Obama Is Furious at General McChrystal
The Telegraph (UK) reports that the Obama administration is furious at General Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO forces in Afganistan. Last week, the general gave a “blunt” speech in London, in which he “flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.” McChrystal urged the Obama administration to act quickly before the war in Afganistan was no longer winnable.
Ostensibly, the Obama administration is upset with General McChrystal for talking out of turn. The day after his speech, McChrystal was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with the president on board Air Force One in Copenhagen:
Gen James Jones, the national security adviser, yesterday did little to allay the impression the meeting had been awkward.
Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: “I wasn’t there so I can’t answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views.”
An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”
The Telegraph noted that ”some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.” Bruce Ackerman, a self-described liberal expert on constitutional law at Yale University, argued that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to “pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy.” Professor Ackerman might be a fine legal scholar, but historian he is not. How about the very public disagreements between General McClellan and President Lincoln as well as between General MacArthur and President Truman?
The real reason that Obama is furious with McChrsytal is that the general is forcing the administration’s hand. If Obama ultimately decides to bail out of Afganistan, he will have to take full ownership of the decision. Back on August 31, McChrystal delivered his report on Afganistan – as requested by the Obama administration - which called for substantial troop increases to support a ramped-up counterinsurgency effort in Afganistan. When the report was leaked to the press, the Obama administration no longer had the option of making a decison and then sort of hinting after-the-fact that they were only acting in response to McChrystal’s analyses and recommendations.
In his London speech, General McChrystal completely removed the possibility that his recommendations could be misconstrued for political purposes. In essence, McChrystal announced loudly and clearly that he is willing to put his own reputation on the line on behalf of the U.S. military/NATO and his country: that if President Obama acts on his recommendations, McChrystal will take more than his share of the credit, or the blame, for the consequences, knowing that his recommendations might lead to a loss of U.S./NATO prestige and strategic interests, not to mention the deaths of possibly thousands of courageous military personnel. But the general will not allow Obama to put his name on something else entirely.
If the Obama administration decides to reject General McChrystal’s recommendations, then that decision is on them, not McChrsytal and not George W. Bush. When Geoerge W. Bush decided to go forward with the Surge in Iraq, for better or for worse, he took full ownership of the decision. At the time, many Democrats chastised Mr. Bush for disregarding the recommendations of his highest military officers, including the the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General George Casey, the American commander in Iraq, and Centcom commander John Abizaid. If Obama decides to bail out on Afganistan, that is his prerogative as the Commander-in-Chief. Moreover, he will probably have a lot more allies in his camp than Bush did when he decided to go with the Surge. Allies or not, however, Obama will not be able to hide from the decision.
Also read “Obama Begins Process to Throw McChrystal Under the Bus” at RedState.
Both of these men were also relieved of command by the presidents they disagreed with. McChrystal would do well to keep this in mind.
I rather suspect the skinny of this whole thing is the Obama admin led him to believe one thing, told him to prepare to do one thing and then changed their mind. Then changed their minds again. And then again. And then asked what if….how about…why cant.
Perhaps if…what do ya think about……How come we cant?
This is the problem when you put a community organizer in charge of a major war who has a vice president named Joe Biden who wants to fight the war with drones. He no doubt will act all commander in chiefy and stuff and the general will be screaming at the mirror behind closed doors.
Michael, good point, although it’s my understanding that Lincoln removed McClellan because he delayed for too long and failed to produce results – not because of his constant grandstanding, petulance, etc. My point was that Ackerman was wrong in saying this was a rare occurence.
Again, my hunch is that McChrystal is thinking something like, “If you want to disregard my recommendations, that is your prerogative as the Commander in Chief. But I’ll be damned if you’re going to take another course of action and then suggest that the decision was largely/partly based on my input. Let’s be men and take full responsibility for whatever course of action is ultimately pursued rather than setting up CYA ‘outs’ in advance.”
Maybe someone who is well versed in military affairs and protocols can help out here. But, my layperson take is . . . I have no idea whether or not McChrystal would resign if Obama pursues, say, the Biden approach, but if he did, I wouldn’t think any lesser of him. My feeling is that, when it comes to generals, you want the guy(s) who are 100 percent behind the strategies and tactics being employed, not necessarily those guys who were in charge prior to a major decision point. If a general believes that those strategies and tactics will be disastrous, he should be able to step aside, with no blot on his career (indeed, he may have a moral imperative to do so). Most officers and soldiers are expected to simply follow orders, but the highest ranking general(s) should be able resign from the top post, if he does not think that he is the best man for the job – a job which is responsible for the lives of tens of thousands of brave men and women. About a week ago, Major-General Andrew Mackay, the head of the UK Armed Forces in Afganistan resigned his post, citing a lack of support for troops in his theater. At the outset of the Civil War, many officers in the U.S. Army resigned their commissions altogether and then enlisted in the Confederate Army. Some officers (lawyers) on the Guantanomo Military Commission resigned from lower level posts and requested transfer to another position within the Armed Services.
As for Obama removing McChyrstal himself, I’m guessing that the general is willing to face that possibility. I doubt he wants to be removed, but if the choice is between possibily allowing the administration to put the McChrystal name on a policy he thinks will be failure and getting fired, he’d take the latter. Again, my point is that McChyrstal is willing to lay his reputation on the line, even if it is not professionally expedient for him to do so. Is Obama willing to do the same?
The pres is really good at making up his mind and being explicit.
Oh wait … that was a different pres.
I’m with Mr. Glen on this one. It’s better to stand up and speak your mind now than go along with a plan you believe will fail. And to Mr. Merrit, I think you have confused Gen. McChyrstal with a politician. Politics start wars, armies end them.
