What to do about General Stanley McChrystal?

By now you should have already read the Rolling Stones profile on General Stanley McChrystal.  It is every bit as bad as imagined. What should be noted is what Will Jacobson at Legal Insurrection points out; McChrystal is not directly quoted making any of the damning remarks. Most importantly, McChrystal is not directly quoted making the Obama remark.

Legal Insurrection [Will’s emphasis]: According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.

Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better.

"It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Even though McChrystal is not directly quoted, he should not be let off the hook. The remarks in the article undermine the president and the war. By allowing Rolling Stone such access and allowing his staff to feel free to publicly voice such remarks calls McChrystal’s judgment and command skills into serious question.

So what should Obama do about McChrystal? McChrystal has offered his resignation; if I were Obama I accept it immediately. This incident comes at the worst time. Because of the spill in the gulf, people are starting for the first time to question the competence of this president and his administration. The remarks about Obama and members of the administration feed into the dysfunctional and incompetent narrative. Also letting McChrystal stay after this incident feeds into the stereotype that Democrats are weak when it comes to the military.

Politically speaking, changing generals now could allow Obama to make changes with Afghanistan without looking like he changed his mind. McChrystal’s surge isn’t working yet and the deadline Obama set for withdrawal was always a mistake. By appointing a new general Obama could get a new strategy, remove the foolish deadline and use the new general as an excuse for the changes.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Rolling Stones Magazine

Via: Legal Insurrection

Via: UK Telegraph

General McChrystal apologizes for soon to be released Rolling Stones profile

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: Memeorandum

Via: Fox News

Via: The Atlantic

General McChrystal on Obama’s strategy

General Stanley McChrystal has given his response to Obama’s strategy.  

“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s addressare critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.

“The NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) objective is equally clear: We will work toward improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow. In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police. That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.

“The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability. The concerted commitment of theinternational community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan — a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.

“We face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality: neither the Afghan people nor the international community want Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment and we remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the insurgency and build their own future.”

Spencer Ackerman, from the Washington Independent, has read way more into this statement than is actually there, here’s Ackerman: 

So much for the “dithering” critique. Here is a statement just released by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, expressing full support and confidence in President Obama and the weeks-long strategy review.

If the GOP really thought it could drive a wedge between McChrystal and Obama or use the general as a cudgel against his commander in chief, this ought to provide an end to such illusions. 

I read McChrystal’s statement twice and both times I saw nothing there at would answer the “dithering critique”.  I also noticed that McChrystal had no words for the imposed timeline. As far as illusions go, Ackerman is doing a pretty good job creating his own with his line about GOP trying to drive a wedge between Obama and McChrystal.

McChrystal asked for more troops and the GOP supported that. When Obama dragged his feet on the request, the GOP called out the dithering. If anything they were trying to get Obama and McChrystal on the same page.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Washington Independent