Rolling Stone: the McChrystal interview

Bud Light Lime?

that stuff is nasty!

 

from Ink Spots:


[rquoter]
I don't have much to add to this McChrystal thing

Surely you've heard the details by now: Rolling Stone publishes a profile of the "Runaway General," Washington justifiably freaks out, McChrystal apologizes, Secretary Gates admonishes him, and an Af-Pak meeting tomorrow at the White House will include at least one four-star participant who usually chimes in by VTC.

A lot of people are calling for GEN McChrystal to be fired. (I'm one of them.) Several others suggest that they don't know what all the fuss is about, or that firing the ISAF commander is too disruptive to consider.

Ex helpfully lays out the reasons why either COA is risky.

Read all that stuff if you want. Until tomorrow's meeting happens, there's not much to add.

The one thing I do want to note here is exactly why I think this is such a big deal, why the piece is so damning: it's not just a matter of what GEN McChrystal thinks or says or writes or feels about his superiors and civilian colleagues, but rather the command climate that he's fostered.

Leadership and command are not the same thing. Tactical leadership and strategic leadership are not the same thing. A platoon leader and the commander of an international coalition force have very, very different jobs.

All of this seems obvious, right? So why do I bother writing it? Because invariably someone's going to come along and tell me about how the only lieutenants who don't backtalk and stretch the truth with higher are the terrible ones. And fair enough. (Mike Few and Matt Gallagher have both made that point, and to the extent that I know anything at all about the subject, I'd agree with them.) But that's the difference between being a lieutenant and a four-star.

A theater-level command is not a football team. Us-against-them leadership, pitting your own staff and subordinates against the implacable bureaucratic/political enemy, is just not appropriate. It's been said a hundred times, but I'm going to say it again: unity of effort is absolutely essential to an operation like this one, both because of its scale (requiring coordination across dozens of coalition governments and militaries, as well as regional actors and most importantly, the Afghan government) and its nature (that is to say because a COIN effort requires even deeper multinational, interagency, and interservice coordination than a purely kinetic effort).

Whatever GEN McChrystal did or didn't say, it seems obvious from the overall tenor of the comments attributed to his staff and advisors that the general fostered an environment in which "our team" -- that is, the uniformed folks at ISAF -- faced opposition from all sides, from its political masters just as much as from the Taliban or the Karzai kleptocracy.

There's not an employed individual on this earth who feels completely unconstrained by higher, totally and absolutely permitted to do his job as he sees fit. Some people deal, and some don't. Some people just b**** a lot and get on with the job. It seems to me that GEN McChrystal probably falls into this latter category.

Unfortunately this attitude erodes that vital sense of unity of effort, and creates an atmosphere where the followers think they know better than the leaders. And if the COMISAF is so cynical about the administration's competence that his senior staff and closest aides feel comfortable mocking the civilian senior leadership of this country, then why should the American people, our coalition partners, or the Afghans themselves have any faith?

EDIT: I totally forgot the reason that I even thought to write this post. In running down the risks involved in replacing GEN McChrystal, Ex (and The Security Crank) notes that a third straight summer of churn at ISAF would almost certainly hamper the war effort. This is certainly true, and probably more true in this case than it would be normally: McChrystal has collected a sort of all-star team of hand-picked staff and advisors, and as one can easily see from the article, many of them are extremely loyal to the boss. Now don't get me wrong -- these guys are professionals, and it's their job to work for the new guy just the same as they worked for the old guy. But wouldn't the resentment about this particularly high-profile (theoretical) sacking be even more significant considering the circumstances? Wouldn't you be basically starting with a blank slate, seeing as ISAF HQ seems to basically be composed entirely of Papal True Believers?

[/rquoter]

tl;dr Even if you are in complete and total agreement with everything McChrystal and friends said, the fact that McChrystal allowed that sort of cynical, dismissive attitude to become commonplace represents a major failure on the part of McChrystal, as fostering a positive and unified sense of mission is one of the most important aspects of leadership at that high a level in any military.

If you are the General in Hitler's bunker getting overrun by the Americans and Russians, your leadership responsibility is to make everybody feel as if the Nazis are about to stage the greatest comeback in history.

