Thread: Stanley McChrystal summoned.

Originally Posted by S-2

"I suspect it wasn't the first time McChrystal groused about the civilian leadership to a reporter. It was just the first time a reporter decided to use it in a story."

Perhaps JAD but its speculative on your part. You don't know that for certain.

No. I don't, but 8 years in the thick of the Pentagon press corp, who live right there on the E-ring and have free access to the building taught me something.

The reporter could have written that McChrystal and his staff sometime seem uncomfortable with other key players in Afghanistan, and express themselves in salty language, yet they salute and do their part. It's one way to relieve the enormous pressure on them.

I don't blame the reporter for illustrating the point with direct quotes; reporters are ambitious. IMO, this one was too ambitious. Wolf Blitzer, and David Martin, who were all at the Pentagon when I was, didn't advance by being Mr. nice guy, but they understood that every eyeroll by a sr officer is not news and reporting them is petty.

"This wasn't about bribery, theft, incompetence, or something that ought to be reported."

No. Nothing so mundane. This was about loyalty that was expected from his subordinates to him but not passed on to his superiors while casually and callously rendered among his staff and himself.

I agree. Loyalty is willingness to protect your boss even if it pisses him off. That seems to have been missing here. McChrytal seems not have had anyone close to him watching his six.

Originally Posted by zraver

Depicted being the key word, we don't know if he actually took any policies counter to those received from the NCA. We have him painted with a very broad brush, and Obama moving with unique quickness to fire him. It looks like the General was fired to get Oilbama out of the oil filtered spotlight of the Gulf.

As far as I can see McChrystal was on message in his actions. But you know, it's appearances that ultimately matter. I don't think Obama used it to distract from oil spill coverage. If that was his game, he could have drawn out the suspense much longer than he did. It was a respite from the incessant oil spill coverage, but only a brief one.

Lets be honest, if Bush was in charge, he would be facing impeachment by now. Obama had to get out of the spotlight, not just for the oil, but for the housing collapse, retraction on GDP growth and stubbornly high unemployment numbers.

I don't think so, simply because, from a political point of view, impeaching a president for failed policies and nasty events that happen on his watch, as opposed to his conduct while under oath of office, could become a tool of one party to cripple a president of another party. Neither the GOP nor the Dems want to go there.

The oath of office calls for faithful conduct to protect and uphold the Constitution, etc. Trying and failing is not, in itself, a breach of the oath.

Originally Posted by zraver

It just looks weird, Obama takes months to figure if he is going to wipe his own ass, yet in this case with the national spotlight focused on him for other reasons he moved quickly. Almost like the general was a smoke screen to hide all the real bad news sticking to Obama like oil to birds.

Z,

President Obama had months to decide because making a decision earlier wouldn't result in units hitting the ground earlier. The pipeline to Afghanistan is small and we were coming off of the surge in Iraq, which meant that units were still reconstituting Stateside. In other words, he could take months without compromising the effectiveness of said decision. Part (certainly not all) of being a decisive leader is knowing when you have to decide, and in this case, the timing was fine in my humble but highly accurate opinion ).

Originally Posted by Shek

Z,

President Obama had months to decide because making a decision earlier wouldn't result in units hitting the ground earlier. The pipeline to Afghanistan is small and we were coming off of the surge in Iraq, which meant that units were still reconstituting Stateside. In other words, he could take months without compromising the effectiveness of said decision. Part (certainly not all) of being a decisive leader is knowing when you have to decide, and in this case, the timing was fine in my humble but highly accurate opinion ).

This is going to sound a bit 'me too', but that was what I was getting at. I can't see how stretching this out would have helped anyone. Either McChrystal had to go or he didn't & I still haven't seen a serious opinion that says he didn't, so decisive is best.

Again, I'd be curious to hear anyone offer an alternative way of dealing with this & why it should have been pursued.

