RSS Feed Menu
The beatdown of General McChrystal continued over the weekend with the political and pundit class denouncing the general and in typically hyperbolic terms.
Boston University military historian Andrew J. Bacevich, for instance, somehow found within this brouhaha “an officer corps that is losing its bearings…
“The responsibility facing the American people is clear,” Bacevich thundered in the Sunday Washington Post. “They need to reclaim ownership of their Army.” Otherwise, he warned, “the damage to the army and to American democracy will be severe.”
Maybe if McChrystal and his staff really had been insubordinate, Bacevich would have a point. But in truth, they have not been, as even President Obama himself has acknowledged.
“Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully” [emphasis added], Obama said last Wednesday.
Oh, but that doesn’t matter, because, we are told, even though the General and his aides saluted smartly and did not in any way undermine the president’s policies, McChrystal nonetheless created an adversarial “command climate.” And, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, this adversarial command climate “was at best disrespectful of civilian authority.”
But with all due respect to the chairman, I don’t think this is true. Again, as I have been arguing here at FrumForum, and also at the American Spectator, context and perspective are required.
By all accounts, McChrystal and his staff were absolute models of professionalism and soldierly virtue when dealing with the White House, Congress, the State Department, et al. No one has suggested otherwise.
Yet, a few mildly critical comments uttered privately within the confines of their workspace and caught by Rolling Stone magazine are being cited as legitimate reasons for McChrystal’s dismissal. But what is missing from most analysis of this issue is any sense of proportion. McChrystal is being charged, in effect, with a public affairs felony when, in reality, he is guilty, at worst, of a minor traffic violation.
Indeed, as Peter Worthington points out in “An Unnecessary Firing” here at FrumForum:
The unidentified quotes in the Rolling Stone article that were snarky about many of the people around Obama, and on whom Obama depends, were not by McChrystal, and had the flavor of a bunch of guys sounding off over a beer.
They were the sort of cracks about management that happen in every office.
That’s exactly right. Only the good-natured and jocular banter between and amongst McChrystal and his staff was recorded, apparently, by Rolling Stone magazine and placed in the worst possible light. But as David Frum has observed:
The people at Facebook are right: We’re all going to enjoy less privacy in future. There are two obvious responses to that change. Either we all turn into tight-lipped self-protecting careerists in every waking hour, never emitting an untoward remark, never repeating an improper joke — or else we’re all going to have to develop a much greater tolerance for normal human indiscretion, sarcasm, flippancy and political incorrectness.
We all know that people sometimes ventilate in private. They say things in the moment that do not reflect their considered or settled opinion. They are uncharitable, irritable, sarcastic, over-emphatic. If those remarks can appear in public at any time, as it seems they can, we all need to develop some new willingness to judge the careless words of others as we would wish to have our own careless words judged.
A more charitable political and pundit class would have understood all this and responded accordingly. It would have properly discounted the remarks uttered by McChrystal and his aides as little more than harmless venting and blowing off steam.
Instead, the political and pundit class rose up — and almost in unison and in high dudgeon — and demanded McChrystal’s scalp. His dismissal, we were lectured, was a test of the president’s mettle. Obama’s manhood and leadership were on the line.
It’s instructive, then, to consider what a truly great leader, Abraham Lincoln, did when faced with a genuinely insolent commanding general during the Civil War: He simply ignored the behavior, says historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Indeed, she writes:
For months during the Civil War, Lincoln chose to ignore insolent behavior by Gen. George McClellan, who served at times as the commander of the Army of the Potomac and the general in chief of the Union Army, arguing that his breaches of protocol were worth tolerating as long as he was exerting a positive influence on his forces.
Obama, by contrast, can’t abide a commanding general who expresses his disappointment at the president’s lack of substantive preparation for their first meeting together? Give me a break. We are, are we not, defining insolence and insubordination down?
Here’s what Obama should have said last Wednesday:
Look, I know that General McChrystal and his staff are under enormous pressure. They’re working 18-to-20-hour days and doing everything that they can to ensure we win in Afghanistan.
And like all the rest of us, they sometimes say things about their colleagues they’d rather not see reported in the newspaper. I don’t take offense. My priority is to succeed on the battlefield.
