Tensions between the White House and General McChrystal
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-06-23/tensions-between-white-house-and-general-mcchrystal
Dr. Robert M. Gates, United States Secretary of Defense, is greeted by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of International Security Assistance Force and United States Forces Afghanistan, in front of the ISAF Headquarters building Mar. 8, in Kabul, during his recent visit to Afghanistan.
U.S. Army Sgt. David E. Alvarado via isafmedia on Flickr
Tensions between the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and the White House. The implications of General McChrystal’s comments and what they could mean for U.S. strategy for the war.
Guests
Col. Douglas Macgregor
U.S. Army-Retired, decorated combat veteran, senior vice president at Potomac League, LLC, and author of "Warrior's Rage: The Great Tank Battle of 73 Easting."
James Kitfield
senior correspondent, National Journal magazine.
Michael O'Hanlon
senior fellow and director of research of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution
co- author with Hassina Sherjan of "Toughing It Out in Afghanistan.”
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I hope that President Obama fires McChrystal on the spot today. I thought it was wrong that President Obama picked him for this mission knowing that he was one of Bush's puppets who tried to cover up the Pat Tillman death.
Barbara, Saginaw, MI
I for one am fed up with White Men thinking they can show blatant disrespect for the President because they disagree with him, his policies and most importantly, his color. He would have never behaved this way with President Bush. The Congressman from South Carolina and now the President's subordinate refuse to acknowledge proper protocol and deference. I wonder what the General would have done to one of his subordinates who acted in a similar manner.
I keep hearing that McChrystal is easily replaced by his second in command, but how do we know he's not one of the unnamed close aides who also made disparaging comments?
It is understood that General McChrystal's remarks can be considered disparaging and that they may be an embarrassment to certain administration officials. But that is part of being a public figure. However, and most the important point is: Are the general's in the article comments TRUE! That is the issue. I am concerned that, by focusing solely on this insignificant issue, the true purpose of the article is being ignored.
Thank you.
Alain Hebert (A-bear)
Cincinnati, Ohio
As a strong Obama supporter I am extremely disappointed that he first put this man in position after his performance in the Pat Tilman case. The president should have fired him for going off the reservation in London. The president must show more courage and not accept a resignation but publicly fire and court martial him.
The fact is that the military is run by southern republican white men who are just as incensed by the rest of southern white men that a half black man is in the white house.
He needs to go.
I haven't even seen the article! We've all been going on the basis of media reports of an "unpublished" - at least officially - article.
And his and his aides remarks may be fine but as a military leader you cannot badmouth your own boss. It is bad for troop morale and for public confidence in the war.
Do the names Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur strike a familiar note?
Gen. McChrystal presumably went through an extensive due-diligence process with the White House prior to being appointed to this position.
The fact that this important player now makes disparaging, public comments should tell Pres. Obama that Gen. McChrystal cannot be trusted, and indeed that McChrystal most likely misled the President as he was being vetted, at least on issues of loyalty.
A parallel: BP encountered its problems because you cannot tell the truth in that organization. Gen. McChrystal's misfortune is that he told the truth about the dysfunctionality of his leadership. A sad lesson.
I feel as if I am listening to a modern day version of the Emperor's New Clothes. Anyone who has grown up around alcoholics will tell you the most likely reason for the General's otherwise inexplicable episode of angry, mean-spirited disinhibition: alcoholism. Yet I haven't heard this concern raised anywhere in the media. It is symptomatic of our society to view this as an isolated consequence of (boys will be boys) drunken misconduct. For my money, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that this emperor is an alcoholic, and we haven't seen the last of his misbehavior. If he had behaved like this because of depression or bipolar disorder, the response would be swift, and hopefully compassionate. But we prefer to look the other way with alcoholism, and call it something else - anything else.
Diane, I am curious about what Gen. McChrystal would do if one of his immediate subordinates made like negative and derisive comments about him and his staff? Could he afford to take no action and thus send the message to his entire command that criticisms of himself, his officers, and particularly his his judgements are tolerated?
Linda M
As soon as the General knew this article was coming out, he should have contacted the White House & even come to the White House so that they could get ahead of the news cycle.
For an alternative perspective: Is it at all possible, or has anyone considered that this whole event has been engineered by the White House, in coordination with Stan and this reporter, in order to provide a justification in our country to make major changes in our Afghanistan policy?
As mentioned before it is THE RULE that the chain of command is not broken. Your panel is in agreement that Obama has supported the Generals decisions even when he disagreed with McChrystal.
Could this be an intentional move on McChrystal's part to undermine the credibility of the President's administration?
_David, New Mexico
Issues raised by wsws.org: "Firing McChrystal would no doubt provoke a storm of criticism from the Republican right and renewed charges that Obama is insufficiently supportive of the military. The most likely reaction of the White House to such attacks would be a further turn to the right and increased militarism.
"Leaving the general in place, however, would constitute a public admission by Obama of his administration’s subservience to the military brass.
"Whatever McChrystal’s fate, the incident has once again exposed the political power and assertiveness of the military, which, together with the intelligence apparatus, increasingly dominates the American state."
