Me Talk Sophisticated One Day
Sean Collins, on Spiked, jumps on my issue with McChrystal -- that as a general and commander of our forces in Afghanistan, how dumb/naive/self-destructive do you have to be to shoot your mouth off, and have aides that follow your lead, when a journalist is tailing you like a dog? Collins writes:
What's striking is how juvenile most of the remarks are. They are not witty or clever, nor do they represent an off-the-cuff 'truth' that everyone recognises but is afraid to say. About an upcoming dinner with a French minister, an aide of McChrystal's said 'It's fucking gay'. Preparing for questions about an earlier run-in with vice-president Joe Biden over counterterrorism strategy, an aide suggests McChrystal respond by saying 'Biden? Did you say: Bite Me?' Hilarious.There have been plenty of conflicts in the past between presidents and generals. But most of those showdowns were mainly about the content of the task - military strategy and execution. McChrystal's indiscretions are petty and personal, and thus different than the insubordinate words of General Douglas MacArthur (who was fired by President Harry Truman for threatening to take the war to China in 1951) or Navy Admiral William Fallon (who resigned in 2008 after publicly criticising the Bush administration's policy towards Iran).
McChrystal also seems embarrassingly naive about letting a journalist from a hippie magazine hang around with him and his aides. Military brass are supposed to be known for their hardcore discipline, but McChrystal's decision not just to speak to the media himself, but to allow his aides to do so as well, displayed a shocking lack of discipline. I know that values associated with the military, such as loyalty and commitment, are not revered in society today, but you still don't expect a top military officer to abandon them.
The start of Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone piece here:
McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him."The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.
McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.
"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"
McChrystal gives him the middle finger.
... "What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn. The city has been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone, calling into question the general's assurances that he can wrest it from the Taliban.
"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.
McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice.
"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.
He pauses a beat.
"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."
With that, he's out the door.
"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.
"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."
...Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
UPDATE: More from IBD.com, from E.J. Dionne:
Paradoxically, Karzai's supportive comments underscored why McChrystal had to be relieved. One little-noted passage in Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone article pointed to McChrystal's central problem."The most striking example of McChrystal's usurpation of diplomatic policy is his handling of Karzai," Hastings wrote. "It is McChrystal, not diplomats like Eikenberry or Holbrooke, who enjoys the best relationship with the man America is relying on to lead Afghanistan. The doctrine of counterinsurgency requires a credible government, and since Karzai is not considered credible by his own people, McChrystal has worked hard to make him so."
A military strategy is supposed to fit the facts on the ground. But McChrystal was trying to invent an alternative reality to fit the facts to his counterinsurgency strategy, trying to turn Karzai into something he isn't. The open split on the American side has reduced Karzai's incentives to alter his behavior.
Then there was the breathtaking immaturity on display in the Rolling Stone piece, the kind of thing Gen. David Petraeus, his successor, can be counted on to avoid. There was also a profound contempt shown toward almost everyone outside McChrystal's tight inner circle. What signal did McChrystal think he was sending through Hastings? Worse still would be indifference on McChrystal's part to the potential impact of the article. The key to counterinsurgency strategy is its awareness of the effect of politics, governance and public opinion on the chances of success.
A piece of this sort was destined to undercut whatever McChrystal was trying to do, and the arrogance that came through in the article plays badly, given that McChrystal's military strategy has not seemed to work very well so far.
But Obama is not off the hook. On the contrary, he stuck with McChrystal, despite ample evidence that the general would go around the White House to push his own preferences.
Moreover, Obama's approach to Afghanistan was always a delicate balance, a Goldilocks strategy that was neither too hawkish nor too dovish: Escalate now to speed withdrawal. It was a nice idea, and maybe it can still allow us to leave a modestly improved situation behind.
The problem is that this careful equilibrium required everyone in the administration to pull together, accepting that the policy was settled and was not open to constant challenge. It required very big egos to get along. It required Karzai to change. It required Obama to have real authority over our military.
Not naive, calculating...if you want to be fired then fuck it...if he got away with his statements he would be 10 feet tall and bullet-proof. I don't see the part where he loses...
