McChrsytal Told the Truth

[Geee]

Human Events:

McChrystal Told the Truth
by Rowan Scarborough
06/24/2010


The military is finally telling the unvarnished truth about President Obama's dysfunctional national security team.

Oddly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his inner circle chose to dish dirt to a reporter for Rolling Stone, a decidedly left-wing publication that portrays the U.S. military negatively and knows as much about counter-insurgency as a 4th grader. The article that brought down the career special-operations soldier throws in the "F-word" several times, not as a quote, but to describe the author's own views.

Not included in the story is an ongoing dispute between the White House and its generals that shows why McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, had grown so frustrated.

The debate centers on when exactly troops will begin leaving Afghanistan. Every time a Pentagon figure, such as Gen. David Petraeus, the overall region commander, testified that Obama's July 2011 withdrawal date does not mean the U.S. is abandoning Afghanistan, there was a White House official saying nearly the opposite.


The result is a badly mangled message to Afghan troops and villagers who think America is going to leave them to the mercies of the Taliban, which shows no mercy. Thus, McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy of winning over the population cannot possibly succeed as long as the White House undercuts it. This is an administration that eschews using the words war or victory or winning.

The Rolling Stone article, which led President Obama to fire the four-star McChrystal on Wednesday, caught the general and his team in raw locker-room talk.

McChrystal, handpicked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to turn around an eight-year war, clearly derides Obama as commander in chief. He says the President seemed "uncomfortable" and "intimidated" when he met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon's secure meeting room know as the tank. An aide describes his first meeting with Obama at the White House as a "photo op," as opposed to a substantive meeting.

From there, the relationship grew more uneasy. Gates last year ordered his new commander to do a fresh review of strategy. Much to the White House's dismay, McChrystal submitted an elaborate plan just months after the President had already settled on his own strategy.

And the general asked for 40,000 more troops after Obama had already approved and sent 21,000. McChrystal was pulling Obama deeper into Afghanistan, and the President did not like it. McChrystal described to Rolling Stone as "painful" the three months it took Obama to act on his request, as the Taliban took more territory and became harder for U.S. troops to dislodge.

Vice President Joe Biden was the brunt of jokes, according to the Rolling Stone article, entitled "The Runaway General."

McChrystal had been called to the woodshed by Obama once before when, in a speech in London, he dismissed the Vice President's counter-insurgency suggestions as creating a "chaos-istan."

Asked by Rolling Stone how he would handle a question on Biden from an audience in Paris, McChrystal tries this response, "Are you asking about Vice President? Who's that?"

An aide chimes in with his proposed answer: "Biden? Did you say, bite me."

Let’s look at why a general and his staff might be dismissive of Joe Biden.

Back in 2007, when Gen. Petraeus, who will succeed McChrystal in Afghanistan, testified in Congress on how the Iraq surge was beginning to work, then-Sen. Biden dismissed him with these observations:

• "In continuing the surge of forces for another six months, is that likely to change that reality? The conclusion I've reached is no. The surge, for whatever tactical or temporary security gains it might achieve, is at the service of a fundamentally flawed strategy."

• "We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. We should end a political strategy in Iraq that cannot succeed and begin one that can."

Biden also proposed dividing Iraq into three countries.

Today, as U.S. troops are conducting a measured withdrawal, Biden's views have been shown to be so wrong that even he has abandoned them.

He said recently, “I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

So how has Biden helped McChrystal? He's offered some of the same ill-conceived ideas. He opposed McChrystal's strategy and his troop request. Thankfully for the general, Gates backed him and he got 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he requested. Biden wants to withdraw from Afghanistan and contain the enemy from without.

And, just as Petraeus was trying to ease Afghan concerns about being abandoned, Biden is quoted by a book author as saying troops will rush out of the country come July 2011.
The McChrystal team also targeted Karl Eikenberry, who used to command troops in Afghanistan as a three-star Army general and is now the U.S. ambassador.

Obama's decision to put Eikenberry and McChrystal in the same room was doomed from the start. Officers in Kabul told me that when Eikenberry was in command and some one mentioned the Afghan president, the joke was, which president, Eikenberry or Hamid Karzai? In other words, Afghanistan belonged to Eikenberry and McChrystal was the invader.

No wonder then that when McChrystal was working to get his strategy approved, Eikenberry wrote a cable back to Washington opposing it as sure to fail. The message somehow got leaked to the New York Times.

McChrystal told Rolling Stone he felt betrayed by the ambassador.

