McChrystal's Rolling Stone comments: Really, that bad?

President Obama meets with Gen. Stanley McChrystal (right) and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry (left) at Bagram Airbase. The Rolling Stone article calls the relationship between McChrystal and Eikenberry "By far the most crucial – and strained."
Pete Souza/White House Photo/Flickr.
The scandal du jour in Washington surrounds a Rolling Stone article, "The Runaway General," in which General Stanley McChrystal and his staff say a few less-than-respectful things about President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the administration's Afghanistan team.
A quick sample of the comments:
On Joe Biden: "[McChrystal] and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"'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?'
On Obama: The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "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."
On National Security Advisor Jim Jones: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985."
On Richard Holbrooke: McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."
At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.
"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.
The only person who escapes criticism, it seems, is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who "had Stan's back during the strategic review," according to an aide.
This, really, is the theme of the piece: McChrystal likes people who don't question him; he's annoyed by those who do. It's certainly an awkward position to be in, if you're not, say, the President of the United States, but the piece does a very good job of also showing that McChrystal has gotten his way for years and years.
I can understand why the White House feels a need to show the president is worked up about this, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous that they're calling McChrystal back to Washington for an Oval Office lecture over the few thin lines of off-the-cuff disrespect witnessed here. 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?
The real shame of this scandal is that it will yet again overshadow the actual war-related parts of the piece. People might get interested in a general making a joke out of the vice president, but how many will read on and absorb the greater message of the piece: General McChrystal and his cursing, drinking staff of "killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs" aren't aiming for victory in Afghanistan anymore. "Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm. 'It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win,' says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. 'This is going to end in an argument.'"
McChrystal is a general who's had the support of two presidents, now, and who has survived a number of scandals (the article points to the cover-up of the cause of Pat Tillman's death and the human rights abuses at the prison at Camp Nama) that should have killed the career of anyone else. It's hard to believe that a man so friendly with the media and the Pentagon, who already today has had statements of support from Hamid Karzai and John Kerry, won't weather this storm.
Should he? Eh. Generals criticizing diplomats isn't exactly a fly-home offense. Yeah, it showed bad judgment to bad mouth the vice president to a magazine reporter, I'll give you that -- but McChrystal's biggest mistakes have had nothing to do with mouthing off to a reporter, and it's insulting to believe that he could be canned for a matter of perception rather than action. Watch the civilian casualty rate increase dramatically, and you get to stay on the ground; watch your troops try to clumsily cover-up killing two pregnant women, and you get to stay in country; insult the vice president with a lame high school pun, though, and you'd better high-tail it home for a lecture.
Update: I've been following this throughout the day, and have a few additional thoughts on McChrystal's comments (particularly in re: Joe Biden) up at my website, if anyone wants to drop in.

Salon.com
Comments
His involvement with covering up the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman still rankles. He's been given just enough rope now and should be left twisting slowing in the wind. This camel's back is now broken.
He's toast. Now he'll make the victim's rounds on the Sunday Morning talk shows
Yeah, I agree about the Tillman bit, though.
What if, the order came down terminating "DA/DT" and the command structure refused to comply?
There have been wars (think VietNam) where there was way too much interference by civilian authority in tactical decisions. But the equilibrium has always come back--the pendulum swings.
The man has to go because that's the way the military works. He forgot about that. So did a fellow named MacArthur way back in the early 50's.
I understand that if he had questioned him, that would be a much bigger deal, and punishable under Army codes.
Skeptic -- he sounds like a strange guy.
Ask yourself: would you get fired from a job for saying such things about your boss? You know you would. Should you? I'd wager if you were the boss, you'd think the employee should be fired. If there was a written rule, a part of "company policy," that insisted employees not openly, publicly criticize management (especially in a manner that exposes the company, betrays internal deliberations, and otherwise risks the value of the company image or business), you'd insist the employee be fired.
By demonstrating that he and his staff are not only at odds with their civilian leadership, but also willing to publicly disrespect that leadership, the General has provided an amazing propaganda point for our opponents in Afghanistan. The General has sent a clear message to those we fight: there is dissension int he ranks, the military is on the verge of rebellion, and the President is unable to lead the military.
While this may not be material aid and comfort to the enemy, and thus does not rise to the level of "treason" as defined in the Constitution, the General has clearly provided "psychological" or "moral" support to our opponents, and thus is guilty of treason.
In short, the General has personally handed our opponents another victory.
It is also quite clear and without doubt he has violated the military code of conduct and military law.
The General is a TRAITOR.
So yes, if you knew that about yourself you too would be highly sensitive to criticism - and even more senstitive to the truth. Fuck 'em all. They're like Roman generals during the decline, never seeing the big picture, focusing only on their careers and fighting over perception because they know the reality is fucked.
and..what Harry said.