Red at July 5, 2010 12:19 AM
McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.
Here's an interesting article about the wobbly French, and a few other topics I like to whine about here.
Listen, Afghanistan needs to be policed because if it's not, bad people will use it as a hideout... That's it. Nobody's pretending in can be turned into a capitalist paradise... They have nothing to sell.
So why shouldn't the French (and the Spanish and the Japanese and the Cameroonians) be expected to offer a little blood and treasure for this work? Does anyone truly believe we can walk out of there with no consequences?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 5, 2010 12:54 AM
My father was an officer in the army at one time. He made an interesting comment the other day about maybe why McChrystal acted & said what he did. He can recall special forces guys, which McChrystal apparently is, being this way. They have a tendency to flaunt rules, and shoot their mouth off, and get away with it in the services.
Tennis at July 5, 2010 4:48 AM
Lapice stones are nice...there are a lot of mineral deposits too...Afghanistan is also pretty (depending on the geographical part...)
Afghanistan could be one of the nicest places in the middle east to visit...if they would only stop killing every foreigner that comes in...
Genghis Khan wasn't all about the mining and tourism but he's the only one to conquer it...
The likelihood that Afghanistan will get turned around...I too will bet no nickels on that.
Here's an idea...the U.S. stays the hell out of foreign affairs. Close our overseas bases tighten security at all ports and put full guard on the border...sit back and watch the world burn.
The US became a world power in 1898 and finally accepted that mantle of responsibility in 1945...not sure if anything significant happened in the interium...I don't think that Western Europe will need saving FOUR times in 100 years; I understand that's where all of the arabs that are sick of sand are going...
Red at July 5, 2010 4:49 AM
Red -
The last time we did that, we got World War II.
There's only so long that expansionist powers will ignore the US.
You are not interested in war, but war is interested in you.
brian at July 5, 2010 8:57 AM
I thinkthe good general did this on purpose to expose obama for the f'ing fraud that he is. Obama could care less about afghanistan, or iraq. he just wants his mug on magazine covers. The good general took a bullet for all of us.
ron at July 5, 2010 9:40 AM
I actually found some of the comments by General McChrystal and staff kinda funny, but I don't care for President Obama or any of his acolytes. The comments sound just like soldiers sound, and all soldiers occasionally grumble and roll their eyes at orders from higher that sometimes seem awfully stupid and ignorant of the facts on the ground.
Obviously the president couldn't let this pass, what with McChrystal's previous gaffes. The guy's judgment is suspect to say the very least. At least in this case Obama didn't have to appoint a Very Special Blue Ribbon Commission to help him understand whose ass to kick.
The delicious part of all this is that McChrystal is apparently a hard-left Obama supporter. The fact that his career has been eviscerated by an article from a lefty journalist in a lefty publication and relieved of command by a lefty president is absolutely perfect. Maybe he can find a spot at MoveOn.org. I'm sure he'll fit right in with the Michael Moores of the world.
MikeInRealLife at July 5, 2010 9:40 AM
Isn't it amazing to think that military policy is now being dedided on the basis of information in a magazine, that for all practical purposes, is an adult version of Tiger Beat magazine for aging hipsters? What a sad, sad spectacle it is.
glen at July 5, 2010 11:49 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/me-talk-sophist.html#comment-1729656">comment from glenIsn't it amazing to think that military policy is now being dedided on the basis of information in a magazine, that for all practical purposes, is an adult version of Tiger Beat magazine for aging hipsters?
Actually, that's the view from not thinking about it. They are one of the few places publishing excellent long-form journalist by writers like Deanne Stillman and Evan Wright. Rolling Stone pieces are probably more likely than other mag pieces to turn into thoughtful books. (I think two of Deanne's books started as RS pieces.)
See Deanne Stillman's books books here.
Evan's Generation Kill is here.
Amy Alkon
at July 5, 2010 1:26 PM
I read the McChrystal comments as he is going to fall on his sword for his troops.