McChrystal aides describe James Jones, Obama's national security adviser, as a "clown." Richard Holbrooke, a special ambassador in the region, is described as a "wounded animal" because he continually fears he will be fired.

With a national security team that seemed to be hoping McChrystal would fail, it is not surprising he chose to vent to a reporter. The White House now knows the military has little regard for key figures on the national security team. Maybe this cold slap in the face will prompt Obama to fire more than a career soldier who hunted down in 2006 Abu Musab Zarqawi, al Qaeda's deadliest operative in Iraq.

[righteousmomma]

Everytime I read this:

He said recently, “I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

 

I about hemorrhage a blood vessel in my brain!!!

 

As for Petraeus --remember how Biden and Obama and Pelosi and Reid were all calling him a "dismal failure" and were so disdainful to him!!

 

One angle that is really not being covered much is "WHY" the now fired and frustrated General who actually voted for and supported Obama spoke out! This was no accident. You do not get to be a ranking General by being stupid.

We also ought to consider the source--Rolling Stone-for crying out loud.

 

I think this portends far worse than the media is portraying for our presence in Afghanistan. The left's idealistic pacifism is gonna make us another defeated Russia there.

[Sanguine]

As for Petraeus --remember how Biden and Obama and Pelosi and Reid were all calling him a "dismal failure" and were so disdainful to him!!

 

Sounds like he's the right man for the job, if that's what they think.

[righteousmomma]

Oh, they think it. I remember on the hearings how totally condescending they were to him. Of course (at the time) he was the other "dismal failure's" choice.

[nickydog]

McChrystal told the truth but what he did was totally unprofessional, planned or unplanned. If he was that frustrated he should have resigned. He also should have maintained a disciplined attitude with that so-called reporter and he should have insisted on the same discipline from his staff. Petraeus demonstrated the right demeanor when he was so ridiculously questioned by those congressmen a while back. When military officers are promoted to general they are instructed on how to deal with the press among other things. I sympathise with McChrystal's frustration but not in this way of expressing it.

[righteousmomma]

McChrystal told the truth but what he did was totally unprofessional, planned or unplanned. If he was that frustrated he should have resigned. He also should have maintained a disciplined attitude with that so-called reporter and he should have insisted on the same discipline from his staff. Petraeus demonstrated the right demeanor when he was so ridiculously questioned by those congressmen a while back. When military officers are promoted to general they are instructed on how to deal with the press among other things. I sympathise with McChrystal's frustration but not in this way of expressing it.

 

I agree nickydog. Rolling Stone is the last place he should have gone. Thinking about it though any General who could have thought that Obama was a better choice to be Commander in Chief is already a suspect in poor judgment in my book and maybe Rolling Stone is his "world view."

[SrWoodchuck]

During the time of the Roman Legions, a general who fell on his sword, because of a battle defeat or failure; protected his troops from decimation. [The killing of every 10th man-usually by those in your own "Century"- or group of 100 soldiers]

 

McChrystal had less than no confidence in the Ambassador & "Viceroy" [appointed by James Jones/Obama-and one, a general that used to command McChrystal & lost no effort in degrading him.]

 

McChrystal was losing his field grade officers [Lt's. through Major's], non-coms & enlisted due to horrible ROE [Rules of Engagement] that had men patrolling without a bullet in the chamber, no artillery or helicopter support, etc.; because of the need to implement his COIN [counter-insurgency].

 

McChrystal was postponing the vaunted & much ballyhooed & awaited "Summer Offensive" until Fall, allowing more Taliban encroachment & rest......because of resistance from Karzai, inadequate supply, harder than expected fighting in Marjah, local populations fearing US withdrawal, and at least 3 or 4 more reasons......while on Obama's July 2011 deadline.

 

Why would he pick Rolling Stone, a known anti-military, liberal mag? Because he knew exactly how this would be spun.

 

Did he really vote Obama? No one will ever know, but I doubt that too. Tactical taqqiya.

 

McChrystal fell on his sword, so that his command would be in the spotlight and not subject to being dissed & swept under the rug. He also gave America one more chance to either seize victory, under the eyes of the nation.....or go back to shoving a cruise missile under a tent flap to hit a camel in his bum.

 

Well done, General McChrystal!

 

God give our troops strength, comfort & peace, keep them safe on their mission, let them know they are loved, cared & prayed for......and bring them safely home!

[pollyannaish]

You know SrWoodchuck...there is a HUGE part of me that believes you are absolutely correct. It's just hard for me to believe that someone can reach this stage of command and be so incredibly inpolitic. It just doesn't make sense.

