It has been front-and-center in the most recent news cycle: "The Runaway General" by Michael Hastings, in The Rolling Stone magazine. It won't be on news stands until Friday, June 25th, 2010; although technically, it is the issue for July 8-22, 2010 issue.http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
For a story only available online, in advance of print publication, it has had amazing 'legs', resulting in the resignation of one of the highest ranking generals among the many serving in the United States armed forces.
I was curious to see how many we actually have, (although only curious enough to check wikipedia). Wikipedia was updated to reflect the resignation of McChrystal; his space is vacant in the listings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_four-star_officers
"There are currently 41 active duty four-star officers in the uniformed services of the United States: 12 in the Army, 4 in the Marine Corps, 11 in the Navy, 13 in the Air Force, 2 in the Coast Guard, and 0 in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
Of the seven federal uniformed services, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps is the only service that does not have an established four-star position. "
But I also learned this which I found interesting,not having served in the military myself, courtesy of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_(United_States)
"The United States Code explicitly limits the total number of generals that may be on active duty at any given time. The total number of active duty general officers is capped at 302 for the Army, 279 for the Air Force and 80 for the Marine Corps.[1] For the Army and Air Force, no more than 16.3% of the service's active duty general officers may have more than two stars, and no more than 25% of those may have four stars.[2][3][4] This corresponds to 12 Army generals, 11 Air Force generals and 3 Marine generals."
So the numbers of top brass, in theory, could be even higher, depending on the size of our military. In times of war we can go up to 5 star general officers. I'm amazed we needed a statute to regulate this. It takes a majority vote of the Senate to confirm one a promotion to this level. It takes their resignation, or a court martial, to remove or demote them.
Even before McChrystal met with Obama, the media was on the story - right, left and center. Politifact has been rating some of these statements. Let me begin with politifact.com's rating of 'pants on fire' (their harshest 'false') for MSNBC's Ed Schultz."This was a stupid move by McChrystal. So, once again, here's President Obama. He has to fix yet another problem he inherited from the Bush administration. I want the president to step up, stand up, take charge, and fire this jackass, Gen. McChrystal. Our troops deserve more."
- Ed Schultz
"The Ed Show" MSNBC, June 22, 2010
You can see the clip of Schultz's 'rant', and the research, analysis and conclusion by politifact.com here:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/23/ed-schultz/ed-schultz-says-mcchrystal-was-obama-problem-inher/
I love politifact.com and factcheck.org.
I agree with Politifact faulting 'big Ed', for blaming the problems with McChrystal on President Bush. They are absolutely correct when they point out that Obama and his administration are responsible for their decisions to promote McChrystal to the position in Afghanistan from which he resigned. Obama and his administration are also fully responsible for not having sufficiently disciplined McChrystal for his previous similar misconduct, sufficiently to prevent it recurring. These were Obama's decisions, and no one should be blaming any part of this specific incident on former President Bush. (someone revive my conservative friends who may have fainted from shock after reading these words)
I disagree with politifact on the rating of pants on fire. I leave it to my readers to agree or disagree with my reasons. I argue for a barely true, or perhaps a barely false rating.
McChrystal was promoted to General on January 1, 2001 - before Bush was inaugurated. The initial advancement to General was not a Bush promotion. However, McChrystal's subsequent assignments and promotions were fully under the authority of Bush as Comander in Chief, and occurred with his input and impetus.
This statute limited group of individuals from which Obama could select his commanding general for Aghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else was certainly influenced and partly determined by Bush.
It was Bush who invaded Afghanistan, shifted focus to Iraq, and made other decisions which shaped the situation Obama inherited in 2009. It did not begin with his presidency. Yes, Obama inherited the larger situation. 'Big Ed' was correct about that.
That is not the same as claiming Bush is the cause of this problem. It is wrong for Ed Schultz to try to deflect the responsibility onto anyone else. It is unfair to both the Obama and the Bush presidencies.