Originally Posted by Shek

Z,

President Obama had months to decide because making a decision earlier wouldn't result in units hitting the ground earlier. The pipeline to Afghanistan is small and we were coming off of the surge in Iraq, which meant that units were still reconstituting Stateside. In other words, he could take months without compromising the effectiveness of said decision. Part (certainly not all) of being a decisive leader is knowing when you have to decide, and in this case, the timing was fine in my humble but highly accurate opinion ).

Obama wasted 3 months of planning time. Given the pace of deployments, since December when he announced the 30,000 (less than requested) we lost several months of time when we could have deployed those troops to blunt the Taliban's spring offensive. So he not only told his war fighters, they couldn't have the troops they said they needed (Bush did the same) but then cost them months which as we have seen have translated into casualties.

Yes some units were still reconstituting from Iraq, but there were units that could have gone. Either because they had arrived back state side earlier and missed the Iraq surge, or were already in the pipe line for a later deployment that could have been pushed up.

No one has alleged that McChrystal was running the war in a way other than directed. The friction as it were was with a rouge ambassador who as of right now still has a job.

Originally Posted by zraver

Obama wasted 3 months of planning time. Given the pace of deployments, since December when he announced the 30,000 (less than requested) we lost several months of time when we could have deployed those troops to blunt the Taliban's spring offensive. So he not only told his war fighters, they couldn't have the troops they said they needed (Bush did the same) but then cost them months which as we have seen have translated into casualties.

Contingency planning. Developing COAs required concepts with some details. The delay didn't equal 3 months of planning time wasted.

Yes some units were still reconstituting from Iraq, but there were units that could have gone. Either because they had arrived back state side earlier and missed the Iraq surge, or were already in the pipe line for a later deployment that could have been pushed up.[/quote]

Which units? Where were they at in ARFORGEN? Over what LOCs?

Originally Posted by zraver

No one has alleged that McChrystal was running the war in a way other than directed. The friction as it were was with a rouge ambassador who as of right now still has a job.

How is he rogue? The fact that there was dissension between the operational commander and the ambassador doesn't make the ambassador rogue (although it does make the President at fault for not putting in a team that could work together in a single direction). If anything, the commander should be nested within the ambassador's plan.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

No. I don't, but 8 years in the thick of the Pentagon press corp, who live right there on the E-ring and have free access to the building taught me something.

The reporter could have written that McChrystal and his staff sometime seem uncomfortable with other key players in Afghanistan, and express themselves in salty language, yet they salute and do their part. It's one way to relieve the enormous pressure on them.

I don't blame the reporter for illustrating the point with direct quotes; reporters are ambitious. IMO, this one was too ambitious. Wolf Blitzer, and David Martin, who were all at the Pentagon when I was, didn't advance by being Mr. nice guy, but they understood that every eyeroll by a sr officer is not news and reporting them is petty.

I agree. Loyalty is willingness to protect your boss even if it pisses him off. That seems to have been missing here. McChrytal seems not have had anyone close to him watching his six.

JAD,

I'm currently watching an interview with David Kilcullen - COIN advisor & personally acquainted with the major players here. There was a brief discussion about this issue at the start of the interview. Apparently he has personally talked to the Rolling Stone Editor (not sure about any of McChrystal's people).

Three things popped up that may already have been mentioned (not sure - haven't followed every revelation), but it gives some more perspective on this:

1) McChrystal was in the room for most of the quotes given by staff - so he could have shut them down quite easily. The stuff they said outside his presence was entirely in line with what they said in his presence;

2) the journalist actually showed McChrystal the quotes & he made no indication that they should not be used. COncern was only shown when the article came out;

3) it was understood that this stuff was all 'on the record' - apparently there was 'off the record' stuff that was even worse. This comes back to point 2 - the General &/or his staff were actually 'editing' to some exent. It sounds like they knew this stuff could be published but were unconcerned, though not disengaged enough not to embargo some stuff.