Um, MacArthur actively disobeyed orders and inserted himself directly into foreign policy, disregarding the chain of command, and in ways that actively disrupted admin foreign policy efforts. Such as issuing direct ultimatums to the Chinese government while peace talks were ongoing. McClllan was perpetually insubordinate, and a perennial micromanager who wouldn’t discuss war campaign plans with either his superiors or his officers, leaving them completely in the dark. While an excellent organizer, he was lousy as a combat general, and he proved that repeatedly.
Neither of those insubordinate loose cannons are all that comparable to McChrystal, save that it remains true that the C-in-C can of course “fire” him from that command if he wants to. Of course, then the C-in-C would OWN all the results of whatever substitute strategy was employed.
Again, my hunch is that McChrystal is thinking something like, “If you want to disregard my recommendations, that is your prerogative as the Commander in Chief. But I’ll be damned if you’re going to take another course of action and then suggest that the decision was largely/partly based on my input. Let’s be men and take full responsibility for whatever course of action is ultimately pursued rather than setting up CYA ‘outs’ in advance.”
Yep. He’s removing himself from nominations for the fall-guy position.
Tully, you’re right that “loose cannons” MacArthur and McClellan are not comparable to McChrystal, but that should actually help my case. Professor Ackerman suggested that McChrystal was being insubordinate and that it was rare for a commander to make his views about war strategy and tactics public. If anything, compared to the examples of MacArthur and McClellan, what McChrsytal said/did was quite reserved.
Oops, sorry, didn’t realize I was logged out. Those are my comments #7 above.
I agree, Patrick. From my understanding of the event, McChrystal was asked questions, and answered them bluntly. He didn’t call a news onference to say the President was a dunderhead, or fail to keep him informed, or go off the reservation against orders.
I was responding more to MM @ #1. Yes, the Prez can “fire” his generals. But he can do that no matter what, anyway. And any general worthy of his stars would rather be fired than used as the fall guy for a failure. (Conversely, most would also throw themselves under the PR bus if it meant a victory for the nation.)
The more I think about this controversy with Gen. McChyrstal the more I believe he knew exactly what he was doing. You don’t become a four star Gen by being stupid. Maybe the situation is so dire in Afghanistan that he felt a fire had to be lit under Obama’s ass to get him to decide which way he wants to go.
@Patrick Glenn
Me too, and I haven’t seen any suggestion that this is something generals can’t do. As for the possibility of firing him, so far the President seems to be taking it mostly in stride. McChrystal is safe, I think.
Does McChrystal have the right to expect his name won’t be attached to a policy with which he disagrees? Yes.
Slight disagreement. That only those two names can be pulled up shows that it is not common. To say it’s non-existent would be wrong, and there are probably more cases to be found if you dug deep enough, but I think that mostly the generals take their disagreements to the President, if only out of respect.
And before someone hops on me, I’m not suggesting McChrystal is disrespecting the President.
@Jim
But is it his place to go around publicly suggesting what courses of action he doesn’t want? Advice to the President, sure, but in public?
Michael, as you suggested, I expect there’s (possibly many) other examples, although I pointed out two of the more obvious and egregious examples – McClellan and MacArthur. I studied history as an undergrad but have very little background in military history. I took a Civil War course at a major public university. In that class, we barely touched on battles, let alone military leadership, although we spent plenty of time talking about things like women’s roles behind the lines and in camps.
I don’t know if we’d have to dig very much to find other examples comparable to McChrystal (or even more outspoken, etc.). Maybe Tully can point out a few. Although he was not a general, Theodore Roosevelt was a “loose cannon” when he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (for all intents in purposes, he ran the department). In the run-up to the Spanish-American War, I don’t think Teddy was laying low.
One possibility is that this has happened more frequently than Bruce Ackerman claimed it has, but that the main difference now is that there’s more exposure with the alternative media, etc. (and, of course, there’s a Democratic president . . .).
Also, I’m not sure if there’s really been that many American wartime commanders at the level of McChyrstal, McClelland, and MacArthur. Three examples might be pretty telling.
Well its working.
The Democrats are using this general to take the eyes off health care reform and put them on something else. Anything else.
“”"… On Monday night, Pelosi told Charlie Rose “should go up the line of command” instead of publicly opining on strategy — prompting a swift, sneering reaction from the GOP committee. …””"” This is how its portrayed at another left site.
“”“It’s evidence they long for the days when a woman’s place was in the kitchen. Now a woman is third in line for the presidency… But it’s not surprising, coming from a party that’s 80 percent male and 100 percent white,” she added, referring to the composition of the House GOP conference. …””" Another obscure Democratic congresswoman said yesterday.
This is nothing more then a gimmick by the Obama administration to use this generals remarks to get everyones attention off the Senate healthcare fiasco long enough to get a bill to the floor to debate on it. Because once we get a bill……its going to pass. Simple as that.
Presidents/admins “firing” generals from top commands is hardly rare (doesn’t anyone remember how McChrystal got the job in the first place?) and the publicly stated reasons for doing so are not at all necessarily the actual reasons.
And those are just a few bits of recent history.
It is rare for a general to speak out in the way McChrystal did and in every case I am aware of the general found other duties shortly thereafter. I am sure McChrystal is fully aware of this and made his decision accordingly. You don’t rise to his position without understanding politics. I wish we had had a few of him about 6 years ago.
That said, I do find it amusing to yet again see so many on the right and the left adopt the talking points that their political opposition were using a few short years ago. It’s almost as if they are positions of convenience.