The MacArthur Moment

I'm obviously coming in late on this discussion, but it's pretty interesting to watch the breathless dialogue over words that Gen. Stan McChrystal and his aides used to describe the Very Serious People within the Washington Beltway. I particularly like the coverage in this Firelake post.

McChrystal and aides reserve their greatest rancor for top members of the Administration. They call the “inflection point” deadline of July 2011 to transition to local Afghan forces “arbitrary,” one aide calls National Security Adviser Jim Jones a “clown… stuck in 1985,” and another aide McChrystal himself offers a rejected “Wayne’s World” joke about the Vice President: “Biden? Did you say: Bite me?”

McChrystal had to apologize for the entire profile.

Well, maybe Gen David McKiernan doesn't look so bad, now. I don't have much to add to this controversy other than a few observations. First, I disagree with Spencer Ackerman that the Afghan strategy will somehow collapse if the general is relieved of his command. That's bullshit. No one is indispensable, especially four-star generals. Maybe the Obama administration doesn't want to be cast as another Democratic anti-military crowd (as the Clinton administration was), but let's be clear. McChrystal really stepped on his dick here. Just apologizing won't cut it.

Second, I find it appalling that prominent Democratic politicians like Sen. John Kerry don't immediately support firing the general. We know it was "poor judgment." Rather than being mocked by the Republican conservatives as "anti-military" (which they're going to do in any regard), Kerry doesn't want to make the right call and say, hey, the civilians are in charge of the military. If that's not clear to the general and his aides, they need to go for the good of the US military and any future exercises in national security. Matt Y has already detailed Kerry's past failure to develop a distinct and workable progressive national security strategy in his book "Heads in the Sand."

Third, I'll reserve this shot for anyone who suggests that the political strategy and/or foreign policy needs to crafted to support military operational strategy, rather than the other way around. Mr. Exum already suggests that "there are good reasons both for and against the sack," but I disagree. There's only good reasons for the sack. The military may not like the development of political strategy that is intended to guide the execution of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's not their call. The second that the military believes it knows better than the political decision-makers, it's time for them to go. They advise, but when the order is given, they salute and move out without sniping at the decision-makers (at least while they're on active duty). I believe there were lots of ground commanders in 2003-2006 who thought the Bush administration had developed poor policy and was not supporting the prompt and efficient execution of military operations, but Rumsfeld and company kept a hard hand on any dissenters. This is the same situation, different leaders, and we cannot let this example stand as the way Dems do business.

On the plus side, if President Obama and SecDef Gates use this unfortunate incident to rethink their strategy and to ensure that the political decisions have been made and are adequate to support a 2011 start of withdrawing forces from Afghanistan, here's the opportunity to do so. It would be foolish not to search this black cloud for a silver lining.

UPDATE: VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz says fire him. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) is "troubled." Please... Is there a serious Dem politician - other than one who's going to retire - who can say "Fire him?" Meanwhile, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) looks for Obama and Dems to apologize to McChrystal for forcing him to say bad things.

UPDATE II: See FDChief's post at MilPub, especially the good advice his first sergeant gave him in 1986 as to talking bad about political officials.

UPDATE III: McChrystal offers his resignation. Will Obama accept it?

Comments

[Ray]

John Paul Vann will be referred to on Channel 4 News tonight (UK) by Jon Snow, who asks whether there is a parallel to this.
Also:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/43760/gaddis-smith/a-bright-shining-lie-john-paul-vann-and-america-in-vietnam

[FDChief]

Feel free to join the discussion over at MilPub. For what it's worth, I don't think this is the disease; I think its a symptom. The GO selection process has been sick for a long time. I think the canary in the mine fell off its perch.

[RNB]

We're being played by people who either haven't actually read the article or else are deliberately misrepresenting what is in there.

If you actually read through the full six-page article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37847841/ns/us_news-military/), you will not find anything even remotely resembling McChrystal's "MacArthur moment." Read it, and I'm quite certain you will agree that this is being blown out of proportion: there's just nothing in there that has him being rank insubordinate or disrespectful to the White House.

