McChrystal

I’m rather disturbed with the media firestorm generated by Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s somewhat inappropriate comments about the Obama administration. Disturbed, but not overly surprised. No military officer should publicly criticize his commander, and Gen. McChrystal is no exception. But the mainstream media is somewhat hysterical about McChrystal's apparent insubordination, published in (of all places) Rolling Stone magazine. They’re not concerned with the accuracy of the comments attributed to him, but rather they’re livid because he disagrees with, and apparently disrespects, the anointed one. I’ll note that this is a bit different from the reaction a few years ago when other military officers criticized President Bush’s Iraqi war policies. During Bush's time in office, active duty officers that spoke out against administration policy were “courageous whistleblowers”, and retired generals were sages of military policy. Now however, Gen. McChrystal is being treated as some sort of rabid dog that must be muzzled, and there are even calls to “change” the entire command structure of the US Military! However, Barry and his minions should I’d think, be held to the same standards to which they held President Bush. Since insubordination was considered a matter of competence when military leaders criticized Bush and Rumsfield, shouldn’t Obama welcome this independent strategic thinking? Perhaps the man with three Muslim names should acknowledge McChrystal’s concerns, and use them as a basis for re-evaluating his own strategy? Or as one pundit stated, “You know, live up to his promise of no ‘yes men’.”

Personally I think the general made a mistake in publicly stating any of his personal views while still a serving officer, even though the comments were made by officers on McChrystals staff, not by the General himself. The Commander in Chief has the right to remove a general “any time he sees fit,” said General Omar Bradley. Dismissing a general is seldom done, and can sometimes provoke considerable controversy. Still, President Lincoln replaced the hugely popular George McClellan during the Civil War for being overly cautious. President Harry Truman replaced the equally popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Commander of United Nation forces in Korea, for gross insubordination. President Reagan fired Gen Schweitzer from his National Security Council staff job. Gen. Eric Shinseki was forced out of the service for publicly criticizing the Bush administration policies in Iraq (instantly earning the media’s approval), and was rewarded by the leftists with his present job, that of Secretary of Veterans Affairs, although I rather doubt such a fate will come Gen. McChrystal’s way. With no military knowledge or experience of his own, and with none to speak of among his staff, Mr. Obama is caught between the proverbial “rock and a hard place” by Gen. McChrystal’s defection, so to preserve his credibility and authority, Obama had to fire General McChrystal. But doing so isn’t going to make things easy. The champions of Gen. Shinseki now look like hypocrites for firing a commander for saying what he thinks. The troops in the field, who always regard civilian meddling in military matters with a jaundiced eye, will likely consider the firing of a commander, barely a year after the last commander was canned for disagreeing with the White House, as an indication that the civilian leadership is doing little more than stumbling around in the dark, and that’s not going to help moral much. This also brings up an important question… what sort of military commanders do we want serving our nation? Like Gen. George Patton during WW II, McChrystal has strong personal opinions, an enviable military record, and a habit of letting his mouth run away from his common sense. But both of these men were highly successful commanders, and in the military there is no substitute for success. On the other hand, politicians (and our tradition of civilian control of the military), demand obedient, pliable servants who readily bend to political decree. This is hardly the type of commander we could expect to win wars. So what do we want… hard charging warriors who can successfully defend our national interests… or parade ground soldiers in pretty uniforms?

Unfortunately for Gen. McChrystal, rather than rely on his military public affairs officer, he apparently accepted the advice of an inexperienced civilian, a “strategic communications” agent who arranged the media embed with Michael Hastings of “Rolling Stone”, a leftist entertainment magazine, and an unknown factor to the general and his staff. To make matters worse, Hastings was working on an alarmist-sounding feature entitled “The Runaway General.” As Hastings describes it, much of his interaction with Gen. McChrystal and his staff, was in relaxed settings – a Paris hotel suite and a nearby Irish pub. Knowing that McChrystal has a habit of pushing the limits of authority, allowing a virtually unknown reporter with whom they had no previous relationship was an appalling error on the part of the Generals staff. Or was it? If McChrystal has the low opinion of his civilian leadership that his reported comments indicate, he should have done the honorable thing, resigned from military service, and then spoken out. But how much media exposure would that have gotten? I somehow doubt that the press would have been sitting on his doorstep reporting his every word, and the reasons for his resignation would not have received much publicity. However, Gen. McChrystal has been in service for thirty-four years, and I suspect he’s been seriously considering retirement anyway. What better way to go out than with a bang, and this particular bang will likely shake the Obama administration to its roots, along with just maybe getting something done about the political stalemate in Afghanistan!
Now we have Gen. Petraeus back in harness, selected by his one-time archenemy Barrack Obama, to command in Afghanistan. No longer the whipping boy for candidate Obama, Petraeus is the administrations last, best hope for getting us out of Afghanistan with at least some slight vestige of honor. Ironically, since the guy they helped get elected has “rehired” George Bush’s General, MoveOn.org now has to repudiate their portrayal of Petraeus as “General Betray Us”. Irony however is not something understood by the rabid leftists at MoveOn. McChrystal’s relationship with the press contrasts with that of Petraeus, who is much more practiced in dealing with reporters and the civilian leadership. Petraeus's staff officers tend to have extensive Washington experience as well, and will likely never allow themselves to be caught in this type of situation.

I greatly respect Gen. McChrystal’s military record, and can sympathize with him for the situation he now finds himself in. But he of all people should well understand that even though everyone is entitled to their opinion, military officers should know that theirs are best kept private, and not aired in the media… particularly so if they seriously disagree with the senior levels in the chain of command.