If you think that is too harsh, read the Wired Magazine article titled, "Did McChrystal Just Put the Whole War in Jeopardy?" to get an idea exactly how much of a screw-up this was.

 

The General has submitted his resignation per CNN

 

I can't believe this was anything but a calculated move on the generals part. Success in Afghanistan was going to be incredibly difficult to begin with, as there is a little we can control. The one of things we can control is the "unity of effort", as stated here, but we completed ****ed up on the one thing that we control that would give the greatest chances of success. The rolling stones piece was McChrystals way of bringing this critical issue to forefront of the american public, even though he will have to fall on his sword, as he should since he is crossing a dangerous line between civilian control of the military.

I hope this is a wakeup call for Obama to reevaluate Americas position on the war, either put together a team that gives us the greatest chances of success or GTFO as fast as possible. I'm leaning toward the latter at this point.

 

It is Vietnam all over again. You have a succession of tough, efficient looking generals and the chickenhawks like Basso enthusiastic for the war. The guys on the front see it differently. The president and his men are just afraid to lose the next election by withdrawing as many Americans think we never lose war no matter how useless or how far away unless the liberal media sells us out.

What a cluster****.

basso

 

FYI... They clarified that to: "McChrystal prepared to resign." Basically he'd be willing to resign if asked but he hasn't submitted a resignation.

 

I certainly understand that you are for war. It is surprising that you are interesting in something besides opposing Obama.

 

I can certainly agree with your first point. It is unlikely that McChrystal was just as dumb or as pointlessly insubordinate as his interview would suggest.
It could be that he wants out as the war is going badly.

It would not surprise me if this is coordinated with Gerneral Betrayus who wants to make Obama look bad and has eyes on running for the presidency
on the GOP ticket.

Of course it could just be the typical tunnel vision of generals for whom every foreign policy problem needs to be solved with war and all wars are winnable and worth doing.

 

I like Olbermann's idea, obama should fall on his sword and say you know what McChrystal, we can't promise the resources you think it takes to "win" over there. I decline your resignation, find me a way out of there.

 

?? That is a stupid idea, which shows why Olbermann is a complete nitwit. You do understand that any of McChrystals failures are Obama's responsibilities?

 

I agree. but it would be poetic justice for McChystal who proudly proclaims that he is a tough guy who runs 7 miles per day, only eats 1 meal per day and only sleeps 4 hrs per night, studying at Harvard etc. lost the war.

Obama will still be blamed since he decided in his hubris he was smart enough to do the Afghan war right.

Maybe McChystal would be better off sleeping a bit more, eating another meal and slacking off on the compulsive exercising. Xanax ? It might help him see the big picture.

Makes you think of Halberstram's book on Vietnam called "The Best and the Brightest".

We might need to sink to a total has been power before we give up on perpetual war.

 

Obama has officially removed him and replaced him with Petraus.

 

Well too bad, it's chrystal clear that Afghans are very much warming up to the general.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/a...x.general.mcchrystal/?hpt=C1&fbid=BCGOBI3r0nv

 

Petraeus faints

 

Very like the situation another President from Illinois, one Abraham Lincoln, faced with a very popular general (George McClellan), Obama has acted correctly. No President should tolerate an insubordinate commander (even if said commander was correct in his assessments). I am incredulous that Obama could muster enough spine to do it, although he was forced to eat crow by re-hiring Gen. Petraeus to save his bacon.

 

How long before this guy is running for office?
He is about to get PAID!!!! on a speaking tour.

Honestly, he was disrespectful to the boss. . . happens every day
on every job . . . and folx get fired for the same isht everyday too.

I dunno if he should have been fired. Seems he doing good work over
there .. . but . . as other have stated. . .esp in the military
you have to stand united.

Rocket River

 

By firing McChrystal, the right will rail on Obama saying he's stifling free speech and becoming a dictator, striking down anyone who may oppose him.

If he hadn't fired McChrystal, the right would rail on Obama saying he's a poor leader who doesn't have the balls to deal with a dissenting General.

These people are so funny.

 

You are clueless. I have heard or seen quotes from nearly all the right saying he should be fired.