Orbital Matters

Saturn Smith

Saturn Smith

Saturn Smith
Birthday
April 06
Title
Ms.
Company
The Solar System
Bio
Everything posted here, and more random thoughts, are also posted at my web site: http://kepkanation.com.

Editor’s Pick
JUNE 22, 2010 12:52PM

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

Rate: 21 Flag
1685A61E-CF19-42ED-861D-F7084A1A814B.jpg

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.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Poor judgment in front of reporters = poor judgment in a theater of war. Cut this guy a severance check and good riddance.

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
I think poor judgment in front of reporters and poor judgment in the theater of war might be two very separate things; I'd rather have a guy who's good at the latter than the former, though the former is more and more part of the job.

Yeah, I agree about the Tillman bit, though.
Inevitably, someone will make this a test of Obama's manhood and lay on Truman-MacArthur comparisons. You get right to the heart of the matter when you observe that what the flap is really about is an acceptable end to the occupation of Afghanistan. McChrystal was given the job of preventing a Somali-like failed state in Afghanistan, then denied the option of stalemating the Taliban indefinitely. My guess is the Biden view will prevail short term, followed by more muscle -- something like "shock and awe" -- when that strategy fails.
McChrystal's comment is that bad, and worse. Would his comments be that bad if it were you and me, no. But the General is in a special position. The situation demonstrates the lack of discipline top to bottom in a military organization, in a theatre of war. This isn't M.A.S.H. with a laugh track. This is real war, real bombs, real death. McChrystal's statements, and his condoning similar such statements within his organization, and allowing them to be disseminated in a major publication is poison to their mission. It projects insubordination down to the lowest Private. Somewhere there are hundreds of Privates who think their Corporals are idiots, but that has no place. It is inappropriate conduct for a professional soldier. Somewhere there are Lieutenants who think their Majors are idiots, but you keep that to yourself. This particular type of insubordination will quickly unzip right to the bottom of the organization, and it will become completely ineffective. Organizational discipline is necessary in all sorts of organizations. None are more severe than military discipline in a theatre of war. Yeah, McChrystal's insubordination is really bad. It is worse than bad.
Another example of your naivete to think that this is excuseable. The military chain of command running through civilian authority is inviolable and must remain inviolable. This lack of professionalism is arrogant, insubordinate and thoroughly unpardonable.
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.
My understanding of "insubordination" is that it's actually the act of disobeying a direct order, Bill. I think McChrystal's statements here might encourage the kind of questioning of authority you're talking about, and for that reason, yeah, something should be said, but he's never disobeyed a command or shown any likelihood to do so while commanding in Afghanistan. Beyond which, the article goes out of its way to show that McChrystal engages with the exact troops who are questioning the mission -- I don't think the Army is completely the homogeneous, unquestioning organization you're saying it should be/is/was.
Walter, he didn't question Obama's authority, though, at all -- the quotes about Obama don't even come from McChrystal. There's a joke about Joe Biden, there's some scathing commentary on the diplomats, but nowhere in this piece is he shown to question the authority of his commander or to be willing, able, ready, or even inclined not to follow a direct command.

I understand that if he had questioned him, that would be a much bigger deal, and punishable under Army codes.
Smith, the Army absolutely is not unquestioning. You are right. That is precisely my point. No organization of people is unquestioning. That is why discipline is developed. Questioning and skepticism has its place. This is not one of them. This is in fact the last place that it can be tolerated. A military unit does not function like any other thing. Little hesitations can cause disasters. Destruction of discipline can lead to massive fratricide. The constraints that keep viral fratricide from breaking out is heavy discipline. McChrystal is a volunteer. He has chosen what he is doing. This choice does not include open disrespect for civilian authority. He can't be seen or heard doing it, and he can't condone it. You're damn right the Army is not an unquestioning thing. It is made of humans. That is why the leadership has to maintain discipline.
The guy sounds like a buffoon. But it's not like he told Rolling Stone that we need to drop nukes on mainland China.
Bill, I agree, there's a place for it, and discipline has been important. I still don't think McChrystal's comments in the article equal any kind of questioning of authority -- they might rise to the level of "venting" about process.

Skeptic -- he sounds like a strange guy.
He sounds like a classic prima donna.
Three words you clearly do not understand: CHAIN OF COMMAND.

