The Cellar - White House summons US general to explain himself

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - White House summons US general to explain himself (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22996)

White House summons US general to explain himself

Hmmm... poor judgement saying it to a journalist. Maybe he should have thought before he spoke. Not that any of us have never done that. But does he want to surround himself with "yes men"? Is it a question of loyalty or candor?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mcchrystal_enemies

Quote:

In the interview, McChrystal he said he felt betrayed by Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner. If Eikenberry had the same doubts, 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 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.'"

Seems to me, Eikenberry is not only right, he was covering McChrystal's ass also. The last couple of months have proven McChrystal's progress has been severely undermined by Karzai's corrupt government, especially Karzai's brother.

Sooner or later we will need to just let them go at it. I read the other day that Obama is sticking to his timeline of a pullout by Jul of 11. Who knows, but if that is the case why commit more troops to trying to kick out the Taliban and AQ in the South if we are just going to give it back to the bad guys in a year? McChrystal speaks his mind, I respect him more for that than kissing anyone's ass, maybe he felt betrayed by Eikenberry.

He said he felt betrayed, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why.

Quote:

I read the other day that Obama is sticking to his timeline of a pullout by Jul of 11.

That's not accurate, the plan proposed by the military (McChrystal) was with additional troops, they (he) would have secured the key areas by July '11. Then Obama would order a drawdown of our troops, as they were replaced by UN and Afghan security, to hold the territory McChrystal secured. The Afghan's security troops have shown they can't, or won't, do that, so I personally feel the whole plan will fail. We can take any territory we want, but can't protect the population once we've got it. The key to success in Iraq, was having the Iraqis step up to protect themselves, once we'd kicked ass.

Michael Yon is now completely against McChrystal, and seems steaming mad and is saying that Afghanistan is now a disaster.

I must have been mistaken. I thought it was Jul of 11. Honestly unless we establish a series of perm bases for the long term it will revert back to the 13th Century as it seems to tend toward when left to its own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 665382)

Michael Yon is now completely against McChrystal, and seems steaming mad and is saying that Afghanistan is now a disaster.

I'll have to play catch up with Yon reading. Is there some specific article you can point me toward?

Well if this is to believed... then we need to GTF out now.

Quote:

The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.”

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-96873364.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ons-war/57483/

I follow Yon on Facebook and that is where he's publishing his carping these days; I don't know if he's written a dispatch about this. He's madder than hell since losing his embed status and Facebookers are trying to figure out how much of his venom is because of that.

He had many items about Canadian General Menard before Menard was unceremoniously fired, which add to a long list of things Yon was right about.

Quote:

Duncan Boothby, a "senior media aide" to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has resigned in the wake of an explosive Rolling Stone expose that features McChrystal's staff openly criticizing key members of the Obama administration.

Boothby, a civilian press aide, "was heavily involved in arranging access for journalist Michael Hastings to McChrystal and his staff this year

McChrystal been called back to DC for a personal meet with the Pres. Bloggers are lining up to guess whether he'll be fired within the week.

Wouldn't it be a matter of hours? Seriously - How is this not insubordination?

I've not read all thats out there - seems like they (he and his people) talked a lot of shit out loud at bars, dinners whatever. Loose Lips Sink Ships.

It is insubordination, but Obama doesn't want a major shakeup in Afghanistan right now. It'll be hard to fire him, but it'll also be hard not to.

From Yon's article ...

Quote:

"General Petraeus had both sides of his mind working, and so when success began to happen the media was there to cover the good job." In the absence of success, Yon believes the military ended his embed to stifle an independent voice and steer coverage to a less experienced, more docile stenographer pool of reporters. "If McChrystal is perceived to fail in Kandahar, the Taliban will just about have us in media checkmate for 2011. This can have tremendous negative consequences and the Taliban leadership fully understands that."

Though he has relocated to Thailand to report on the civil unrest there, he still covers Afghanistan from afar and remains critical of General McChrystal's leadership. "Today, I do not trust McChrystal anymore than some people trust the New York Times, Obama or Bush. If McChrystal could be trusted, I would go back to my better life. McChrystal is a great killer but this war is above his head."

He better fire him. Ferfuxache any other country would have the guy's head on a pole in center city. If he doesn't fire him he will lose too much credibility - something he cannot afford.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 665528)

It is insubordination...

Nah, it's transparency.

Wow. I didn't know Yon was out of Afganistan.

From what I've seen (only the TV highlights) the worst things are attributed to "an aide" or "an unnamed source". McChrystal's comments are still out of line, though.