I fully agree with Politifact.com that the blame and the responsibility for this specific problem with McChrystal, must belong to Obama. This was the third such incident, and while McChrystal is clearly responsible for his own words and poor judgement, Obama is also clearly responsible for having promoted McChrystal, for having failed to successfully fullfill his role as McChrystal's Commander in Chief.
Obama acted properly in accepting McChrystal's resignation, but I wish that he had been able to avoid an incident like this, making the resignation unnecessary. McChrystal, for all of his problems - and there have been many - is an amazing man, a dedicated and brave soldier, and a tremendous asset to our country. We have all lost something important with this failure. All of us have; McChrystal, Obama, the members of our armed forces, our allies, our country .
I'll deal with the response from the right in part II.
McChrystal behaved in a manner unbecoming a General Officer of the Unittes States military.
ReplyDeleteSchultz is a side-show to me. I don't much care what he says from one day to the next.
Conversely, McChrystal's conduct promotes any sense of disquiet, even disloyalty, to the mission at hand. Obama has listned to McChrystal, given him the liberty to do things as he asked for, but the problem is solving Afghanistan just like solving Iraq, isn't really a military problem. Patreaus understood that not every problem was a nail waiting to be hit with a hammer, but Afghanistan may be even MORE difficult than Iraq.
Schultz, Limbaugh, Colter or Rhodes, they all shill for their political cause, our concern needs to be what's right for the country, which means backing the mission you are given while in uniform and doing your best and promoting an atmosphere of "can do" not one of questioning your civilian boses when in uniform. When in uniform you are an instrument of policy for your government, not an instrument of politics for your favored party. THAT's for propogandists like Schultz. Your JOB is to hold your voice except in the most private of circles, because to do otherwise is to teach your troops that THEY TOO get to pick and chose which missions they'll support, it tells your troops that THEY are above listening to orders if they desire - because, after all, it's what you JUST did, and worst of all, it tells them and the country that the military just might chose to act to replace a civilian leader it considers itself above.
McChrystal's comments disgraced himself, his uniform, and his career. I am far less worried about Schultz, and much more worried about an Army which would abide this kind of conduct.
Pen, I also believe that McChrystal acted badly, and I particularly object and am offended by what seems to be his disdain for the civilian parties to HIS counterinsurgency plan. It strongly suggests to me a larger disdain for civilians, and possibly for the very nature of civilian control OF our military.
ReplyDeleteHowever, not having served in our armed forces as you and ToE have done, I'm also feel distinctly uncomfortable about the whole situation - concerned that I am trying to understand something about which I know comparatively little, and which I have not experienced.
All of that is a very separate issue however - what McChrystal did or did not do wrong - or even what Obama did or did not do wrong.
I have a concern that it is a very legitimate thing to be aware that the current problems this administration is addressing are a continuation of someone else's decisions, right - or, imho, mostly wrong.
But I think, unlike Schultz, we also need to be aware that these problems and the solutions for them also have to be appropriately addressed to THIS administration.
Point out what is not this President's fault, yes - what is genuinely FROM the previous admin.
But lets by all means ALSO hold Obama responsible for his own successes and failures. I don't think Schultz is doing that --- and I don't think the right does a very fair job of it EITHER.
But the right's role will be in part II - but not until sometime next week.
As I said, I don't much care what Schultz has to say. He's a wading pool deep commenter.
ReplyDeleteWhat we should decide is whether we should be in Afghanistan. I've been opposed, ambivilant, and have returned to being opposed.
McChrystal's issues with Obama, Obama's issues with McChrystal, and even Obama's leadership skills are the stuff of political drivel to me. He acted unprofessionally, neither Bush nor Obama can do much more (or fail to) than give their blessings to plans and then support them. The solution in Afghanistan starts and ends with finding a non-corrupt government. Bush put Karzai in place, that much IS Bush's fault as is the fact that Bush ignored the place for so long it went to the dogs. But, Obama still is NOW responsible - but whehter we worry about that, as Schultz seems to, and you seem to object to, I don't much care. McChrystal invites mutiny, and he should have either been told "no, you get to go back and finish your job" or he should have been sacked from the Army entirely. His conduct was inexcusable, and worrying about Schultz takes your eye off the ball.
