McChrystal himself is described by an aide as "disappointed" in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.Why is an active duty General Officer advertising who he does or does not support politically? And yes, I would think the same thing if he stated he voted for McCain.
Is this healthy? I don't think so.
UPDATE: Eeek. McChrystal thinks he's stepped in it.
"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," McChrystal said in a statement issued Tuesday morning. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and it should have never happened."I hate to say it, but if you use the "Admiral Fallon Standard," then don't be shocked if McChrystal is gone this summer.
UPDATE II - Electric Boogaloo: Go get the fork.
The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration.Ya'll know I am a McKiernan guy ... so ... I'll say it.
The face-to-face comes as pundits are already calling for McChrystal to resign on grounds of obvious insubordination.
McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington today to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House.
That is what you get for firing McKiernan; can we bring him back please?
Live by politics, die by politics - I guess. What a mess.
47 comments:
BINGO.
That's it.
Yon's RIGHT.
McChrystal voted for Obama? Off with him.
No, serious. Having voting for Obama is proof of mental instability. Now I understand where an idiocy like courageous restraint comes from. Bring McKiernan back.
Patton maxim number one.... DONT SPEAK TO THE PRESS... idiots (even if it is true and funny)
Yea he is done. Didnt Fallon have a similiar faux pas?
Well, that's one way to get a meeting wtih the Man. The other is to take up golf.
Perhaps "foot in mouth" disease is a side effect of only sleeping four hours a night. :-E
This is what comes of Admirals and Generals spouting political rhetoric while in uniform, and behaving as if beholden to politicians for their careers (which they have largely already had).
I get the sense McChrystal would not be there had he not voted for Obama. And in that lies the real risk of his nonsense and those I have linked to above. They no longer serve the good of DoD and their nation, but the politicians and "causes".
GEN McC's voting record doesn't matter a whit -- and I really doubt he got this job based on it.
Odd that he and his staff didn't have a sense of "hmmmmmmmm...reporter in the room? -- perhaps he/she may not appreciate our sense of humor -- and/or remarks may be in (or out) of context & inappropriate -- and may not be able to be conveyed accurately if in print, instead of the immediate moment?"
We'll see if he goes the way of ADM Fallon. I suspect Pres Obama may be more forgiving of "off message" than Pres Bush & his staff -- but Pres Bush/his staff had more to lose (or thought they did...). However -- sometimes these things play out & take on a life of their own & then the person has to go, even if POTUS and others would rather otherwise.
Geez Louise. This is one tempest-in-a-teapot that I didn't see coming at all!
Only 2 scenarios that I can see
1. This was intentionally done by McChrystal. Why I can't imagine...certainly he would know that it would result in his firing. Some of the statments made in the article by him or his staff are outrageous to say the least.
2. This was an incredible series of verbal gaffes by him and his staff. Which also means heads should roll. Not just because of gaffes but the impact the gaffes will have (are having right now) on the war effort and the country.
Fallon was canned for saying much LESS inflammatory stuff.
Three years ago he'd be lauded for speaking 'truth to power' or something. Also something about 'listening to generals' and whatnot.
Either way, bad mouthing your chain of command in the press is never a proper thing.
You have to wonder why he said such stuff? The General is not stupid and knows full well that speaking to the press like that would get him in trouble. Is he that unhappy with the CINC's unattached style? If they say this on the record so to speak. What is really said off the record. Not very good for both sides on this situation. If you fire him as the President you actually call into question your own poor performance. If you keep him around then you look like a chump. The General painted him in a corner on this one.
I've been reading the highlights from the article and I now think the real problem DC types will have with it is that it is all probably true. About them:
"Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, “turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it’s not very helpful.”
Probably spot on.
"“It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his fucking war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”"
Yeah.
"<span> and I really doubt he got this job based on it. "</span>
Right.
One vote does not make a General.
And "Truth to Power" does not mean spout it in public. There's nothing to be gained by airing dirty laundry in public when you're still on the same team. Leave first then do the "tell all".
A classic example of CLM (Career Limiting Move) by him and his staff. I thought they would have learned over last year's message mayhem.
I thought these high ranking generals didn't vote. At least Petraeus and Odierno have stated that.
So you are skeptical of rolling stone but approve of fox news?
I would not dismiss them, the stone did some good reporting on Iraq and the surge. I was on P4's staff so I know their writing was accurate. I helped create many of those jobs their article talked about. Once the locals started getting paid their attitude changed.