In all of their interactions with me and my staff, after all, the general and his aides have been extremely professional and deferential. They know, understand and respect the chain of command and also the principle of civilian control of the military. I know that and my administration knows that. And that’s what counts: their public conduct, not their private musings.
I’m sure if you came into the White House and listened to some of our banter, you could probably do much the same thing: find indiscreet comments, shine a light on them, and make us look bad.
But I’m not interested in making people look bad. I’m interested in winning in Afghanistan. And General McChrystal is my man. He’s my general, and a superb one at that. We need him at the helm for this important fight that lies ahead.
Had Obama said this he rightly would have been hailed for his magnanimity and grand sense of purpose. But in truth, the president is likely thin-skinned and probably insecure in his role as commander-in-chief. Thus, there was, during this brouhaha, no Lincoln in him and, therefore, no Lincoln moment. How disappointing and sad.
Only one problem – McChrystal et al spoke the truth to Rolling Stone. Obama knew it and the public knew it. As such he just could not bear to turn the other cheek.
“a few mildly critical comments uttered privately within the confines of their workspace and caught by Rolling Stone magazine are being cited as legitimate reasons for McChrystal’s dismissal”
HORSESHIT!
McChrystal knew he was on record, he knew his aides were on record, and those comments were NOT mild.
Give it up. McChystal f**ked up royally and got exactly what Paragraph 88 of the United Military Code calls for. Or are you suddenly against the Unified Military Code?
Apparently, Republicans are only for law-and-order when the other team is in trouble. How very, very hypocritical.
Obama did the right thing. It has been pretty universally accepted that he had to do what he did under the circumstances. If I’m wrong about that please supply us a list of high ranking military officers, past or present that agrees with you. Can you do that Mr. Guardiano? I will wait for your list.
I prefer a loyal staff officer to a brilliant one.” — General George S. Patton
Lets just play this as if one of YOUR employees made similar statements in a local newspaper:
Whether or not they are telling the truth, would YOU allow this person to continue working for you ? If you kept them on, wouldn’t you have doubts they would be doing their best for you ? What else would they say to other employees ? Every time you gave them a directive or made a request you’d be thinking “what are they going to say about this one ?”
Loyalty to your boss and organization are what makes any organization work. In the Military its even more impportant to show loyalty to your chain of command. The comments Gen McChrystal and his staff made are very common in a club or bull session; NOT in newspapers. Once that trust is broken you can’t repair it. In the course of my Army career, I can remember discussing the “abilities” of many senior officers at the club; that’s where they stayed. It was our job as Soldiers to carry out the orders in the best way possible.
In the course of writing orders, discussions on the best courses of action carry out orders is the lifeblood of a staff. A good commander encourages heated discussion. Gen McChrystal was involved in the discussions to determine strategy for Afghnistan. President Obama made the decision. It was the General’s job to carry out the orders to his best ability.
GEN Bruce C. Clarke states, “Rank is only given you in the Army to enable you to better serve those below you and those above you. Rank is not given for you to exercise your idiosyncrasies.”
Slide,
Yes, mine is, it seems, a minority opinion. I do not slavishly follow what “everyone else” thinks and does. In your mind this shows I am wrong. In my mind this shows I am enlightened and ahead of the pack.
There has been, as I have noted, a media feeding frenzy and a rush to judgment in l’affaire McChrystal. This is not the first time that the elite opinion-makers were wrong. (They also were wrong, for instance, about the need for a U.S. troops surge in Iraq.)
I take great pride in standing up for what is right even when, it seems, most people disagree with me.
Regards,
John
I’m assuming John’s next post will argue vigorously for Article 88 to be removed from the MCJ.
Sec. 888. Art. 88. Contempt toward officials
-STATUTE-
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
“I take great pride in standing up for what is right even when, it seems, most people disagree with me.”
Or could it be that you are a complete lying asshole? And yes you did lie about this being a private conversation among colleagues. It was no such thing.
Your collected works on the McChrystal debacle could be described in one word “Total Bollocks”. Sorry that is two words.