This is sounding increasingly like poor management. The journalist is an easy target (and has been characterised here & elsewhere like an enemy agent - though not by you), but if this is true he had every reason to believe the general was fine with this stuff going to print. Perhaps someone with more time in Washington might have done it differently, but it looks like the General & his staff are largely responsible for what appears to be an entirely avoidable mess.

Originally Posted by zraver

No one has alleged that McChrystal was running the war in a way other than directed. The friction as it were was with a rouge ambassador who as of right now still has a job.

It seems silly to me to trash a general over bruised political egos stemming from something that IMO is non-critical to the mission. One failure is deemed sufficient to trash a considerable asset. Maybe the US has a surfeit of generals capable of performing the role, though the appointment of Petraeus would suggest otherwise.
However, suggesting a correlation between standards politicians hold for themselves and the standards military should hold themselves to is madness )

I'd love Cohen's view right about now. This book deserves a re-read-

Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership In Wartime

Originally Posted by Bigfella

2) the journalist actually showed McChrystal the quotes & he made no indication that they should not be used. COncern was only shown when the article came out;

I've heard that too, and it's so incredible I can hardly believe it. That's why S-2 thought McChrystal may have done this on purpose to be relieved.

This is sounding increasingly like poor management. The journalist is an easy target (and has been characterised here & elsewhere like an enemy agent - though not by you), but if this is true he had every reason to believe the general was fine with this stuff going to print. Perhaps someone with more time in Washington might have done it differently, but it looks like the General & his staff are largely responsible for what appears to be an entirely avoidable mess.

It was poor management if his staff ok'd the quotes. If he did it personally, then it's a case of poor judgment.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

It seems silly to me to trash a general over bruised political egos stemming from something that IMO is non-critical to the mission. )

Egos may have been bruised, but the reason he was trashed was because he challenged the civilian leadership. Firing him was the only way to eliminate all doubt as to who is in charge.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Egos may have been bruised, but the reason he was trashed was because he challenged the civilian leadership. Firing him was the only way to eliminate all doubt as to who is in charge.

My memory isn't 100% on these things - did Horner & Clark essentially meet the same fate, or am I mis-remembering?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I've heard that too, and it's so incredible I can hardly believe it. That's why S-2 thought McChrystal may have done this on purpose to be relieved.

It certainly raises some pretty huge questions. As David Brooks pointed out - it was like he missed the last 50 years.

It was poor management if his staff ok'd the quotes. If he did it personally, then it's a case of poor judgment.

Yes, well put.

The fact that some things were indicated to be not for publication also makes it clear that this wasn't simply a case of giving blanket approval to anything the journalist saw or heard - which had occoured. Something (or several somethings) were badly wrong here. Pity it cost an apparently talented General his command.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

My memory isn't 100% on these things - did Horner & Clark essentially meet the same fate, or am I mis-remembering?

I believe they were civilians when they when they spoke out.

After WWII Gen Patton was reprimanded for criticizing policy. During the Korean conflict MacArthur was relieved for openly disagreeing with the president's policy and lobbying Congress on his own behalf.

In a more serious case of blatant policy disagreement, in 1990 VP Cheney fired General Michael J. Dugan, Air Force chief of staff. The interesting thing in this case is Dugan was higher up in the chain of command than McCrystal, yet he was fired not by the president, but by the SecDef.

On a return flight from Saudi Arabia, in discussions with reporters about the Kuwait situation, Dugan was guilty of indiscretions that became public and could not help but invite Cheney's attention. Powell's later recollection of this episode summed up the problem: "Dugan had made the Iraqis look like a pushover; suggested that American commanders were taking their cue from Israel, a perception fatal to the Arab alliance we were trying to forge; suggested political assassination . . . ; claimed that air power was the only option; and said . . . that the American people would not support any other administration strategy." Cheney quickly decided to fire Dugan, who had been Air Force chief of staff for less than three months.