This is what happened in Vietnam. The REMF's sit there and make rules that hamper the troops from surviving -- let alone making progress. While I agree that the "We had to burn the village to save it." is wrong. The other side is having to call higher before firing back when taking fire.
Ref: yesbuthowever.com/new-rules-engagement-8136320/
I do not know of any decent combat commander (especially SF) that would put that rule in place without orders.
I served under good, bad and indifferent commanders in the Air Force. The bad had you stop and salute before they would accept your report. The indifferent would take your report, and then from there not heed your conclusions. They would lose troops and pull back when needed.
The good officers would listen to you regardless of rank -- pick up the phone, ream whoever a new one -- then hand you the phone to correct the miscreant.
I've been under all three. I think McChrystal is the good type -- but he couldn't ream the miscreant a new one. So he let himself and his aides paint the bulls-eye on him so he could force a change.
The other thing to note is that Gen. David Petraeus was virtually excoriated by the left when Obama moved him up from being in charge of Iraq to CentCom. He had to take a "demotion" to be in charge of Afghanistan.
Ref: thehill.com/homenews/administration/106045-petraeus-nomination-puts-some-dems-in-awkward-spot
Jim P. at July 5, 2010 5:28 PM
I agree with the sentiment that Obama had little choice but to sack McChrystal, and that he probably made the best of a bad situation by nominating Petraeus to succeed him. Unfortunately, no matter who is in charge of our mission in Afghanistan, we face an uphill climb there.
The American people are increasingly weary of the war, many soldiers are on their third or fourth long deployment, we are losing our men and women at a faster rate than ever before in this conflict (I think), and Afghanistan is even less governable and more riven by ethnic strife than Iraq. It also appears the Karzai government is hopelessly corrupt. It's hard to see how we get to a point where a government there can maintain the basic level of legitimacy and control needed to permit us to leave (even to mostly leave); neither can we leave Afghanistan to again become the playground of terrorists. It's hard to see what winning would look like in Afghanistan; I'm also uncertain whether we are willing to pay that price, which will be quite high.
Christopher at July 5, 2010 6:11 PM
I'm not sure it matters much if Afghanistan becomes (again) a playground for terrorists. To use an overused analogy, it's like whack-a-mole. Whack them in Afghanistan and they pop up in Pakistan. Whack them in Pakistan and they pop in in Yemen. Whack them in Yemen and they pop up in Somalia. Whack them in Somalia and they pop up in Sudan. And so on.
Even though I served in Afghanistan, I don't know why it's special, except that the 9/11 attack happened to be plotted there. But it could have just as easily been plotted in any of the other countries mentioned above, as the next attack surely will be.
MikeInRealLife at July 6, 2010 12:55 PM
> Whack them in Somalia and they pop up in
> Sudan. And so on.
So why get out of bed in the morning? Why respond to anything ever?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 6, 2010 1:40 PM
Crid -
Not saying *some* response isn't warranted when we're attacked. I'm just not sure a decades-long project to build a cohesive nation out of a bunch of disparate Iron Age Muslim tribes is the correct response.
I think an overwhelmingly violent short-term counterattack on all suspected terrorist camps - and basically disregarding "collateral damage" - might have been better. Then, rather than occupying the rockpile and trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, husbanding our resources for follow-on strikes in Afghanistan and other places the al-Qaeda mole pops up.
It's not as if the current Afghanistan strategy is succeeding brilliantly. Nor will it, at least based on my experiences there. The government is viewed by the people as entirely corrupt, the people themselves are politically apathetic and disconnected, the countryside is harsh and agriculture difficult, the Afghan National Army is a bunch of incompetent and hash-addicted cowards, the Afghan National Police are a bunch of thieves and murderers, and everyone prostrates themselves before Allah (when they aren't stoning women, beheading homosexuals, or tossing acid on little schoolgirls). This isn't exactly the recipe for a peaceful, forward-looking nation.
MikeInRealLife at July 6, 2010 2:18 PM
Christopher,
Thank you for serving.
Can I ask you if my comments were on or off the mark?
Jim P. at July 6, 2010 7:47 PM
Leave a comment