Politically, Obama probably has to fire him, else Obama looks like a loser. Militarily, McChrystal planned the whole counterinsurgency surge and is the best person to run it.
That he doesn't think much of the politicians is a reasonable personal opinion to have, provided he gets on with the job he has taken on, which he is. The only problem was saying it in front of a reporter.
The comments in this thread really strike me - UT, Bruce, and especially Merc. It reminds me of when Walter Cronkite started questioning the Vietnam war after seeing the South Vietnamese Police chief execute/murder the VC prisoner. People who have supported the war - in various degrees - looking very critically at it.

The only plan I can think of is to complete the surge, start a draw down in (say) mid 2011, and be gone by the end of that year. The key is to announce it now. "Hey, Karzai, and any Afghans who don't want to be ruled by the talleban, you better get your act together, cause we're leaving soon, ready or not." Otherwise they will drag their feet and cling to us for as long as they can.

I heard a couple alternatives this am.

He'll tender his resignation today and Obama will accept it.
He'll tender his resignation today and Obama will not accept it, but a bunch of peeps under his command will be let go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 665669)

The key is to announce it now. "Hey, Karzai, and any Afghans who don't want to be ruled by the talleban, you better get your act together, cause we're leaving soon, ready or not." Otherwise they will drag their feet and cling to us for as long as they can.

If they do that then the Taliban will simply out wait them/us. I think thats been apart of their plan all along.

You can even drop the "If they do that then". It's not like they won't wait us out if we don't say when we're leaving.

Well I knew him during his time at the Ranger Bat, not personally, but we all knew him. We attended the daily brief when we deployed with them. Eventually he became the commander of our parent unit but I was long gone by then. He was a no nonsense guy back then and I doubt he has changed his core values. But the reality is that once you get past 1 or 2 stars it is nothing but politics as they interface with the portions of our government that are controlled by civilians. But as much respect as I have for the man, the soldier, he should have known better than any before he spoke. The only thing I have thought of is maybe this was his way to say he wanted out deep down inside. Maybe he had enough of the civilian control and contraints placed on the operation due to politics and he felt like it was beginning to effect the prosecution of the War. Who knows, I certainly don't, complete speculation on my part. But the whole thing strikes me as this event as him being way out of his character. In the end I think that Obama needs to relieve him or as classic suggested accept his resignation. Civilians control the military in our society and this is how it is set up. All of us accept this. One thing you learn early on is no matter how good you think you are and no matter how important you think your contribution to the mission is, you are replaceable. There are numerous other people out there with similar experience to McCrystal that can do that job. The other reality is that Generals often direct but the real action guy is the one on the ground conducting the mission.

In general terms I think people are beginning to see that unlike Iraq, you can't take a country from the stone age and bring it to the near 21st Century. Coruption is swallowing up most of the money being fed to prop up the infrastructure. The people are not completely behind the process of change and modernization and it is much more of a opportunistic social structure. IMHO much like many African nations and the levels of coruption seen there with oil exploitation.

Now we are really starting to see some ground level disgruntlement with new ROE and this is quite bothersome. As much as I hate to say it, yes much like Vietnam. If you want us to win it we need to be able to complete the mission with as few constraints as possible. Without interference or with minimal interference. Maybe McCrystal is thinking the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 665669)

The comments in this thread really strike me - UT, Bruce, and especially Merc. It reminds me of when Walter Cronkite started questioning the Vietnam war after seeing the South Vietnamese Police chief execute/murder the VC prisoner. People who have supported the war - in various degrees - looking very critically at it.

McC out Petraeus back in

Quote:

Just emailed directly to General Petraeus's private email:

Sir,

You have my full confidence and support.

Very Respectfully,

Michael Yon

Whats the difference between the two? Is Petraeus just a better politician?

Quote:

President Barack Obama has asked Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, he said Wednesday.

Obama relieved McChrystal of duty over disparaging comments the general's staff made about top White House officials in an article in Rolling Stone magazine.

Petraeus, a counterinsurgency expert, was the architect of the "surge" of U.S. forces in Iraq, which some credit with turning the tide of the war. He was promoted to head of the U.S. military's Central Command in October 2008 by President George W. Bush.

His appointment to lead the U.S. war effort on the ground in Afghanistan requires Senate confirmation.

Petraeus all but literally wrote the book on fighting against guerrilla resistance, overseeing the drafting of the Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manuel between stints in Iraq.

"Petraeus all but literally wrote the book on..."