My two cents is that Obama (and his aides) himself sees that this (Afghanistan) isn't working too well, and it's time to keep his promises about winding things down, and there's no way he can do it. When in trouble it's time to kick ass and changes coaches - that's coming next I bet. And let's not forget, the only person who ever had any military success in Afghanistan was Genghis Khan. He's not available right now.
Good post.
Why can't we just get the hell out of Afghanistan, starting NOW?
I feel like telling the president: Fire this guy's ass!!!!
R for relevency
Somebody give me an "a"!
but america is still in the 'augustan age', perhaps obama is claudius to dubya's caligula... in any event, obama can not fire mccrystal for he has no military base at all. the career ass-kissers will obey orders, but they have already demonstrated they can not win in afpak. firing mccrystal would collapse any pretense of military competence.
so they will reach some agreement, there will be a 'buddies' photo-op, and 'nam vets will shake their heads and wonder why nobody ever learns the futility of fighting guerilla wars against people who have nothing to lose.
The fact is, the general has ruined his career with utter stupidity bordering on insubordination. If I had said something like that publicly about my boss, my career would have been at a standstill if not over. The general's is now over for all intents and purposes.
I keep thinking about how I would feel about this if it had happened to Bush a few years ago, and I suppose I would have said, "I'm glad to get a candid opinion about the war and its administration." The problem with this "new information," though, is that it's mostly fluff or, as you say, perception. Two things stand out as being potentially relevant to me: that Holbrook is worried about being fired and acts accordingly, and that the other dude is stuck in 1985. I find those things interesting.
BTW, McChrystal should never have been promoted by Obama given his role in the Tillman cover-up. That story still makes me crazy.
Procopius, I'm leaning more and more toward agreeing that things might be over for McChrystal, too.
Lainey -- yeah, the Jim Jones comment was interesting, I agree. 1985? Fashion-wise?
But anyone in any job who went on the record with so much disparagement of his bosses and colleagues can't stay on. You can't conduct and serious give and take or discuss how to manage delicate pieces of business if you have sound reason to believe that the guy you're dealing with thinks you're an asshole and an ineffective one at that. And that he's likely to go on the record with it come memoir time. He must go.
With an attitude like he has, my bet is, whatever talents he has, they are only employed when he wholly approves of the goal and tactics. I say get rid of him.
Not because he made some lame joke worthy of a mean girl in Jr. High, but because his attitude is toxic and without a doubt poisoning the morale and discipline of the troops he commands.
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
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.
Your argument that McChrystal survived these scandals and may now be fired for speaking out of turn does not hold water. Any football player who bad mouths his coach will be sidelined. So why should McChrystal not be fired? How can there ever again be a feeling of trust between the President and his top man in Afghanistan? If for no other reason, he deserves to be fired for poor judgment.
But this incident exposes a much deeper problem. Most in the US Armed Forces detest President Obama. This is just the tip of an iceberg.
McChrystal finally gets more than 20 minutes of Obama's time.
McChrystal's final service to his country, for which he will probably be paid with being fired, is to confirm the impression of most thinking beings that Obama is as qualified to be CinC as he is to be President.
Some great comments here: Billy Glad, very provocative; The Rescuers, highly illuminating.
On the other hand,we have the usual silllliiiiness from Stellaa.
I understand your point, SS, but have to disagree. There's a defined chain of command, and McChrystal ignores and flouts it. He's obviously eligible for a court martial, but he Should be put out to pasture for his previous egregious behavior alone. Pt. Obama should clinically, and without fanfare, cut this guy loose. And replace him with someone with the requisite integrity to command a wind-down; and to command with the structure of "command" always in the forefront.
1) Active-duty military don't have rights under the Constitution. When they raise their hand to take the oath, part of the oath is to forfeit their rights. I know; I did it.
2) The firing won't violate his free-speech "rights" if he isn't fired for disliking the Pres. but for not following direct orders. And that's exactly what he has been doing since January 21, 2009.
3) It also won't violate his "rights" if he's fired for incompetence. And that's exactly what he's been since the day he decided to run the war his own way instead of the way his COC wanted it run.
Military people aren't allowed to decide which orders they want to follow. If the order is lawful (and Obama hasn't given McChrystal any unlawful orders) he is supposed to carry out the orders and save his opposition for his memoirs - which he can write the day he retires, resigns, or is fired.
No, no. We're talking the UCMJ, not public law. What floats my boat is this: President Obama managed to step up for once.
(It's just that simple.)
Its meaningful and somehow sharing this to readers like me, makes me want to surf the web to be able to get more wonderful ideas.
http://www.buzport.com/
Full Lace Front Wig, Long & Short Hair Wigs: 80% OFF at Celebrity Wigs. We ensure 100% customer satisfaction with our Long & Short Indian Remy Hair Wigs.
wedding dresses
evening dresses
prom dresses
dress designs