You will find evidence that McChrystal's picture should be an entry under the dictionary definition for "blustering blowhard." You will find evidence of his aides being insubordinate toward the Vice President and some of the (non-DOD) political appointees-- form the article, this is a very unprofessional circle of staff assistants (stunning since they would all be colonels and lieutenant-colonels or higher), who should probably be removed wholesale-- and since their behavior is likely the product of the command climate, for that alone, one could make the case that McChrystal should be removed.

But this is NOT what the media and the talking heads are making it out to be. Read the article and I think you will agree.

[J.]

RNB - we'll see how this plays out. At the least, McChrystal set a command attitude that tolerated political sniping. No one said the job was easy, but his staff ought to know better to say these things on the record, let alone the general.

[FDChief]

RNB: First, dogrobbers say NOTHING that is not fully approved by their master.

Second, "blustering blowhard", when done by a commissioned officer to a reporter, ais the very definition of a violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ.

Period.

Obama either relieves the man for cause or might as well had his balls over to the Five-sided Funny Farm for the remainder of his one-term, because he will have lost any capability to control Caeserism.

[FDChief]

"CaesArism". Damn typos.

[vejadu]

Stan the man had a chance to review the article prior publication and did so. He knew exactly what he was doing when he allowed this to be released. Remember the last two times he went around the chain to get info to the public via the MSM as well. He's not a dull fellow; he's gamed this out prior to taking this course of action.

And McChrystal has submitted his resignation. If Obama accepts it he indicates he won't brook dissention however justified and the sneaking suspicion that it is justified will lurk. And of course the officer corps doesn't care for the current admin but is in the "suck it up and drive on" mode for the next two years anyway. If Obama turns down the resignation and sends Stan back to the mix, then Obama gets to look above the fray at the cost of passing along to the oppos that he isn't comfortable reining in a rambunctious general. It's lose-lose for Obama either way

[RNB]

At the least, McChrystal set a command attitude that tolerated political sniping.

Agreed. I thought I had already addressed that when I wrote: "since their behavior is likely the product of the command climate, for that alone, one could make the case that McChrystal should be removed."

No one said the job was easy, but his staff ought to know better to say these things on the record, let alone the general.

Fully agree with you about the staff. And even agree that the General should be held accountable for what his staff said (a commander is responsible for everything his unit does or does not do). But I'm still at a loss as to what the General said "on the record" that was insubordinate, other than maybe that he shouldn't have made the joke about VP Biden? I think Hastings makes it very clear that it was a joke, but even a joke can be going too far, although what he said was pretty mild (should have disciplined the aide that chased it with the stupid SNL joke).

RNB: First, dogrobbers say NOTHING that is not fully approved by their master.

Already covered that, see para 1 above.

Second, "blustering blowhard", when done by a commissioned officer to a reporter, ais the very definition of a violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ.

Did you not read the article? Where in the article does General McChrystal say ANYTHING to the reporter that would be an Article 88 violation? Please provide me with the quote from the Hastings article that I link to above- not the horribly misinterpreted quotes that popped up (and were distorted like a game of telephone) on blogs like this one.

Remember that Holbrooke is NOT in his chain of command and they have EQUIVALENT rank based on standard interagency grades, so even the scene where he arrogantly dismisses the email from Holbrooke and says he doesn't want to read it is NOT insubordination -- unprofessional? YES! Downright stupid for doing it in front of a reporter? YES! But it is NOT insubordination and does not qualify under Article 88. Go read the Hastings piece and then Article 88 and you will see.

He comes off like a blustering blowhard because of that scene, and all his talk about not wanting to go to Paris or to have the dinner with the Europeans and all of that, but none of that is insubordinate.

But I suspect that even though the General himself didn't say anything in the article, he KNOWS that he allowed this climate to emerge (probably because of off-the-record stuff where he himself HAS in fact disrespected the chain of command in front of his staff or at least turned a blind eye when they did it), and he will have to resign because he knows he is responsible for his staff's unprofessional behavior and their insubordination.