John Guardiano // Jun 28, 2010 at 3:37 pm Slide, Yes, mine is, it seems, a minority opinion. I do not slavishly follow what “everyone else” thinks and does. In your mind this shows I am wrong. In my mind this shows I am enlightened and ahead of the pack.There has been, as I have noted, a media feeding frenzy and a rush to judgment in l’affaire McChrystal. This is not the first time that the elite opinion-makers were wrong.
No John, I’m not going to let you get away with that. I am not talking about the media, which is always an easy target to attack, how about military people that agree with you? Any retired military officers that have spoken out against the actions of Obama and suggesting that it is no big deal what McChrystal and his staff said?
Get back to me with the list Mr. Enlightened and we can discuss it further. If not, then perhaps it is not that you are enlightened so much but rather that you are so off base that nobody agrees with your opinion even within the military.
Put simply, the whole rolling stone article showed a total lack of judgement by McChrystal. For that alone he needed to be canned.
Why do the military need to do this sort of thing? Just get on and do the job we pay you for and that does not include giving bloody interviews.
I think Chris sums it up. Even if McCrystal was not insubordinate he showed contempt to his civilian leadership which is a violation that should of had him revealed of his command.
You drastically misrepresent the Lincoln-McClellan relationship when referring to Lincoln as a truly great leader (which he was, by wide agreement). McClellan was replaced after a short stint due to his inability to manage the Army and reluctance to engage, with Lincoln famously quoted as saying “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”
If your parallel is McClellan, then it is far better that Obama removed him from his position now. Good attempt to make a connection, but you ended up proving that Obama is a better commander-in-chief than Lincoln. Impressive!
McChrystal stepped into a position that was beyond his abilities. At the level of his position in Afghanistan, he had to represent the United States both militarily and politically. He failed in the latter, particularly in trashing something as simple as dinner with an ally. If he was unprepared to handle the political responsibilities, he should have turned down the top role and stayed one rung down with somebody else in the publicly visible seat.
A CEO at a large company is expected to behave in the same manner. No matter what they think or say in private, they can’t publicly trash their customers, suppliers, etc. without some very unhappy shareholders. They have to be able to handle the politics of their position. If they can’t do it, they should take a lower position and let somebody take the visible position.
As I said before, this was between McChrystal and Obama, and Obama decided that McChrystal had to go. It has been pointed out by multiple people that this was in accordance with the MCJ, but Guardiano’s knee-jerk defenses (he’s doing the country a service, it wasn’t that bad, it was his staff that said it) ignores this along with the chain of command because he personally doesn’t like the Commander-in-Chief.
I always thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility? In accountability? All this excuse making and whining from John is down right embarrassing. Give it up John. He screwed up (and not for the first time might I add) and he was not very good at his job. COIN requires political smarts and diplomacy, both of which seemed to elude the very one dimensional McChrystal. As LFC said, he was put into a position above his capabilities. The Peter Principal in action.
I’m sort of amused by comparisons with Lincoln. Lincoln went through a string of generals because he didn’t like the results that they were giving him, militarily or politically. If President Obama had appointed, dismissed, and reappointed generals in anything like the fashion of Lincoln from 1862 to 1863, gentlemen like John Guardiano would be howling about an incompetent Commander in Chief and blaming the failure in Afghanistan on the inability of the President to make up his mind.
Most have already stated the obvious; the Military Code of Conduct AND the obvious references to how one has to deal with recriminations in the workplace if they shoot their mouth off.
Let me add one additional comment: the war in Afghanistan is now the longest running war in American history. Longer than WWII. Longer than Korea. Longer than Vietnam. Longer than the first Gulf War.
Might I be inclined to ask why people are defending a general who was incapable of suppressing a bunch of rag-tag bronze age horse riders in a reasonable time frame? Were we asking too much?
I keep hearing about complexity and political pressures. I am sorry, but that is a cop out. We asked the guy to stabilize a country who would consider the light bulb and indoor plumbing to be ‘modern technology’. And he couldn’t do it. And to top it all off, he can’t keep his mouth shut.
Reminds me of a ‘friend’ of mine who has had 5 jobs in 6 years. He is smart enough. But he is notoriously lazy and a procrastinator. Virtually none of the projects he works on end up as anything successful. And to top things off, he is a motor-mouth. Full of excuses when things go bad and blaming everyone but himself. As a result, he can never keep a job for very long.