It used to be that generals were fired regularly; today they have much more "control" over events. (Not that what they do works wells....)
If he can't be trusted with a reporter, how can he be trusted with the leaders that he deals with on a daily basis? For this reason alone he needs to go.
As a former Soldier I can agree that he needs to be removed. He has had many incidents and should not have the position he has now. If this was one of his Non Commissioned Officers, making these remarks and allowing his soldiers to state such comments in the presence of a reporter, and the comments were about he (McChrystal) himself, I can be certain a simple apology would not be enough.
He is supposed to BE the example and the one to know better, this is just embarrassing for the Armed Forces
If you read the comments of military people and their families as I do, you will find them to be full of disparaging and disrespectful remarks about the President going far beyond anything McChrystal has said. This is especially true of some seemingly nice people who fit the Tea Party demographics.
This does not excuse McChrystal but makes it more important for Obama as our first black President to insist on respect from the military.
I would bet that he regrets having to fire McChrystal but the General may have given him no choice.
I have some familiarity with the U.S. military, having taught philosophy and ethics at West Point. (I have briefly met GEN McChrystal when he was SOC commander.) I agree that GEN McChrystal has to be disciplined.
But what was allegedly said by him does not destroy his effectiveness--as criticism of policy would. Couldn't he be reduced in rank to LTG? That would be a personal punishment that does not interrupt his valuable service.
Randall R. Dipert
Thanks to your guest for continuously reminding us what comments were attributed by the author to McChrystal's aides and which ones were direct quotes of his. The one about an email he'd rather not read is as your guest says pretty irrelevant. So many folks seem to be rushing to judge without knowing the facts.
rdipert - As a former USMA philosophy professor, do you agree that the discussion of this issue at face value is the only or best approach? It seems to me that we are making a lot of assumptions that what is going on is exactly what we're hearing and we're not looking for alternative explanations for what "might" be going on here. It's just a hypothesis of mine that this might be an engineered episode. It's not like the people involved are not capable of covert or clandestine thinking, art of deception, etc...
It doesn’t matter if General McChrystal or his aides were drunk, or if it was his aides who said too much, if he can’t keep himself in line or keep a hold his aides big mouths, how is he going to keep soldiers in Afghanistan “in line”. It doesn’t matter if he’s under stress etc., isn’t that how you get to be a head General, you’re able to handle the stress? Not only is this completely disrespectful to the President but to the entire United States. We’re suppose to be one of the most powerful nations in the world and we have some dingbat General making this country look more and more stupid. What a disgrace. Get rid of him.
Mr (?) Dipert, I was wondering the same thing. Wouldn't demotion be worse for the General personally? Would he still stay in command in Afghanistan?
General McChrystal played the major role in covering up Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire. In a word, he lied. How is it that he was appointed in the first place?
I was on a general's staff in Iraq and something smells fishy about this. Someone with NO military experience or political IQ could of figured out what these kind of comments to a rolling stone reporter would of done. If Gen McChrystal said or did something that was caught inadvertently or in the heat of the moment, I could understand.
What really rolls up the red flag is the conduct of his staff. Being on a general's staff, we are all hand picked, and are up and coming guys who are on top of their games. In addition their most important job, other what they are assigned to do, is to have the boss's best interest in everything they do. It's really hard for me to imagine that the entire staff would all put his command in jeopardy like this. The last person the General or his staff would confide in is a reporter, especially from rolling stone. Media encounters of any kind at that level are very coordinated and media prep is integral part of the operation. The staff must of been directed in some way to act the way they did. Generals are ALWAYS preped prior media encounters, no matter how favorable the outlet. No exceptions.
My opinion is this was done on purpose. Either the General wanted to
resign or the administration wanted him to be replace. I don't know
which. If he did want to resign, military protocol says, he couldn't
just do it just because he wants to. Commanders can't do that at any
level in the military. He might of seen the handwriting on the wall,
or got a nudge from the administration. The administration might of
got tired of his disagreements, which have been numerous since he was
appointed last summer, and wanted him out. They couldn't just fire him
because there wasn't anything egregious attributed to him. Either way,
something doesn't smell right about this. Those are my thoughts, if
you wanted to know.
I'm glad General McChrstal let his opinions known. I just wished he had not hunkered down and apologized. Most of these people responding here has never been in combat and do not know the pains of having to deal with rules of engagement that many times get soldiers killed before we can even fire back. It would be great if all the top brass would resign and push this administration over there to "show us how it's done". Politicians don't win wars, they cause them to linger on forever by handcuffing the military, so maybe they should take their place.
I am always amazed when men and women in leadership positions show their lack of knowledge of what is right and wrong. These men and women are supposed to be the brightest of the bright. Why can't they act like it?
I agree, Linda. I am surprised that the General didn't think twice about allowing these comments to be published; surely he knew this would kill his career, or at the very least result in fierce reprimand. However, I am also annoyed that Obama responded so hastily to McChrystal's insubordination - given his experience in the region and his history of leading our troops, it seems like Obama should have really thought longer and harder about getting rid of him. It seems like he is reacting to the personal insult rather than what's best for the situation.