What????
ReplyDeleteThe McChrystal decision is the specific issue, and the larger war in Afghanistan is the larger chain of events that form the context around that recent it.
It is not an either/or proposition. It is more like zoom-in/zoom-out of focus on an image.
Obviously I can think about more than one issue and so can you and our readers, so I respectfully differ on the notion that there is any eye-taking-off-a-ball here.
Blaming Bush / Blaming Obama is a daily leitmotiv of the left and the right. It also seems to be an essential facet of McChrystal's comments.
So I would argue to you that these two things DO belong together in this post; and that considering the rights and wrongs, and the rights and lefts of it also, are fundamental to what we will end up deciding to do in and about Afghanistan.
But what so I know?
I think Senator Lieberman looks and sounds like Droopy the Dog....
Before anyone takes it wrongly, that last line was meant to be charmingly self-deprecating, not petulant.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is you are focusing on the personal dispute of McChrystal (and Schultz' reaction). This isn't a discussion of Obama's Afghanistan policy, your post is primarily about whether Schultz is right or wrong, I don't care if he's right or wrong, he's a paid political operative, and unlike many voices on the right, I have no need or interest in falling into lock-step with popular pundits (as our friends do with Limbaugh). Schultz is a side-show.
ReplyDeleteHowever, WHAT it appears you are primarily objecting to here, aren't Obama's POLICIES in Afghanistan, but his HANDLING of McChrystal previously. That too is political drivel. Obama tried to find someone who would competently run Patreaus' counter-insurgency strategy, he did so because what Patreaus did in Iraq was assumed would work in Afghanistan, but neither McChrystal, Obama, the right, the left, Patreaus nor ANYONE other than those on the ground it seems (including you and me) understood well enough the depth of corruption and depravity that rules the day in Afghanistan and it's government.
McChrystal may feel he is working against an uncooperative Administration, unwilling to dump Karzai, and YES, Karzai IS Bush's man first and foremost, but he is now OUR man too. If that's how McChrystal feels, then his job is to express it appropriately, this isn't a political fight, its a fight that has a serious impact on US security. Instead McChrystal shot his mouth off. I don't blame Obama for failing to discipline McChrystal, they make the calls they make, and it may be that they privately DID discipline him, but they also wanted to support him. His conduct, whether previously disciplined or not, was totally inappropriate. Could prior, more forceful action have prevented it, sure, but we don't know that, not by a darned site AND this incident is STILL highly unprofessional. Discussion Obama's personnel management style (as seems to be the thrust of your post) ALSO to me is meaningless unless it seems Obama is so abusive he's driving talented people away. So to me, this isn't a focus in/focus out discussion, it's a discussion of a pundit's opinion and Obama's management style, neither of which are, to me, the problem.
If the discussion you seek is about whether we can win or lose with Karzai, then we should have that discussion, not a discussion about Ed Schultz. What Ed Schultz thinks is meaningless in my opinion, much like what Limbaugh thinks is meaningless. Both are, to a greater and lesser degree to be sure, offensive and odious propogandists who seek to advance a political party with insufficient regard (in Schultz' case) and total disregard (in Limbaugh's case) for the truth.
You should read the full article. McChrystal was a huge promoter of limiting civilian casualties. He even went out on an actual patrol at night with a unit so he could explain those policies better. By all accounts I have read he was a great general and if we were in a conflict like WWII he probably would have been disciplined just short of demotion or resignation because, just like Patton, the man is brilliant on the battlefield and would be too much of an asset to lose. While Petraus was implementing his policies in Iraq, McChrystal was head of Joint Special Forces Command. They say his ops were responsible for more Al Queda leadership deaths than any other units. But like Pen said this problem is not about Obama, Bush, McChrystal, Iraq, or Afghanistan, it is about civilian leadership of our military. When the constitution was written that was considered one of the most important things to keep the government from tyranny that the military be headed by an elected civilian. McChrystal showed disrespect for that whole concept and Obama did what any president should and asked for his resignation. He did this once before making a remark about Biden and was called to the White House and warned. Now my question about the whole thing is why he did it. He has access to the White House so he could have complained directly, outside the press, without risking his career. The man is intelligent and at 3 stars you know about politics and consequences so he knew what would happen, why did he do it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Tuck that McChrystal has recognized the importance of avoiding civilian casualties. The disdain I was referring to was to civilian authority over the military.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that McChrystal is in many ways an extraordinary. We have as a nation, in our history, a few quite accomplished military men who were similarly disciplined - resigned, or were even court marshalled and demoted - for impolitic and insubordinate public speech. Mitchell and McArthur come to mind.
One of the true ironies is that Patreaus, who is not popular among a number of liberals, was attacked by the rabid right when in Anbar in Iraq for mollycoddling the Iraqis. His style was 'too gentle', he wanted to give the Iraqis "therapy", etc.. yet his policies proved effective. He was disliked by the left for being Bush's selection, and party for being successful. He was disliked by the right for putting a torch to the myth that the problem was that we were too soft and that every problem could simply be solved by killing more people.
ReplyDeleteAfghanistan is another problem entirely. It might be more appropriate to say we need someone who is an expert in politics, and in replacing (seruptitiously) ineffective beaurocrats as much or MORE than fighting any battles. Consequently, it may be that those who think we should simply KILL KILL KILL will not fit in even more in Afghanistan than they did in Iraq, but equally those who simply think getting the local warlord (as Patreaus did in Iraq) won't work either. I sang the praises of Patreaus BEFORE people like Mitch and other conservatives had ever even heard of him, when people like Limbaugh piloried his type of 'war' fighting, but Patreaus may be no more effective than McChrystal. Yet of course, the snipes on the right have no solution either.
Tuck, to your comment, I suspect McChrystal is dismayed that they couldn't get rid of Karzai. The problem McChrystal faced was that, whatever his faults, Karzai WAS and is the popularly elected leader, to simply oust him would be to abandon the principal we say we stand for, and underline stay btw, at times Bush talked about not needing (necessarily) a democracy in Iraq (talk about going back on your word about the effects of having friendly democracy). Such an action in Iraq would have been a disaster, in Afghanistan, I don't know, maybe, mabye not. Either way, it's not McChrystal's call, and we don't all get the 'best' solutions to work with as I'll bet McChrystal understood, but also understood he probably can't win with Karzai there. It's a poop sandwich, both for McChrystal AND Obama.
I don't think you can make the claim that Karzai was the elected leader - his election was a fraud.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the best thing we could do would be to stand behind a do-over. And we should have done back when it first happened.
Perhaps with Petraeus in charge, who is less tight with Karzai than was apparently the case with McChrystal - which I offer as an apparent simple fact, not a criticism - we might find some small ways to change balances in our favor now.
With the commentary on the various pundit shows and the columns where the complaint is this being a ten year war, I can't help but think of this from an historic perspective -- the ancient Trojan war was aprox. 10 years. There were the 30 years war, and the 100 years war (actually longer) in Europe. Those are the historic conflict durations that go through my mind when I hear variations on the phrase being "in it for the long haul".
This is Afghanistan, where 'empires go to die', the conflict that brought down the Soviet Union as much or more than anything Reagan ever did.
I dislike our being in Afghanistan this long. It would have been something that had a chance of success had we gone it, done what was proposed instead of being distracted by the bogus reasons for the invasion into Iraq, and gotten out again leaving behind a stable re-emerging nation that hated us less than we are hated now in Afghanistan.
But I am afraid that if we get out, the vacuum left by our leaving WILL simply mean that the terrorists who have been driven into Pakistan will just come back, worse than before. That was the observation by authors who were in the conflict who have since authored books on the subject on today's Meet the Press.
Then there is today's articles in the news where Leon Panetta, head of the CIA asserts that we have had no reliable intel on the location of bin Laden since the early 2000s.