President vs General: not a small issue, a disturbing one
Today President Obama accepted the resignation of General McChrystal for remarks published in a profile article in Rolling Stone magazine. Does it strike anyone as ironic that a top military man would be using that particular outlet to challenge the status quo? Is this the rise of the counter-counter culture?
The seriousness of the issue is genuine. When we're warring the civilian leader of the country is in charge and even if other parts of the leadership disagree, the tradition is they keep their opinions in house. For the military officer in charge of a major part of the war to publicly makes statements or allow his staff to make statements about other parts of the leadership that are plain disparaging isn't something that can be ignored. And I think pretty much everyone I've heard- of all political stripes- agree with that. The president made his case clearly at his press conference earlier today. So that's not a major issue in my mind.
What I am puzzling over is why McChrystal did this. According to all accounts he's purposeful, detail-oriented, and very focused. McChrystal is also not worried about his career or his public standing apart from whatever he perceives as engaging his 'integrity'. And he's been a military leader, a highly respected one, for decades. Some are characterizing what happened as a 'mistake in judgement' which seems to me unlikely if not impossible. Some are noting that he didn't say disparaging things himself in this article, his staff did. But they did it with him sitting at the table.
So what would make a man like McChrystal take such a step? Particularly since he is the architect of the strategy that President Obama has chosen to support on the ground in Afghanistan. The only thing that I find making sense to me is that McChrystal has decided that the efforts we are making are not going to work, that he believes that the leadership in Washington, despite its public agreement with his strategic perspective is not likely to take either more or swift action to amend the flaws. I think that McChrystal may have 'loosed his dogs' to attempt to force the issue, knowing that it would inevitably take him out of the hot seat if he did so.
If that is the case, I suspect dangerous seas ahead in carrying the war effort forward. The willingness to take this risk is a disturbing sign. It makes the ground slippery for the administration as well as, perhaps, our troops. I understand the Taliban have already commented publicly that this is first sign of the disarray that will lead to ISAF defeat. Truly disturbing.
The seriousness of the issue is genuine. When we're warring the civilian leader of the country is in charge and even if other parts of the leadership disagree, the tradition is they keep their opinions in house. For the military officer in charge of a major part of the war to publicly makes statements or allow his staff to make statements about other parts of the leadership that are plain disparaging isn't something that can be ignored. And I think pretty much everyone I've heard- of all political stripes- agree with that. The president made his case clearly at his press conference earlier today. So that's not a major issue in my mind.
What I am puzzling over is why McChrystal did this. According to all accounts he's purposeful, detail-oriented, and very focused. McChrystal is also not worried about his career or his public standing apart from whatever he perceives as engaging his 'integrity'. And he's been a military leader, a highly respected one, for decades. Some are characterizing what happened as a 'mistake in judgement' which seems to me unlikely if not impossible. Some are noting that he didn't say disparaging things himself in this article, his staff did. But they did it with him sitting at the table.
So what would make a man like McChrystal take such a step? Particularly since he is the architect of the strategy that President Obama has chosen to support on the ground in Afghanistan. The only thing that I find making sense to me is that McChrystal has decided that the efforts we are making are not going to work, that he believes that the leadership in Washington, despite its public agreement with his strategic perspective is not likely to take either more or swift action to amend the flaws. I think that McChrystal may have 'loosed his dogs' to attempt to force the issue, knowing that it would inevitably take him out of the hot seat if he did so.
If that is the case, I suspect dangerous seas ahead in carrying the war effort forward. The willingness to take this risk is a disturbing sign. It makes the ground slippery for the administration as well as, perhaps, our troops. I understand the Taliban have already commented publicly that this is first sign of the disarray that will lead to ISAF defeat. Truly disturbing.
Comments