There's an editor somewhere that needs to be fired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 665746)

But as much respect as I have for the man, the soldier, he should have known better than any before he spoke. The only thing I have thought of is maybe this was his way to say he wanted out deep down inside. Maybe he had enough of the civilian control and contraints placed on the operation due to politics and he felt like it was beginning to effect the prosecution of the War. Who knows, I certainly don't, complete speculation on my part. But the whole thing strikes me as this event as him being way out of his character.

It could have been completely accidental as well. This perspective makes sense after reading the article.

Quote:

How could he be so dumb? That question has nagged at me ever since I read the original story. McChrystal already knew that the White House thought he undermined them in public last fall (he didn't, really, but they thought he did); and he already knew that his boss was very thin-skinned. How then, could he get himself in this situation?

I think I have figured it out. If you read the Rolling Stone article carefully, you can see that the reporter, Michael Hastings, has woven three stories together. One story is the story of General McChrystal trying to keep up morale in a tough war with his troops thinking he is too worried about civilian casualties and he is forcing them to accept too many risks as consequence. This is also the story of McChrystal feeling under time pressure from Washington. I bet this is the story Hastings pitched to McChrystal's staff and the story McChrystal thought was being reported. It is, indeed, sprinkled throughout the Rolling Stone article, and in this thread McChyrstal is pretty careful about what he says and generally comes off pretty well.

The second story is Hastings's rather tendentious reporting on what McChrystal's enemies and critics say against him -- their complaints, and their doubts about the war. While assessing reporter's motivations is always a dodgy business, I suspect that this is the story Hastings pitched to his editor. The whole thing has the feel of a hungry guy hoping to hunt a big trophy kill: taking down a four-star hero and showing that his war plan (note how Hastings describes the strategy as McChrystal's, not the president's) is fatally flawed and doomed to failure.

If those were the only two stories in the article, people would only be talking about the Rolling Stone cover. The problem for McChrystal is that there is a third story woven through the article. This is the story of McChrystal and his staff on an unexpected layover in Paris when a plane is grounded because of the volcano. This part of the story has a "weekend in Vegas" feel to it. The staff get drunk. The French get dissed. Holbrooke gets dissed. McChrystal and his staff joke about how they would answer a tough question about Vice President Biden's theories about the war. Without having access to Hastings' notes, I can't be sure, but I am willing to wager that 95 percent of the really objectionable material comes from that layover.

This third story was an accident - serendipity for the reporter and a train-wreck for McChrystal. The underlying facts are not surprising or accidental at all. Anyone who has interacted with the military, especially the special ops community from which McChrystal hails, will recognize the swagger. More to the point, we have known for over a year that Obama's national security team is plagued with serious internal bickering and that many of the principals, and especially the staffs, do not like each other. In short, it is not surprising that they talked this way. The only surprising bit is that McChrystal and his staff talked this way in front of a reporter, though less surprising when you factor in the "sailors on unexpected shore leave" aspect.

Now, of course, none of this excuses McChrystal's behavior, nor the more egregious behavior and comments of his staff. There is no "what happens in Paris, stays in Paris exception" to civil-military relations. Clearly, he allowed an unhealthy command climate to percolate and then bubble to the surface in unguarded moments. And it was reckless in the extreme to talk this way in front of a reporter who clearly was on a scalp-hunt (giving this particular reporter this much access was a monumental blunder and the person responsible was the first casualty of the day). Those are mistakes enough to justify McChrystal submitting his resignation, though I am not sure accepting it is the right call for the President. Civil-military norms demand better behavior from senior commanders.

But I think I understand it a bit better now. A very sad episode, but a bit less mystifying than when I first encountered it.

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/post...pened_in_paris

Biden is an idiot and really has no business trying to guide a war. I would bet many people in the strategic levels of the military share that view.

Great find Pierce. An interesting assessment.

Armchair quarterbacks. I've never been to Afghanistan, and never want to go. The general should have kept his mouth shut, but being in charge of an operation like that has to be frustrating. Give him a cushy job in the Pentagon.

Give him a really feaking awesome retirement package.

He deserves nothing less.

If McChrystal was unhappy, and wanted out, why didn't he just pose for Playboy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon (Post 665917)

It really doesn't seem like McChrystal was an armchair quarterback. Quite the opposite actually.

Regardless McChrystal should have kept his mouth shut. He should not have said those comments on record. If you think your boss is a fuckwad fine, but you shouldn't say it in the papers and expect to keep your job

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 665962)

It really doesn't seem like McChrystal was an armchair quarterback. Quite the opposite actually.

I don't think he was refering to the General.:angel: