Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

GENERAL MC CHRYSTAL FORCES OBAMA INTO A NO-WIN SITUATION

PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCEPTS GENERAL MC CHRYSTAL'S RESIGNATION AND APPOINTS GENERAL PETRAEUS TO REPLACE MC CHRYSTAL.



FROM STARS AND STRIPES:  A General's Contempt:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama faces two grim choices on Wednesday: Fire Gen. Stanley McChrystal and risk looking like he’s lost control of the war in Afghanistan. Or keep him and risk looking like he’s lost control of his generals.


Even before McChrystal’s very public slap at his boss surfaced on Monday night, the White House was already bristling at the perception that the war in Afghanistan was becoming unwinnable.

The decisive military offensive to clear the strategic town of Marjah has foundered. Another, bigger offensive to drive the Taliban from its home turf in Kandahar has been delayed. U.S. casualties are rising in a war that ranks as America’s longest, surpassing the grim milestone of 1,000 dead earlier this month. Corrupt warlords and Taliban militants are pocketing tens of millions in U.S. aid.

Now Obama must add a new crisis to that daunting list: The commander he handpicked to win the Afghanistan war allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone to embed with him and his closest staff for a month, offering up a series of incendiary and embarrassing comments about the president and his war cabinet.


[skip]
 
Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and a key liberal voice in the House, called McChrystal’s comments “contemptuous of his civilian superiors” and demanded his resignation. CBS News later reported that McChrystal had offered a letter of resignation.


“His comments, and those of his subordinates, dismissing the President, the Vice-President, Gen. (James) Jones, Ambassador (Karl) Eikenberry, and Richard Holbrooke suggests that Gen. McChrystal is locked into an ‘everybody is wrong but me’ approach to the world,” Obey said.

21 comments:

Leslie Parsley said...

Shades of Truman vs MacArthur who was dismissed for insubordination. He had written a letter critical of President Truman's limited-war strategy, providing copies of it to the press and reading it aloud on the floor of the house. Oops.

TAO said...

This has no comparsion whatever to Truman vs MacArthur...

MacArther was a certified leader and war hero. McChrystal is just a desk jockey with an attitude.

MacArthur was disagreeing with war strategy...

McCrystal was just gossiping and showing off to a reporter like some child...

The Joint Chiefs should court martial him and clean up this mess....

Leslie Parsley said...

After I posted this comment I saw the identical comparison elsewhere.

The Truman/MacArthur incident has always been controversial. A lot of people didn't care for him and thought he was arrogant. As young as I was,I remember when he was fired; my aunt came home with a newspaper shouting with glee. My mother couldn't stand him. Neither of these women could be considered dumb by any stretch of the imagination.

Infidel753 said...

Fire Gen. Stanley McChrystal and risk looking like he’s lost control of the war in Afghanistan. Or keep him and risk looking like he’s lost control of his generals.

Lost control of the war? That can happen to any President. No one is ever in absolute control of a war.

Lost control of his generals? Completely unacceptable.

Backing off from firing McChrystal won't make Obama "look in control" of anything.

It's a bad situation, but McChrystal isn't the only general capable of holding that command. It's hard to see how Obama has any real choice.

Shaw Kenawe said...

David McCullough's comprehensive bio of Truman covered the MacArthur firing incident, and, IIRC, Truman took a lot of heat for firing the general. Public support was with MacArthur at first, but eventually Truman won the day.

I agree with you, TAO. McChrystal comes off as a narcissist more interested in showing off than conducting the Afghan war.

Infidel,

I hope Obama does the right thing and fires McChrystal. There will be the usual uproar from the Obama haters on the right, but then they'll be off finding other reasons to trash the president in a few weeks.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, or a few days...

Olbermann had an interesting take on this...

Leslie Parsley said...

I was sent this quote from CNN by email. Sorry I don't have the link.

"Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, urged a cooling off period before a final decision is rendered on the general. My 'impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter about this for the next 24 hours.'

"Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jim Webb of Virginia -- also key senators on defense and foreign policy issues -- were each strongly critical of McChrystal's remarks, but noted that the general's future is a decision for Obama to make."

I'm no fan of the military but I'm a little uncomfortable demanding someone be fired for a less than wise gaff when we joke or forgive others for the same thing.

T.F. said...

As the daughter of a career solider I know he has to go. A few of dad's favorite sayings,
Everyone is expendable.
If a man doesn't have your back he won't command your front.
Soldiers are promoted not bred.
Personally, I believe he should be removed from theater and lose a star.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I'm no fan of the military but I'm a little uncomfortable demanding someone be fired for a less than wise gaff when we joke or forgive others for the same thing."--tnlib

I think this was more than a one-time gaff for McChrystal. He challenged President Obama's authority last fall by getting out, in public, ahead of the president on the Afghan war policy.

What the RS article showed is a lack of respect--actual contempt--for the administration and the people around the president, if not the president himself.

But most of all, it showed poor judgement.

Maybe, as John Kerry proposed, there should be a cooling off period, but I can't imagine President Obama having much confidence in a man like McChrystal who seems not to be able to accept the Constitutionally based law of civilian command of the military, and the respect he owes his CiC.

I was angry when I read about this, but I'm not Obama--who has shown in the past a tolerance for people under his command who act intemperately.


We'll see how this plays out.

Sue said...

