The comments by Robert
The comments by Robert Hoskins on 22 JUN at 12:12 start out OK, even if one disagrees about an exit strategy, and one can certainly make a coherent argument for replacing the entire leadership team (McChrystal, Holbrooke, Eikenberry).
But Hoskins' comments are some of the most sophomoric I have ever read, and so I had to respond:
"As for Stan, I certainly didn't approve of his appointment last year." Any person can lay out their opinion on whether GEN McChrystal's appointment was or was not a good decision, but it is arrogant to act as though anyone cares about whether Hoskins personally "approves". After all, who the hell is Robert Hoskins to approve anything?
Repeatedly referring to GEN McChrystal as “Stan” in an online comment smacks of a patronizing conceit. If you know him personally, show him some respect in a public forum. If you don't know him personally, then don't pretend that you do by false familiarity.
And, "The Marines are generally pretty good in pulling our asses out of the fire. So, let's put the Marines in charge in pulling our asses out of Afghanistan." Huh? That comment is illogical, irrelevant to the issue of whether an individual general is suitable for a particular command position, and insulting to the other services.
General McChrystal should
General McChrystal should not publicly disrespect the president, vp, or anyone else for that matter and made the right decision by stepping down. He's entitled to his opinion but don't show the world your poor judgement by making those comments public... As for the war, i dont believe we can stabilize Afghanistan and the sooner we leave the better.
The Kandahar campaign was
The Kandahar campaign was originally scheduled to be a summer offensive. Today is the 3rd day of summer. Just sayin'. The battlefield shaping has gone on for months and our SF guys have become very proficient at taking out Taliban/Haq commanders. That is having its effect.
If we squeeze hard using the anaconda approach, perhaps we can shape an outcome. Afghanistan will be a mess, but if the violence goes down then they can work on the corruption and other issues separately. perhaps Use the reconcilable and less Wahabbist Taliban as the judiciary to counter a corrupt central government. Turn the zeal for jihad into a zeal for justice.
The LSE report outlines the Pakistani connection and influence very well and stands the logic test. We are whacking moles in Pakistan successfully, it seems, so perhaps whack a few more ISI ammo depots "accidentally". The report also portrays a number of Taliban leaders as hating the Pakistanis but dependent upon them. Without safe havens, or with a high probability of death, peace may look like the preferable option.
The only self interests really being served by a failed Afghan state right now are the narcotics interests and the Pakistani establishment, which are coincidentally, intertwined. If 90% of the global heroin/opium supply is grown in Afghanistan, logic dictates most of this is transiting Pakistan.
McChrystal's departure was necessary, but the replacement by Petraeus may also mean Dear Leader has to back off on his withdrawal date. Petraeus, I am sure, exacted certain promises for stepping back into a sh*tstorm. This may also disillusion the enemy.
Petraeus wrote the book on COIN. He proved his tactics in Iraq, twice. I believe McChrystal's failure was in being a shooter/cowboy who forgot what he learned 30 years ago in SF school, overapplied the rainbows and unicorns ROE's, and forgot the Regular Army & Marines did a damned good job of COIN in Iraq. Sensible ROE's while not letting ourselves or our allies do stupid things that kill legitimate civilian targets would go a long way towards getting our efforts wired tight. Bringing back someone like Crocker might help too.
Politically, the Pakistanis don't give a hoot for Hillary or Holcombe and have made it obvious. How do you think the Taliban are able to ramp up this summer, especially when the opium crop was down? More fighters and more bullets cost more money. It' will be a tightrope, but someone has that have that come to Jesus with them, and it isn't any of the current players. Carrot and a subtle but irresistible stick.
I may be full of it, but I think there are some options for success out there, and I think the one man who might pull it off is Petraeus. Of course, he could be sabotaged at home, but as stated above, I hope he got what he needed before taking the job.
If obama thought McChrystal
If obama thought McChrystal was the best man for the job then firing him now is a big mistake. Even if he has to go does it have to be immediate? Why not wait a year or long enough to get the khadahar offesive going then give him the push.
If obama didnt think McChrystal was the best man for the job why did he give it to him? What will Petraus do that McChrystal has not? What material diffrence will it make?
But all that aside the reality is that obama could put god or superman in charge of the US effort in Afghanistan it would still all end in failure.
Much of the furor surrounding this is just rearranging the deckchairs on the good ship COIN as it goes down.
A (lexander) B (enard) Just
A (lexander) B (enard)
Just how much money you got invested in keeping the Af'stan war going?
RH
Gucci belts, Gucci belt,
Gucci belts, Gucci belt, fabulous Gucci men's belt, with high ratio of performance and price Gucci belts for men.
Politically, the Pakistanis
Politically, the Pakistanis don't give a hoot for Hillary or Holcombe and have made it obvious. How do you think the Taliban are able to ramp up this 1Y0-A23 summer, especially when the opium crop was down? More fighters and more bullets cost more money. It' will be a tightrope, but someone has that have that come to Jesus with them, and it isn't any of the current players. Carrot and a subtle but irresistible stick.
Just how much money you got
Just how much money you got invested in keeping the Af'stan war going?
RH
1Y0-A23
Hello Administrative, In
Hello Administrative, In truth, I just read with this subject matter around online world.wikipedia.org and i'm significantly discouraged now since your judgment along with wikipedia usually are quite diverse!! What you published is going to exact same just like rss feeds, and not totally exact same!! In addition, I absolutely appreciated by way of examining an entire posting and I also content to end up being visited in this particular fantastic along with attractive blog site (www.cnas.org). Cheers
Add your comment