Fox News: "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a statement.
"Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard," he said.
"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."
So what is General Stanley McChrystal apologizing for? McChrystal allowed Rolling Stone Magazine several weeks of interviews with himself and his tight circle of aides. The result is far from flattering for the administration. McChrystal’s aides mock Joe Biden and Richard Holbrooke, describes McChrystal as “disappointed in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama” and betrayed by Karl Eikenberry.
An article out this week in “Rolling Stone” magazine depicts Gen. Stanley McChrystal as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration and unable to convince even some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the war…
McChrystal himself is described by an aide as “disappointed” in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops…
If Eikenberry had the same doubts [about McChrystal's strategy], McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute.
McChrystal said he felt “betrayed” and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.
“Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books,” McChrystal told the magazine. “Now, if we fail, they can say ‘I told you so.”
There is even more. Apparently, troops under McChrystal’s command conveyed skepticism over McChrystal’s tactics.
"Rolling Stone" interviewed troops frustrated by McChrystal's strict rules for combat that are intended to reduce the number of civilian casualties.
At one outpost, a soldier McChrystal had met earlier was killed in a house that the local U.S. commander had repeatedly asked to destroy. The request was denied, apparently out of concern that razing the house would anger locals whose allegiance the U.S. is trying to win.
"Does that make any (expletive) sense?" Pfc. Jared Pautsch asks. "We should just drop a (expletive) bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself, 'What are we doing here?"'
McChrystal’s apology comes after direct phone calls from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the White House and the Joint Chief of Staff. Needless to say the Rolling Stones story is going to be the talk of the town for about a week. It could not come at a worse time when people are starting to question the competence of this administration.
I am even questioning the competence of McChrystal now. Why on earth would he allow such access for an interview? One would have to imagine that military men would automatically be very cautious about giving unfettered access to anyone in the press (i.e. loose lips …). Needless to say that such infighting between McChrystal and the administration does not bode well for success in Afghanistan.
Make sure to read the entire Fox News article it is quite enlightening.
Via: Fox News
Via: The Atlantic