Skip to comments.The Opportunity After McChrystal's Relief
Posted on 06/30/2010 6:56:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Gen. Stanley McChrystal's relief of command by President Barack Obama has a recent precedent, at least one that involves the issue of respect for the military chain of command, a magazine article and the end of a fine military career.
In March 2008, following an interview with Esquire Magazine, Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, a leader with a stellar military record, resigned as commander of Central Command and retired from the U.S. Navy.
Esquire portrayed the former carrier pilot as the only man standing between President George W. Bush and a war with Iran. A senior American military officer must be prepared to pay the price of relief when publicly disagreeing with the commander in chief, the president of the United States.
Adm. Fallon's opinions weren't the sole difficulty. His views, in a less provocative rhetorical context -- say, a dry discussion of what-if scenarios -- might have raised eyebrows but not hackles. Election-year rhetorical and political tropes, however, jammed the article. "Neo-con" and "Bush" demon connivers threaten the world with immolation because they want war with Iran. Yet Fallon stands tall, prepared to be relieved for speaking truth.
As published, the article challenged the system of civilian control of the military, which serves America well. Fallon may or may not have gotten his say -- odds are he did, but as relayed by Esquire they dovetailed with a perceived elect-a-lefty media agenda.
In the last two years, however, even a few of those media and political elites have discovered what a farce it is to attempt to placate Tehran's Khomeinists. Obama issued apologies in Cairo and offered negotiations sans conditions. The CIA now thinks the mullahs have enough uranium for two bombs, seemingly revising a controversial assessment from fall 2007 that said Iran would not get nukes until 2015. The problem wasn't the Bush's approach -- the problem is bigoted fanatics who want weapons that kill millions.
As for McChrystal: In a press conference on June 24 of this year, Adm. Mike Mullen said, succinctly, "It was clear that ... in its totality, it challenged civilian control ... ."
Mullen's "it" refers to the disrespect for civilian authority by now-former U.S. Afghanistan commander McChrystal's staff, as portrayed in an article in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine. President Obama, whose wife until his candidacy was never proud of her country, relieved McChrystal for this disrespect -- not so much for what McChrystal had said, but for his staff's biting criticism of other members of the administration, including Vice President Joe Biden.
The president should have relieved him. In the long run, for the good of the republic, it is always beneficial to remind the military who is the Constitution-authorized boss.
McChrystal is responsible for what his staff does -- those are the military's rules, even in an administration stuffed to its appointee brim with thumb-your-nose-at-bourgeoisie-rules campus radicals. It is not clear that McChrystal got his say in exchange for his career -- likely he did not.
He appeared to have won the intra-administration debate over strategy in Afghanistan. But in light of the article, he did seem confident about that win. Deep policy disagreements fester in the Obama administration over Afghanistan. McChrystal's big mistake was failing to express policy disagreements in a professional manner. He and his staff couched his disagreements in base, crude terms spiced with locker room panache. Rolling Stone's correspondent heard it.
President Obama needs to learn that vacillation doesn't win wars. His administration is vacillating, if not fragmenting, over Afghanistan. In the aftermath of McChrystal's relief, the appointment of Gen. David Petraeus gives the administration the opportunity to pursue a focused, coherent policy.
Gen. David Petraeus gives the administration the opportunity to pursue a focused, coherent policy.
-- snip --
Ya think 0bama gets it?
With a chaotic, corrupt environment in Afghanistan, it strikes me that such a situation must be approached by provinces, rather than as a whole, bringing security, stability and leadership province by province.
The more amenable provinces (prefect?) should be incorporated while isolating the more dangerous ones from the remainder. The worse should be more and more isolated by more and more cooperating provinces.
This would be similar to Iraq in which the Mosul area was one of the final areas tackled.
Not only did those people see the progress and the promise that came to amenable provinces, but it also made them more willing to listen.
Another military advantage of isolating the worst is that it is then easier to point to the necessity of active combat.
Who is more corrupt..... Hamid Karzi or Barack Obama?
The Obama administration may be the most corrupt since Ulysses Grant
With the Messiah as president, Americans should not complain about Afghan corruption
As a patriotic American, and as a retired member of the military, I believe our troops deserve a shot at winning this war. My comments were directed toward that end.
They deserve the best equipment, the best arms, the best leadership, and the best strategy. They deserve to win. A drive to win on the part of the nation validates their sacrifice.
If corruption is one of the obstacles to their winning, then I’m in favor of finding a way to defeat Afghan corruption.
That said, I do believe the Obama admin is corrupt. The most recent glaring evidence it he DOJ turning a blind eye to Black Panter intimidation at polling locations. There are a gazillion other examples.
Obama’s corruption, however, has nothing to do with my desire to support our troops. They are far more important than Obama.
I certainly don’t disagree.
My point was to introduce the concept of Obama corruption. His presstitutes attack Karzi et al as if the corruption there is the primary reason for Obama’s problems. They are creating a scape goat to cover a vietnam type solution where they win and America and Afghanistan lose.
All that matters to the left is the concept that war is obsolete and America decided there would be no more war thirty years ago.
Our worst enemy is in the White House.
we be mates, my friend
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.