General McChrystal and the POTUS, how weak is the President?
General Stanley A. McChrystal has recently become somewhat of a whipping boy as a debate rages over the course of the Afghanistan theater of the Global War on Terror. Voices on both sides of the political spectrum have said a lot that demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the situation. There are several basic considerations to mention before continuing...
- the military, headed by the President of the United States of America as
Commander in Chief, is subservient to the civilian government.
-
General McChrystal is a member of the military and is subject to civilian control via the President of the United States of America.
- General McChrystal has been assigned to a position requiring that he make his professional opinion known to the Commander in Chief either directly (when asked) or through the
chain of command. As the son of a Major General and a career soldier, General McChrystal is well aware of his duty responsibilities and limitations.
-
General McChrystal was selected for/appointed to this position by the President of the United States of America.
-
General McChrystal has made his professional opinion known to the President of the United States of America via the Chain of Command on 30 August.
-
the POTUS said that Afghanistan was the just war and that we were in it to win it.
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ok, with that out of the way let's get to it.
General McChrystal made his recommendation. In August. It sat. And sat. Somebody released/leaked it. I don't know the specifics of what were contained in the report (or memo as some have called it). Let's just say that I expect it was
classified, at least Confidential but maybe Secret. Somebody leaked the report to the press. Since the press is all about the POTUS still, I bet the whoever leaked it was a White House insider but I could be wrong. It might have been a Pentagon employee fed up with the POTUS's procrastination. I don't think who did this matters to a continuation of the discussion even if what they did was likely illegal...
So General McChrystal's recommendation was that some 47K soldiers and/or Marines be added to the troop level in Afghanistan to meet manpower needs in taking back the country from the rising Taliban presence/influence. This isn't palatable to somebody and so the POTUS doesn't want to do it. He's fudged, talked about health care (a relatively unimportant subject given that health care is nothing without a secure border) and even jetted to Copenhagen, Denmark to lobby for the Olympics to come to Chicago (failing at that). Meanwhile, the military having more mission than men are seeing some of those men die because of it. Looks like Mogadishu to me.
The POTUS did take 25 whole minutes from his schedule to "talk with" General McChrystal. While the photo released shows both men sitting in the eager, leaning forward, pose, it is widely thought that the POTUS gave the General a verbal reprimand for making public statements affirming the leaked reports of the General's view of the situation. The POTUS probably doesn't like appearing to be just as weak as he is on national defense. The General probably took it like a man but told him what he thought.
Now we have a whole raft of characters from the Democrat side telling us that the General should keep his trap shut and complaining (while ignoring their favorites similar behavior,
Shinseki and
Wesley Clark come to mind) that he's stepped out of bounds. Of course he has, now anyway, with his speech and his interview. He's pointedly, if truthfully, made statements that show his view is the opposite of the surrender monkeys at the White House and in Congress. The POTUS, if he had the wherewithal to do so, would have dismissed him, maybe even demanded his resignation.
Truman did it with
MacArthur.
But he hasn't. I wonder why. I don't care that I agree with General McChrystal or that I admire him for what was a pretty gutsy thing to do. I wonder why "the most powerful man on Earth" hasn't fired somebody who sucker punched him. Is he saving a man he expected to be a fall guy for his scripted purpose? Is the POTUS thinking that he is too weak to fire him? Is somebody (or somebodies) like Joe Lieberman holding Health Care to his head as a bargaining chip? I don't know.
I also don't know why everything else is more important than national security. Yes, we said the Democrats and Obama would be weak on international relations and national security. Now it seems, the chickens are coming home to roost (to borrow a phrase) and we haven't even touched on Iran...
Labels: International, Politics