I always thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility? In accountability?
They do … for Democrats. For them it’s purely IOKIYAR.
I can only imagine the headlines from Republicans had Obama left the general in charge: “Obama Weak”, “Obama Cannot Control Military”, “Obama Backs Down Again”, etc.
There really is no winning for Obama is there?
Damn Slide, TKO.
This kind of reminds me of McCain on DADT, back in the 90′s he used as his justification the words of the senior leadership of the military to support his position, but now that they have all come around completely ignores what he said before.
I have little doubt if Guardiano could find one high ranking Military man he would be trumpeting it loudly, but as he can’t, it doesn’t matter to him what the Military itself thinks.
We all know, absolutely, that if this happened under Bush Guardiano would have called for his head. This is just gutter partisan hackery.
Perhaps the real truth is: I take great pride in finding any excuse to attack the Obama administration even when, it seems, most people disagree with me.
To be honest, I even find it refreshing just how few partisan hacks there have been about the issue. No Republican Senators, No retired Generals of the Right wing, and very few pundits have taken the attack Obama no matter what tack.
Easton,
You’re wrong: I would have said the exact same thing even if the commander-in-chief was a Republican.
What matters to me are the principles involved — i.e., free speech, a free press, the American people’s right to know, an intellectually engaged military that doesn’t shun the media or the public prints, protecting our warriors from bureaucratic intolerance, et al. How this all shakes out politically really doesn’t concern me.
Regards,
John
John Guardiano, I wish I could believe you, I truly do. I was criticized for wishing that they buried the story (which was a different contrary view) and I read some other journalists saying they would have if only not to burn their source. I simply thought in war time you don’t print things that have any chance of giving aid to the enemy unless there is something as egregious as a war crime. (we are fortunate to have Petraeus on the shelf) But I accept the criticism. I acknowledge the sense of it. I don’t take pride in wishing that the Rolling Stone buried the story. I simply offered my opinion and accept the consensus against it. I don’t continue to argue it, especially in light of other evidence that McChrystal was a loose cannon.
http://www.frumforum.com/mcchrystals-history-of-media-blunders
Imagine that, I allowed myself to persuaded that maybe my initial assumption and desire was wrong. I must be a real pussy.
http://www.bloggybayou.com/2010/06/mcchrystal-crisis-its-opportunity-vice.html
Plus, I’m working on a post about the bacevich editorial and Q n A session
Cheers
Given his strong principled stance on the sanctity of free speech, I’m looking forward to John’s upcoming piece on having the military reject Article 88 (which McChrystal violated) from the UMCJ.
As well, I’m looking forward to reading how he specifically crafts his attacks against retaining Art. 89 too, which prohibits disrespectful conduct towards a superior officer. After all, disrespect towards the chain of command cannot be a barrier to free speech rights. So ousted from the UMCJ it must be. I know John believes this, I’m simply curious to see how efficiently he dispatches the counter-opposition.
I’m also eagerly awaiting John’s scheduled upcoming piece arguing for the rejection of DADT on the grounds that it violates free speech rights. There’s so much material to work with!
This should be a most interesting upcoming series on the application and consequences of unrestricted free speech rights. Looking forward to those pieces!
You’ll notice for the record that John was unable to produce any military officers that agreed with his position on McChrystal’s dismissal. The silence is deafening. I guess there are not many very “enlightened” military officers according to John’s rather bizarre standards.
Free speech my ass.
Slide, two possible interpretations: He wrote his first piece assuming it would be a standard Republican talking point, found it wasn’t and now is too vain to backtrack. “I was wrong” is not something that readily passes through any Conservatives lips.
Or two: maybe this is his doing what he is paid to do, to drum up eyeballs and interest. If so, he has been pretty successful. Cynical sure but a guy got to eat.
A couple of points:
1. McChrystal is a stupendous soldier, practically a living legend in the infantry world. Some blowhards on the right are trying to paint him as a limp-wristed “political general” infatuated with nation-building and not letting the troops get on with the real business of killing bad guys. This is nonsense.