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.
You have to put yourself in their shoes, as none of us are directly responsible for waging or continuing this war. No matter what sort of bullshit lies they feed us - and perhaps themselves - they know this war is wrong and evil and they have blood upon their hands - that includes Obama. We the American people may absolve them but that means nothing in the end.

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.
Cal, I'd be interested to know which part of the R.S. article led you to believe that McChrystal is at odds in such a dramatic way with the civilian leadership. I just don't see it.
The whole mess is disturbingly distracting and sophomoric.. The good General should get his cocky ass kicked to the curb.

and..what Harry said.
Dismissive jokes and asides contribute in a major way to a festering style of discontent and lack of respect, especially if it's condoned by your superior who is talking about his Boss. We all know very well the attitude those in military have for those who never were, and it might bite to feel your Boss isn't what you'd want, but Obama is Boss ---our country cannot afford to have a General who's contemptuous of the Commander in Chief and might be encouraging the same ---actively or not --- among the troops.
I went and read the entire RS article. Have to basically agree with you on this one Saturn. This chain of command talk here is distracting. He should have been fired several times previously (i.e., Tillman) as you've pointed out.

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.
Saturn, I normally find your pieces insightful but in this case I believe you're wrong. The arrogant wisecracks quoted in the RS article, even if they didn't come from the general himself, are indicative of a staff that has no respect for civilian authority. And that disrespect starts at the top. I think he'll be releived of his command and rightfully so.
Go to my latest posting to see some of the real Alice in Wonderland workings of our war effort, and then ask yourself:

Why can't we just get the hell out of Afghanistan, starting NOW?
People at McCrystal's level fire themselves. They let the boss know when they're ready to go. Sending the letter resignation via Rolling Stone is a new twist, but fed up is fed up, and, clearly McCrystal is fed up and getting off the merry-go-round. The most interesting thing about the flap is I haven't seen anybody make the case that McCrystal is wrong and that Obama, Biden and Jones know what they're doing.
I just dont understand how the article could have been approved for publication by McChrystal. Rolling Stones is a good source in my book and I believe what they report but isn't it protocol to have the person who the article is written about read and approve it?
Not if you want to keep your job.
"Traitor" would be too good a word for this one.
I feel like telling the president: Fire this guy's ass!!!!
R for relevency
There's a gratuitous "e" in my last comment here......
Somebody give me an "a"!
Zanelle, the policy is generally only to allow sources to confirm their quotes to the magazine, not to allow them to read the completed product before publication. It sounds like McChrystal agreed that he'd said exactly what was printed -- and like he had to, since the reporter apparently had him recorded.
this is the transition from civilian to military government. a nation continually at war will be run by generals, for the generals come to despise the motives of their civilian masters, and see no reason to kill their soldiers in pursuit of political advantage.

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.
...by the way, I rated you S.S. It is a great discussion, and we disagree, but it is worth a thumb. I am dismayed to see that it has so few. Rate this, people.
It's a no-win situation for everyone. It hurts Obama, since a large percentage of the population will agree with anything a general says about the political leadership, especially when it's negativity about a Democrat.

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.
Absolutely spot-on. You've hit all the right points.

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.
Thanks, Bill.

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?
Your comment thread is interesting and thoughtful. I suppose the integrity of the chain of command, the compromised professionalism, etc., could lead to a widespread disrespect for Obama's team that just never gets reigned back in. Remember, the MO of Republicans is to mock and denigrate rather than argue issues. I keep thinking of the complete disrespect Jimmy Carter was subject to while in office, and the cracks about Clinton's personal conduct and relationship with HRC ("Billary" etc.) during his term. While Obama is known for encouraging independent advice and even dissent among his advisors, this stuff from McChrystal is something else altogether. It's not like he went public with "Obama and I disagree about troops in Afghanistan," or even, "Obama's war actions concern only the political." He's just mocking everybody like a frat boy would. He sounds like a kid who likes the rogue reputation of a pirate or something.
BTW, I don't believe that McChrystal voted for Obama. No way. I think that's something he says for credibility now that Obama is his CIC.
That's an interesting thought, Lainey -- the voted for Obama bit leapt out at me, too, as a bit unexpected. Then again, I don't think he would have had the same luck or rise with McCain, who was less likely to initiate a COIN strategy like that which McChrystal wants.
Colonel and up are politicians first and foremost. Politics is strategy just like war, they are on a continuum. This was not the act of a good politician.
So, anyone here remember Colonel David Hackworth?
From the Boorda scandal?
Earlier, SS - earlier.
Just from knowing a few ex-military guys, the only thought I have is that disrespect for chain of command - which McChrystal's comments displayed in full - os considered by these guys to be the ultimate act of defiance and renders a person totally untrustworthy. Anything less than dropping a rock on such an offender's head will yield only increased contempt for thre Commander in Chief. At least if they guys I know are at all representative.
Saturn, I've usually found you to be one of the most astute observers of the political scene, and you make a fair point about how McChrystal's bad-mouthing of practically everyone he dealt with, excepting those who report to him, isn't the most salient point from the article. Fair enough that they believe that Afghanistan will look more like Vietnam and that it will be a victory only in the Aikenesque sense. At least they acknowledge the obvious.