"Fox News has learned that he fired the press aide, Duncan Boothby, who booked the interview."
So its Duncan's fault that the general and aides didnt know how to behave in front of a reporter?
That's what I was coming here to say! I guess he'll meet with him another time in order to dress him down. Reminds me of the jokes about that guy that flew the plane into the White House during Clinton's admin. The joke was that it was the DCI trying to get a personal meeting with Ol' Bill.
See... I don't get it. Back in college the ROTC guys and the DeadHeads never hung out together. McChrystal should know that instinct still holds true a quarter century later.
The sad thing is, Yon won't be able to take credit for sacking this general too. How will he live?
But he praised Mzzz Hillary a lot. Does that have a Joe Sestak ring to it? Looking down the field at future opportunities?
"<span>I would not dismiss them, the stone did some good reporting on Iraq and the surge."</span>
Not according to some.
Voted for Obama? That's enough reason to seriously doubt his judgement right there. Any military officer who could identify with the party that has been at war with, and shown serious disrespect for, the uniformed services for the last forty years must have a serious case of <span>Cognitive Dissonance!</span>
Maybe he wants out. Didn't ADM Fallon want out because he was tired of Bush bypassing the COC and going direct to General Petraeus? and because he had special ops operating in his AOR without his knowledge.
I am of the opinion that these remarks were given with intent to have them published. I believe completely that the good General did this because he's been stymied at every turn, and that the press will now have to address the issues that he has brought up regarding the naivete and incompetancy of this current administration.
He's taking one for the troops, and in hopes of actually getting things done in Afghanistan, rather than see so many good men and women sacrificed for political gain.
If this is what needs to be done to force the public to and the press to put the spotlight on Obama and his crew, then I would hope that a variety of other officers will follow suit.
Tim nailed it!
Perhaps McChrystal's self inflicted wounds will not be enough to change policy from the top, or end the friendly fire he is taking from the diplomats, but at least it calls it into question.
His troops, our neighbors, and in some cases family members, deserve everthing he can give them to pursue the strategy that he thinks will win this thing with least sacrifice possible in terms of troops and treasure. If he is willing to put his stars on the line for that reason, and not mere pique at dealing with idiots, then you must respect him.
Meanwhile, for keen insights on the entire Afghan situation from a retired senior CIA operative with unparalleled experience in that theater, read the detailed and perceptive analysis from Howard Hart at http://ciahart.blogspot.com/
Hart is not optimistic, and explains why. And, I fear he is correct.
Tim,
I think you nailed it. From what I have read, McChrystal is no dumbie. He is taking one for the team.
So, the real question is what do we do now? You have a commander that has no faith in his boss. A boss that is disconnected from reality. Our national treasure dying horrible deaths in a land where the locals do not give a rat's a$$. And throw a deadline for withdrawal, to make it convinent for the enemy to wait us out. What do we do?
Two choices, leave now or leave later.
My third choice is to tell the locals to play ball or we start playing total war. I know it's not going to happen but it might work, what we have done so far has made much traction.
Reality is the policy is not going to change. we are going to withdraw next year. I had to be the CACO on the last man kiiled in the war.
Jay, I was taught that once an individual (reporter or not) is with a group for about 20 minutes the rest of the group tends to forget he is present. Good reporters are aware of this and exploit it. Obviously this is what happened here.
This old timer is once more saddened that we've moved away from the days when some real military leaders, such as Marshall and Spruance, didn't even vote for fear that it violated their oath of office to a time where a leader is willing to state whom they actually voted for.
As for "...tempest in a teapot..." we'll see about that. Apparently you haven't been watching cable news, reading the WaPo/NYT, or listening to the public statements by SecDef, etc. this AM.
"Take heed what you say of your seniors..."
Yeah, GEN Marshall's attitude re: Civil-Military relations is sorely lacking.
It will be a tempest-in-a-teapot if he gets spanked, and then sent back to work. The chattering classes (right and left bloggers included) will postulate on his remarks for a week or so -- trying to make the remarks, or the possible reasons (beyond bone-headedness) fit their reality...and then move to something else.
It's possible that McChrystal voted for Obama because he thought he would have more influence over Obama than McCain, and now he's frustrated because Obama has been less deferential to his views than he expected. That's the sense I get from what has been reported thus far.
I sincerely doubt this is McChrystal deliberately "taking one for the team", as someone else put it. If he were truly going to end his career to make a point, this isn't how that would have gone down.