 

That said, I keep thinking of the comment by someone at NRO's The corner (I think) that said those who know McChrystal think its surprising it took this long.

 

And that offers a bit of doubt to the rosy scenario in my mind.

[Guest AnneV]

Thinking about it though any General who could have thought that Obama was a better choice to be Commander in Chief is already a suspect in poor judgment

Good point!

[Chickadee]

Is it possible this man fell on his sword and offered up his career to get the word out? He was certainly wrong, as a general, to handle it this way. But isn't it common knowledge that the only way to get your side of the story out is to LEAK it to the press? Just sayin . . .

 

I will be interested to hear/read what he has to say in the future, and learn more about if he does indeed have any political leanings. (Remember the surprises Colin Powell handed us.)

 

I am currently disappointed that more isn't being said by the press about whether McChrystal's comments had any validity! He has apologized for saying them, but has not said his and his people's comments were not true.

[Sanguine]

Is it possible this man fell on his sword and offered up his career to get the word out? He was certainly wrong, as a general, to handle it this way. But isn't it common knowledge that the only way to get your side of the story out is to LEAK it to the press? Just sayin . . .

 

I will be interested to hear/read what he has to say in the future, and learn more about if he does indeed have any political leanings. (Remember the surprises Colin Powell handed us.)

 

I am currently disappointed that more isn't being said by the press about whether McChrystal's comments had any validity! He has apologized for saying them, but has not said his and his people's comments were not true.

 

Interesting take here, Chickadee:

 

A New Wrinkle on McChrystal

 

By Ellen Ratner

 

Published June 25, 2010

 

| FOXNews.com

 

I had dinner last night with someone who is "connected," as they say in Washington. I was told that General McChrystal had confided several months before that he was tired and perhaps ready to retire. I have no idea if what I was told was the truth, but having spent years working in mental health, I can vouch for the power of the unconscious.

 

The unconscious mind can do what the conscious mind cannot. It can act as a signal or even a sentry. The Helen Thomas incident two weeks ago is a great example. How do you retire when you are the "dean" of the White House

press corps? How can you say to the secretary of defense, "I want out," "I am tired" or "I don't believe in the mission"? You don't.

 

There are only two possible explanations for General McChrystal's behavior. Either he wanted to set the record as he saw it and did not care anymore (he wanted out), or he was bone tired and wasn't watching what he was saying and who he was saying it to (he wanted out). You don't get to that rank in the military and not know what you are doing. You don't get to that rank in the armed services and not watch every word you say and not know about every press contact that you talk to. You save your thoughts for your post-retirement memoir.

 

McChrystal would have had to be brain dead not to know what Rolling Stone is about. Sure, Rolling Stone's demographic is important to military recruiters, but to give a writer from Rolling Stone that kind of access is highly unusual.

 

A third possibility is that General McChrystal was more strategic than we give him credit for and wanted to open a discussion on the merits of the Afghanistan war, or his unconscious was directing his behavior. I vote for the unconscious.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/25/ellen-ratner-general-mcchrystal-ready-retire-unconscious-rolling-stone/

[octex]

McChrystal told the truth but what he did was totally unprofessional, planned or unplanned. If he was that frustrated he should have resigned. He also should have maintained a disciplined attitude with that so-called reporter and he should have insisted on the same discipline from his staff. Petraeus demonstrated the right demeanor when he was so ridiculously questioned by those congressmen a while back. When military officers are promoted to general they are instructed on how to deal with the press among other things. I sympathise with McChrystal's frustration but not in this way of expressing it.

 

I agree nickydog. Rolling Stone is the last place he should have gone. Thinking about it though any General who could have thought that Obama was a better choice to be Commander in Chief is already a suspect in poor judgment in my book and maybe Rolling Stone is his "world view."

 

RM... The General didn't "go to" Rolling Stone; the reporter was embedded with him and his staff for about a month. The reporter was told at various times that certain statements were off the record, but he reported them anyway.

[octex]

"McChrystal was losing his field grade officers [Lt's. through Major's], non-coms & enlisted due to horrible ROE [Rules of Engagement] that had men patrolling without a bullet in the chamber, no artillery or helicopter support, etc.; because of the need to implement his COIN [counter-insurgency]."

 

SrWoodchuck ...He had also lost the confidence of the boots on the ground; not just his officers. The General had also stopped night missions, in addition to those horrible ROEs. ....Here's hoping that Patreus will thoroughly review the situation and LISTEN to the men/women that have been there for awhile, with the results being changes in the ROEs.