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.
I was a manager of a guy like McCrystal once.

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.
Does any of this apply? if not to McChrystal, than to his subordinates who were quoted? it's from the Uniform Code..

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.
Hell, he should be fired just because his favorite beer is Bud Light Lime.
War is hell and a commander cannot be held responsible for every stupid thing his subordinates do. And the killing of civilians was not necessarily stupid but misjudgments when they were terrified. Concerning the cover-up of Pat Tillman's death, was McChystal personally involved?
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.
I don't see how Obama has any option but to fire him.
I have to disagree with you, Saturn. I think the subordination of the military to civilian authority is so critical that such blatant disrespect for that authority must be hammered down hard whenever it happens.
Ironies abound.

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.
If this were the first, second, or even third time McChrystal showed bad judgment . . . however, IMHO I'd say his admission of submitting fraudulent documentation to his superior officers in the Pat Tillman debacle, the fact that Sy Hersh identified him as Dick Cheney's assassin in chief running the black ops squads, and his previous insubordinate remarks should shitcan this lying jerk.
Great commentary here.

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.
That Obama is dragging this thing out so that he can make yet another SPEECH indicates to me that he's going to keep McC.
I guess you know by now that McChrystal was fired. The next step will be the criticism of that firing, namely the First Amendment criticisms. Here's why that argument is bullshit:

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.
This is the military, not the civilian or corporate world where misconduct gets blown off and minimized on a "no big deal" basis every day.

No, no. We're talking the UCMJ, not public law. What floats my boat is this: President Obama managed to step up for once.
After this dustup in Afghanistan and the oilup in the Gulf, two exceptions to the generally dismal quality of the Obama Administration have emerged: Gen. Petraeus and Ken Feinberg. Hold on, aren't they holdovers from the Bush Administration. Something to ponder.
Yes, they were! Whether in corporate America, government, or even behind the counter at McDonald's you never, ever criticize the boss, at least not in public, and expect to keep your job. As a 30-year veteran of service in the Coast Guard, I know leader's have to set an example, do the right things (moral courage) and build unit cohesion by maintaining morale. McCrystal's comments are not how one does that. If you disagree with the boss, say so, but in private, unless what your being asked is immoral or illegal. If it is neither, but violates your personal sense of ethics, then it is your duty to resign quietly, so as not to affect unit morale or integrity. McCrystal violated all these concepts, so he had to go!
Mr. McCrystal don't want no nigger tellin' him what to do.

(It's just that simple.)
David, couldn't you come up with something a little more intelligent than " Mr. McCrystal don't want no nigger tellin' him what to do?" Let me show you the way: had any employee launched a vitriolic rant against his or her superiors in work’s real world, they, too, would’ve felt a kick comparable to USA’s Landon Donovan’s foot making soccer ball contact. Although lauded for militaristic brilliance throughout his career, McChrystal supplied the Rolling Stone’s record of insubordination which, in turn, revealed how tactless he is. Because he picked the wrong time and place to fire his most powerful weapon, the four-starred top dog’s tail deserved to be clipped.
Thank you for posting this. Its nice to read some post about this nowadays.

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/
Poor judgment in front of reporters = poor judgment in a theater of war. Cut this guy a severance check and good riddance.
synthetic front lace wigs
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
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.

dress designs