There’s plainspoken, and there’s just plain rude.
The recent resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and his subsequent decision to retire from the Army, is a blow to the war. McChrystal had served with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was widely respected by his commander in chief as well as Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other world leaders. His calls for more troops in Afghanistan drew the ire of many politicians because it was seen to preempt the White House, but for many in the rank-and-file it only increased his popularity.
His willingness to say what others refused to say took McChrystal far, but when his unflattering personal views of President Barack Obama and his inner circle hit the pages of Rolling Stone magazine, he crossed a line that no soldier should in a nation where the military takes orders from a civilian authority. In the profile piece, McChrystal is shown to be disappointed in Obama — a sentiment with which many Americans will identify — but the general’s aides go even further, mocking senior members of the administration in crude terms that distract from the vital mission in the Middle East.
McChrystal’s abrupt fall from grace is not the first chink in his armor. As the head of Joint Special Operations Command in 2004, he recommended Army Ranger Pat Tillman for a posthumous medal for valor in the face of enemy fire in Afghanistan — even though he already knew the former ASU and Arizona Cardinals football player was really the victim of a friendly fire incident. He also warned presidential speech writers to keep that recommendation out of any statements then-President George W. Bush might make, fearing the consequences if the true circumstances of Tillman’s death became public — as they eventually did. A Pentagon investigation recommended disciplinary action, but the general emerged unscathed.
In 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported, lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee held up McChrystal’s nomination to the Joint Chiefs of Staff over questions about abuse of detainees by the elite forces under his command in Iraq and Afghanistan. McChrystal’s successor as war chief in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, faced no such delay as he sailed to confirmation in Senate hearings that began Monday and ended Wednesday. Even one of Obama’s fiercest critics — 2008 campaign rival Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain — praised the choice:
“For those who doubt the president’s desire and commitment to succeed in Afghanistan, his nomination of Gen. Petraeus to run this war should cause them to think twice,” McCain said.
Similar statements were made when McChrystal took the reins. Why did it all fall apart like this, and why now? Maybe McChrystal decided he had enough of a thankless job running a war most Americans are starting to forget, and this was his exit strategy. Maybe he didn’t want his name to be the last one to be associated with what could be a disastrous premature exit from a region still threatened by the shadow of terrorism.
Or maybe something was weighing on his conscience and he just slipped up.
Either way, McChrystal is going to have plenty of time as he heads into retirement to gather his thoughts about Barack Obama, Pat Tillman and the troops he leaves behind on the battlefield at a vulnerable time. He should have some interesting things to say.
1_lstephen posted at 4:18 am on Sun, Jul 4, 2010.
General McCrystal's statements regarding the President, Vice President, and the lack of military support, should not have been compromised by removing him from his active duty in Afghanistan and replaced by Gen. David Petraeus. Any civil service employee has the right to freedom of speech -- regardless who one's employer might be. We the people live by a democratic government by the people, and for the people. General McCrystal is a team player, and always remained loyal in his service with the armed forces and to the President of the United States. Perhaps a verbal reprimand for all that was said, should have been the only outcome. Most General's in our history are outspoken, and that's what makes them unique in command.
The President's child like attitude will inhibit greater mistrust and suspicion among other close-ranking officials who surround the Capital and White House in result of President Obamas actions. Is he going to replace everyone who disagrees or in light, form an opinion?
Masterrogue666 posted at 5:39 am on Sun, Jul 4, 2010.
Considering Obama's rules of engagement, I think McCrystal has a right to complain. It's our soliders that have to pay the price, sometimes with their lives.....
retired03 posted at 6:59 am on Sun, Jul 4, 2010.
Any General in any war is above the rank and file of his or hers troops. He has many responsibilities other than just fighting a war. Sure, there is always free speech. That's one of the many things we fight for. Having said that, with free speech comes responsibility. Slamming your boss in the newspaper with your feelings and misgivings is not the correct approach. It is not when you are a general and it is not if you are second in command of IBM or any other private company. In addition, I can assure you that many grunts in the trenches have criticized the general and his staff many times during the war. You do not hear about it much if at all. But, on this level, it becomes big news. The correct forum for such debate is in the presidents office surrounded by staff and one on one with no reporters. I don’t begrudge the general his right to criticize at all. It happened and it will continue to happen. He chose the wrong way to do it. Given his track record, he needed to go and president Obama did the right thing; swift and immediate. What the general did had shockwaves throughout the world. He did not think before opening his mouth and he knew it. Note the immediate apology after the dust settled..
Poorman posted at 7:40 am on Sun, Jul 4, 2010.
Its obvious we didn't learn anything in the Korean conflict,we didn't learn anything in the Vietnam war etc. The politicians need to let the military run the war and what tactics should be used,on the ground. If we let congress run this war we won't win it either,and we should just get out now without killing more of our troops.
manini posted at 8:59 am on Sun, Jul 4, 2010.
U.S. Army General McChrystal is a great American & a Patriot. He had the "huevos" & testicular fortitude to mutiny against a waste of brave U.S & NATO lives in a losing war in Afghanistan against the TALIBAN who are having a field day killing U.S. & NATO troops...BTW, Prez OBAMANATION & his slack_jawed flunkies know that 80,000+ NATO troops from U.K.., Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, etc. will be withdrawn by EOY2010 per NATO resolution in Estonia two months ago...so GO FIGURE, Sherlock!!!...hehehe. by a NAM Vet who also saw us LOSE a WAR BIGTIME...
Butters posted at 10:31 am on Mon, Jul 5, 2010.
To the writer of this editorial, you obviously didn't do your homework before foaming at the mouth. General MacChrystal's comments and resulting fallout is known as a calculated risk. He knew exactly what he was doing and so did his staff. He took one for the team, which is what a true warrior soldier does, even if it means the end of your life or career.
Someone needed to say what the General and his staff did say about Obama, Biden, and the rest of the White House goon squad. Soldiers and Marines are dying. Obama played games when dragging out his decision to send in more troops to Afghanistan. This is the result of when you put an ego maniac moron in the White House who has NO military experience, and who often does NOT listen to his joints chiefs and other military advisors.
What writers of sub-standard editorials like this one fail to understand is that now that General MacChrystal will be retiring, he will be saying a lot more about many of the bad things the inferior socialist progressive is doing, you can count on it.