But if the war continues to go badly and he gets fired for that his career is equally over. And over for fighting a war without the resources he requested. So I am beginning to think more and more that his "taking one for the team" is the most valid reason for explaining what happened.
If he goes it's about time and good riddance. This guy has been hazarding tens of thousands of his troops for a long time to not achieve what a few thousand CIA and SPECOPS troop in native garb with some sacks full of money and lots and lots of killing enemies could already have achieved. He's fighting the wrong war - it's obviously not a counter insurgency, it's a counter counter installation of a government of our choice. The populace is a center of gravity, but we cannot win them over, period. Our concentration, now that we've marched down this ridiculous path for so long, should be - get conventional troops out - leave teams of specialized hunter killers in country, and support those guys. Karzai will do what he will, and he'd happily betray us. Righfully so, having us as friends only makes him enemies with his people. Not that we should hang him out to dry, we installed him, but we should not be surprised at his perfidy.
Tim, While I usually agree with you I think that this interpretation overlooks the "law of unintended consequences", which I'm sure that the General is aware of. The verbal flailing that I've heard this AM has more to do with how Obama is going to deal with the "uppity" General than it does with an assessment of our strategy in Afghanistan. Ironically, one of the few voices of reason is John Kerry who recommends that everyone "take a deep breath".
Maybe Kabuki theater to build up the US military in the eyes of the people we're fighting with? (Our generals are strong enough to stand up to our own President, so side with the general).
Only time will tell how this plays out...
NB: I just deleted a comment with prejudice and banned a "guest" who likes to cover himself with olive oil while rolling around in a shower curtain over a bed of nails while mumbling, "Kirk...Kirk...Kirk..."
I have had it with thread hijacking. If you have thing for a subject - then get your own fracking blog you polisockpuppet. Hey, I just got you a name. http://polisockpuppet.blogspot.com. Its open and its free. Knock yourself out.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/22/latest-mcchrystal-developments/
CNN reports the good GEN has resigned.
Obama will try to blame the Generals for this if Afghan goes... never mind his telegraphed departure and our Allies bailing on us...
Gen Mc gave him the rope...
Spews tea all over monitor.
That may well be. I'm not in the General's cirlce of friends, as it were, just tossing out another option to consider. But yeah....... it'll be interesting to see where this all washes up.
I can see how sit-down interviews are occasionally required, but I just don't get why anyone would think this was a good thing to do. Was there ANYONE in the General's inner circle that questioned the wisdom of allowing a reporter, ANY reporter, to travel and hang out with the senior staff?
This almost seems the GO equivalent of a troubled teenager cutting themself.
Maybe he figured it would work out like when MGen Petraeus let Rick Atkinson embed with the 101st during the invasion of Iraq (or MGen Boomer and Molly Moore during Desert Storm) and he'd get some real good PR (and maybe a book) out of it.
As I've noted elsewhere: Journalists are not your friends.
Not friends?
I always treated them like they were the carriers of a deadly disease!
I've talked to them, been interviewed a couple of times, and worked on a "Night Line" piece years ago. Some of them are interesting people but I've never tried to be clever with them (or to co-opt them as these guys appeared to be trying). A journalist always has an agenda and it's general not one that's in your best interest.
And wouldn't it be horrible if all this flap were over things that he didn't even say? Oh, it's not like the media ever lies or anything....
Jesus, Anon, are you serious? That idiot Stones reporter presented COIN as some sort of radically new concept, as opposed to the historical fact that the Marine Corps published all the "good stuff" in their Small Wars Manual over sixty freaking years ago. It is painfully self-evident that the author has a terribly weak grasp of military history.
And, no, I don't pay any attention to Fox News, thanks so much for the straw man argument, with an element of false dichotomy stirred in for effect.
DB, I'll give you ten-to-one odds the Stones article is the straight skinny.
It it both easy & comforting to say the contra-claims are lies and calumny, but (to turn an old phrase) de Nile is not just a river in Egypt. :(
Not to mention McChrystal has already crawled on his belly in apology.
I go on vacation and I come back to posts like this. Sal, you are my hero - this is why you have my favorite blog out there!
DB, I'm with Casey on this. It's probably an accurate depiction of what the reporter saw and heard. Also, don't forget that McChrystal didn't personally say much of this...the boneheads on his staff did. Whether they were previously told to let the cat out of the bag or not is open to question. On the other hand, what I read sounded a lot like what they probably said every day and that staff atmosphere is the commander's responsibility.
Splash.
Post a Comment