But that is NOT what the media is trying to make you think has happened, and that is NOT a MacArthur moment. Sorry, but it just aint.

[RNB]

Article 88 states: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Let's be clear that neither Jones, Holbrooke, nor Eikenberry qualify there, even if McChrystal had actually made any of the quotes about them (which he didn't). But maybe his lame joke about Biden? ("Who is that?")

I don't think it really rises to that level, although he should be fired for making such a lame joke in the first place.

[FDChief]

"The lame joke about Biden."

Bingo.

For that alone he should be UCMJed. And everyone let's get free ice cream if we think that's all McChrystal has been saying about this Administration in the GO's Mess.

Y'know, I hated Donny Rumsfeld, and I hated Deadeye Dick Cheney from way back in his SecDef days. But when I was serving I shut up about the men both to my troops, my peers, and when in uniform, in public.

What a simple sergeant can do, a CG should be able to figure out.

[RNB]

I don't think joking "Who is that?" rises to the level of "contemptuous" under UCMJ's definition. But keep telling yourself that it does!

[FDChief]

And the "MacArthur moment" is this:

Dougout Doug tried to use the press, and the spectre of handing political gains to the Republican Party to leverage Harry Truman into going with his aggressive theatre strategy. Truman, who had the bigger picture in mind, had only two options; to accept that he was no longer Mac's boss, or relieve him. Once the dicks were on the table, that was that.

Regardless of what childish gripes were actually said, the result here is now the same. If Obama lets this pass, he's no longer the boss of anyone in a uniform.

So you can quibble about what the respective Mc's said or did; the bottom line is that the man has gone around his political boss to make his contempt of the man and his orders clear. I don't see a substantive difference in the major factors in the two cases.

[FDChief]

RNB: Having had my heels locked as a junior NCO for a political observation just that oblique, I suspect I may have the inside track on what a soldier defines or should define as "contemptuous". It's not a particularly elastic rule.

One last observation and I'm done with this.

The final indignity is the latest reports that McC has "offered" to resign.

WTF?

Man up, sir. Write out your letter of resignation and submit it. Either the SecDef accepts it or he doesn't. Either way, try and step out of the sissified political prancing and posturing that seems to define the modern U.S. general officer. High-school snarking? Then apologizing? Then "offering" to resign? What is this, Total Drama Island?

I swear, not that I have all that much respect for the U.S. general officer corps overall - but there seem to be way more Ambrose Burnsides than George Marshalls in that family tree - but the recent crop seems to be particularly twee and anorchic. This McChrystal, for all his macho posturing, seems to be no more than Pete Fucking Pace with a tab. Why should we care whether he stays or goes? He seems incapable of successfully leading four privates to the latrine, if his recent behavior is any indication.

[sglover]

I don't get why he should be allowed to resign at all. I don't get why Petreaus (his immediate, theater commander, no?), or the Chief of Staff of the army, or the Defense Secretary, don't simply relieve him of command.

It goes without saying that McChrystal's destined for a very lucrative career as a media gasbag, corporate whore, and (probably) political operator. The prick'll probably be opening the negotiations within a week.

[Ray]

The UK's troops are subordinate to US Command:
"In a phone call on Tuesday, Mr Obama raised the issue with Mr Cameron, Downing Street said.

A Downing Street spokesman said the general's future was "a matter for NATO and the US administration.

"The prime minister and the president agreed that they both remained fully supportive of the current strategy in Afghanistan."

"The president said he would continue to consult closely with the prime minister."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10386624.stm
The implications reach beyond the internal US military concerns, and the judgement of the President will consider NATO's reaction.
As has been said previously; above, not even a general is irreplacable. It'll be dealt with soon, and someone else- or a chastened General McChrystal- will continue. What alternative is there.

[AndroidBoy]

I though McC should stay, but these are some pretty good arguments that he should get the boot.