Posted on 06/24/2010 2:04:47 PM PDT by Kaslin
In confiding to Rolling Stone their unflattering opinions of the military acumen of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, Dick Holbrooke and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff were guilty of colossal stupidity.
And President Obama had cause to cashier them. Yet his decision to fire McChrystal may prove both unwise and costly.
For McChrystal, unlike Gen. MacArthur, never challenged the war policy -- he is carrying it out -- and Barack Obama is no Harry Truman.
Moreover, the war strategy Obama is pursuing is the McChrystal Plan, devised by the general and being implemented by the general in Marja and Kandahar, perhaps the decisive campaign of the war.
Should that plan now fail, full responsibility falls on Obama.
He has made the Afghan war his war in a way it never was before.
If the McChrystal strategy fails, critics will charge Obama with causing the defeat by firing the best fighting general in the Army out of pique over some officers-club remarks that bruised the egos of West Wing warriors.
And though those remarks never should have appeared in print, they may well reflect the sentiments of not a few soldiers and Marine officers on third and fourth tours of duty in the Afghan theater.
Had Obama, instead of firing McChrystal, told him to shut up, can the interviews and go back to fighting the war until the December review of strategy, he could have shown those soldiers he is a bigger man than they or McChrystal's team give him credit for.
And if success in Afghanistan is the highest goal, how does it help to fire the best fighting general? Do you relieve Gen. Patton during combat because he vents his prejudices or opinions?
This city may draw the parallel, but the Obama-McChrystal clash does not remotely rise to the historic level of the collision between MacArthur and Truman.
Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ordered the airlift that broke the Berlin blockade, and produced the Marshall Plan and NATO. He had won election in his own right with a legendary comeback in 1948.
Obama has nothing like Truman's credibility as a war leader.
And MacArthur was the most famous U.S. soldier since Gen. Grant. No. 1 at West Point, he was a legendary commander in France in 1918, leading troops out of the trenches with a swagger stick.
Driven out of the Philippines in 1942, he had declared, "I shall return," and led the liberation of the islands in 1944. He conducted the famous island-hopping campaign up the archipelagos of the South Pacific and took Japan's surrender on the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
As military proconsul, he presided over the reconstruction of Japan, wrote her constitution and converted her into an ally.
When North Korea invaded the South and drove the U.S. Army into the Pusan perimeter, MacArthur landed Marines far behind enemy lines at Inchon in a flanking maneuver that destroyed the North Korean army and will be studied at military academies for centuries to come.
In late 1950, MacArthur was stunned by the intervention in Korea of the armies of Mao Zedong, lately victorious in China's four-year civil war.
MacArthur's clash with Truman was not over something so trivial as a gossipy article in Rolling Stone. MacArthur's hands had been tied by Truman.
He was not allowed to bomb the Yalu bridges over which Chinese troops were pouring into Korea. He was not allowed to bomb Chinese troop concentrations and munitions dumps in Manchuria. He was not allowed to use Chiang Kai-shek's armies on Taiwan. He was not allowed hot pursuit of enemy aircraft into Chinese or Russian airspace.
MacArthur was being restricted to fighting the war Mao wanted to fight, a war of attrition against the world's most populous nation, and largest army, while China was allowed to remain a privileged sanctuary, off-limits to U.S. bombers like those that smashed Germany and Japan.
In his address to Congress, after his firing by Truman, MacArthur put it this way: "'Why,' my soldiers asked of me, 'surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?' I could not answer."
MacArthur's letter to Rep. Joe Martin, in response to a letter from the GOP leader, was indeed a challenge to Truman's policy of avoiding any risk of a clash with Russia, even if it meant U.S. soldiers would pay the price of Truman's timidity.
Events would prove MacArthur right.
Truman's restrictions would ensure a "no-win war" for two more years that would cost tens of thousands more American lives, and Harry would be sent packing with the lowest rating of any president in history.
Gen. Eisenhower would take office, two years after MacArthur's firing, and threaten the exact escalation MacArthur envisioned, ending the Korean War in six months.
Obama and his party may be celebrating his cashiering of Gen. McChrystal as a macho moment, but by firing the fighting general, for his foolish remarks, Obama has deepened the gulf between his party and the U.S. military.
If he is our president, then why doesn’t he act like it?
Barack Obama doesn't like American people.
Exactly my point
“In confiding to Rolling Stone their unflattering opinions of the military acumen of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, Dick Holbrooke and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff were guilty of colossal stupidity.”
But that wasn’t why McChrystal was fired. The Rolling Stone article, subtitled ‘The Wimps in the White House’, hit too close to home and reinforced the story line that Obama is uninterested in solving problems and incompetent (called him a ‘disengaged dilletante’) as also demonstrated by Obama’s reaction to the gulf oil spill. The White House simply couldn’t have two stories running at the same time about Obama’s complete lack of leadership skills.
He’s a red diaper doper baby by birth. Raised on the knee of a Communist parental proxy. Grew up aboard and went to school to hang with the Marxist professors and those against “the system”.
He came into office with a chip on his shoulder, not just to erradicate whatever Bush had done but to systematically shift this country away from our very foundation. He trash talked ALL presidents who came before him. ON FOREIGN SOIL. And he has the gaul to be upset about a General. Americans are upset with his own actions as “Commander in Chief”. He has disrespected the office, the title, and this nation.
But I wouldn’t expect anything less of a red diaper doper baby who never grew out of it.
Interesting. History is replete with false kings (usurpers), fake Popes, Multiple Popes, Bishops, etc.
After the phony is gone, the deal is you change and recall whatever is practical, but mainly just soldier on. Of course, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, and thus ineligible to run for, never mind hold the office of POTUS,
However, he is the sitting, DE FACTO POTUS. He was put there by The Electoral College, The President of The Senate, The Governors of 50 states who allowed him on the ballot, and finally, he won the popular vote. He was also sworn in by the Chief Justice, Twice.
As the sitting President, de facto, or de jure, he can ONLY Be removed by Impeachment in The House and Conviction in The Senate, there by a 2/3 vote. Of course, he could resign. That ain't gonna happen.
IMHO, we should devote the bandwidth to making sure we get real Republicans with spines into office in 2010 and they need
A Program
A Plan
A Leader
And a Clue
that unless they act decisively, the Republic is on its way down for a long count.
People never realize that in order to rise in the ranks, you have to actually kill people and figure out more efficient ways of doing it. To say the least about strategy. Instead, they see our troops as a bunch of brainless jocks.
Bingo! You said it
Wonder if this author ever cracked a history book. Patton WAS relieved during combat operations.
True, Patton was venting on a private soldier and was physical about it. But all in all it was a minor incident compared to all that was going on at the time. Make no mistake Patton set himself up by being a constant thorn in Eisenhower's side. Patton and his staff constantly were venting opinions and prejudices against high command.
Gen. David Petraeus:
Bush’s fault!!!
Oh - Wait...
If failure of the plan costs a bunch of American soldiers' lives, would you see a downside then?
McChrystal was no MacArthur. Hell, the guy voted for Obama.
bump
Soldier’s lives lost are most certainly a downside but my comment was more in the political realm that was the context of the article. Thanks for allowing me to provide that clarification.
Thanks, indeed for the clarification. I doubted you were being callous, but sometimes I get moody....
:^/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.