I'm a peacelovin' liberal and this is why I would fire McC and end the hideous war NOW...

U.S. casualties are rising in a war that ranks as America’s longest, surpassing the grim milestone of 1,000 dead earlier this month. Corrupt warlords and Taliban militants are pocketing tens of millions in U.S. aid.

I don't think Pres. Obama should give McC a second glance, the man was more than disrespectful to the Commander in Chief. Just one more problem our president does NOT need right now.

Shaw Kenawe said...

McChrystal is gone.

Leslie Parsley said...

I just saw it.

I'm not disagreeing with what you and others here and elsewhere have said. I've also learned about things I didn't know.

I do think it took a lot of courage on Obama's part because we all know the explosion that is to come from the right - from Fox, the Tea Party and Republican reps.

Shaw Kenawe said...

tnlib,

You are correct. See my newest post.

Anonymous said...

No fan of the military that protects and serves you??? As a veteran I am as disappointed in this remark as I am with the Generals actions. He was way way way out of line and NObama should have dealt with him swiftly and harshly. These kind of undermining comments are dangerous and can not be tolerated within the chain of command. If NObama had actually spent some time in the military or ever really served his country he would have some experience in this. Alas he has not and still remains unqualified to swim in the shark tank.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Hmmm. Only people who serve in the military are qualified to be president?

That would mean Anon would disqualify:

Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Cleveland, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Rooselvelt, and Clinton.

And it would disqualify Sarah Palin to run for president, as well as Newt Gingrich. and Big Dick Cheney.

President Obama dealt with McChrystal in a dignified and presidential manner.

I don't expect anyone who is chronically against this man to have anything good to say about him, so I'm not surprised at Anon's comment.

It was WWII hero, General Eisenhower--Republican president who warned the American people of the military industrial complex and its need to perpetuate war.

The business of the military is war.

Anonymous said...

I stand corrected. I did not notice the anti military statement was a quote.

Anonymous said...

Did I say only X military where qualified to be president? Didn't think so. I was pointing out Obama's lack of experience. Spending as little as 3 years in one of the services would have been an invaluable experience. I think that anyone who desires to lead the armed forces should consider serving first. He has never governed and was only a senator for short time. Am I chronically against him? I am sure you have drawn that from my butchering his name. I was far from elated when he took office but very hopeful that he would do well. He has disappointed on most issues since that time. His arrogance and ability to sell out the country that elected him is astonishing. If someone can not criticize him just because they voted for him or they hated Bush then they are naive. I just ask the same standards when critiquing our leaders and it seems obvious to me that the current president has been shielded. I will not hold his feet to the fire for the war he inherited. I still believe that his way under qualified for the task at hand. BTW Palin or Cheney could have spent 20 years in the military and still I would not chose to have them as president. I do appreciate engaging in discussion so thank you for your posts.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"His arrogance and ability to sell out the country that elected him is astonishing."--Anon

Anon, this sort of statement reinforces my guess that you are chronically against the president.

Your labeling his attitude as "arrogance" is subjective. What you perceive as arrogance can be perceived by others as self-confidence, a good personality trait for a world leader.

Mr. Obama has disappointed me by not getting out of Iraq quicker and by giving Gen. McChrystal the additional 30,000 troops he asked for. He hasn't shut down Gitmo, and he's been far too nice to the Congressional Republicans.

As for experience. You must be aware of what we got from "experienced" past presidents.

Let's start with Nixon.

Then we can go on to Carter, Reagan, remember his failures in Lebanon and the Iran-Contra scandal?

But most of all, the Bush/Cheney team had experience up the ying-yang, and Mr. Obama has been shoveling the proverbial Augean stables as a result of all that experience for the past 17 months.

I can't think of any president in US history who has not had failings.

Mr. Lincoln comes to mind. He tolerated McClellan as the Union General for far too long, and was too tolerant of Salmon Chase's almost treasonous behavior.

My opinion is that the Right was so embarrassed by the miserable 8 years that Bush gave us and so distraught over all the criticisms leveled at him that before Mr. Obama took the oath of office, the Right decided to obstruct everything this man had to do to set the country on the right course.

His failure, they believe, will be their success.

But in reality, it screws the country.

Anonymous said...

I cannot argue that the majority of the right does everything to obstruct his efforts. I do however disagree with the assumption that what he is doing is setting this country on the right course. I've seen very little of that. Glimmers of hope for me are that he is going after wall street and big oil. Does that mean I am chronically against him? I believe that you are chronically for him and that your obvious disdain for the previous administration has clouded your judgment. In my opinion the current administration is perpetuating more of the same. More money more government and letting big $ dictate. I agree wholeheartedly that the inability of the two parties to do anything but bicker is dragging the country down.

dmarks said...

"My opinion is that the Right was so embarrassed by the miserable 8 years that Bush gave us and so distraught over all the criticisms leveled at him that before Mr. Obama took the oath of office"

That opinion rests on the mistaken assumption that conservatives are/were so embarassed about Bush and hate him as much as liberal do.

Anon: "Glimmers of hope for me are that he is going after wall street..."

And this after he voted for, pushed for, and/or signed hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout "corporate welfare" for Wall Street?

Anonymous said...

@ dmarks I did say glimmer of hope not ray of light. Ahhhh the bailout that sting will be felt for a long long long time.