2. McChrystal screwed up big time and he knew it. If Rolling Stone had profiled one of his division commanders in the same fashion, there is no doubt in my mind that McChrystal would have fired him. The first thing any Army Public Affairs Officer will tell you is that there is no such thing as “off the record.” McChrystal and his staff allowed themselves to get too comfortable around Hastings, made some unguarded comments, with disastrous results.
3. Some of the comments McChrystal’s staff made, even allowing for context, are inexcusable, particularly the description of dinner w/ the French minister of defense as being “f—-ing gay.” The fact that they felt that they could express such feelings in front of a reporter gives one pause about how McChrystal managed his staff. Back to point #2: McChrystal had to go.
4. Instead of lambasting Obama for doing what any commander-in-chief would have done, somebody should do an analysis of the article itself and expose it for the lame, over-written, and fundamentally dishonest piece that it is.
easton, perhaps you are right. Sometimes I really ponder whether some conservatives really believe what they say, or they are just doing their part in some big Kabuki dance? I can’t imagine that a guy like John would tolerate a General, serving under George Bush, exercising his “free speech” by ridiculing Dick Cheney and Condi Rice in the way McChrystal and his staff did. Being so transparently partisan, while at the same time trying to claim it is a matter of high principal, shows such disdain for his readers.
Or is it that they (these reality challenged conservatives) know that “their side” understands this dance very well and are all willing to play their part to do whatever it takes for their “troupe”? If enough people say something there must be some truth in it, right? The obvious lies and misrepresentations that seem to be endemic in the right wing echo chamber will ultimately be their undoing in the long run. Credibility once lost is difficult to regain and poor John here has suffered a double dose of credibility loss because he didn’t learn the choreography of this story very well and he found himself out in the middle of the stage, all by himself, trying to do a solo performance. Badly.
John, I took the time to register for this site and log an opinion because I appreciate your patriotism, passion and insight into the geo-political realities that go on in this world of ours. In this case, I have to disagree with your opinion on the McChrystal matter. I personally hoped that Obama would let this issue pass and give the general a strong slap on the wrist and orders to shut up and get the job done. That was because of my appreciation for the rough and high speed world guys like McCrystal and the Special Forces live in. We can’t always expect the personalities we depend on to lead the juggernaut of our military offensive to also be the highly polished, well spoken, discriminating politicians that we use for diplomatic offensives and who are generally politicians we seldom trust and often loath.
Unfortunately, what McCrystal did was not just about making stupid comments, but also showed a questionable judgement in allowing a negative influence into his trusted circle, demonstrating at least some degree of disloyalty to his superiors, and allowing an environment to exist where his subordinates felt they could speak out in such negative ways.
In real life, corporate life, if I were in Obama’s shoes, I personally would do everything I could to crush a person who did that to me. The General paid a significant price for his indiscretions, giving up the most high profile command in the world military theater. On the other hand, he was also able to retire with his 4 star grade so no further personal repercussions were made. I always strive to be loyal to my boss and expect the same from those who work for me. My life and the loyalties that I look for only impact people’s earnings and corporate bottom lines. McCrystal’s attitudes and loyalties could ultimately involve great American Soldiers’ lives and potentially deaths. Why would anyone want a shadow of doubt on the subject.
It’s an unfortunate situation that I personally feel saddened by. I am a fan of the General and appreciated what he was doing for us. I also understand one’s having a mouth that often outruns common sense and political self preservation. Unfortunately, the military and the strict chain of command and unquestioning loyalty and obedience that goes with it are no place to try out new doctrines of Free Speech and the airing of diverse opinions. As such, I have to regrettably side with Obama on this one no matter how distasteful that concept is to me.
Looks to me as if, yet once again (he’s making it a habit lately in these ‘defend the indefensible’ posts), John Guardiano has left the building.
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Marine General James N. Mattis Returns to the Fight // Jul 9, 2010 at 2:02 am
[...] of General McChrystal was a serious mistake, as I have argued here at The American Spectator and elsewhere. However, the silver lining in this fiasco has been the promotion of what may well be America's two [...]
Marine General James N. Mattis Returns to the Fight – American Spectator (blog) | News1036.com // Jul 19, 2010 at 9:46 pm
[...] of General McChrystal was a serious mistake, as I have argued here at The American Spectator and elsewhere. However, the silver lining in this fiasco has been the promotion of what may well be [...]