McChrystal's Assault on the Chain of Command and the Constitution - and the Need for Pushback
It is becoming pretty clear that General Stanley McChrystal may be engaged in a calculated strategy to break the military's chain of command and publicly try to force the Obama administration to accede to his demands for a massive troop escalation in Afghanistan. McChrystal deviously leaked his report calling for an escalation to the media before handing it to his bosses, then publicly complained that he hadn't gotten enough face time with his commander in chief, then gave a speech to the international media -- in a foreign country, no less -- pressuring the White House to do exactly what he wants and rejecting the idea of a different strategy.
As I wrote in my most recent newspaper column, it as if McChrystal believes he was elected commander-in-chief in the 2008 election. That, or he simply has not read Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution which clearly say the Congress and the President are the ultimate military decision makers.
McChrystal, of course, is betting that after a 30-year scorched earth campaign by the authoritarian right to insist that America's elected civilian leadership do nothing but rubber-stamp the military brass's demands, President Obama doesn't have the guts to pull a Harry Truman and fire his ass for rank insubordination like Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur. And, in the short term, McChrystal may be right.
However, there is some good news.
First and foremost, Obama is (at least up until this point) refusing to be bullied on the policy. McChrystal may be out there insulting the Constitution and the chain of command by trying to embarrass his commander in chief, but Obama hasn't budged from his insistence that he is exploring all options in Afghanistan -- and will not simply rubber stamp McChrystal's report, at least not without vetting it.
Second, the Congress is starting to assert its Constitutional prerogatives. As the Hill newspaper reports:
Nearly two dozen House liberals have signed onto a bill introduced this past week that would prohibit an increase of troops in Afghanistan. A bill introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday would bar funding to increase the troop level in Afghanistan beyond its current level.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Obama National Security adviser Jim Jones appeared on CNN this weekend and pushed back at McChrystal on constitutional and policy grounds. Here's an excerpt of the Washington Post's dispatch:
President Obama's National Security Adviser James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White House review now underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."..."I think the end is much more complex than just about adding 'X' number of troops," Jones said on CNN. " But I don't foresee the return of the Taliban and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling."
So while we're not at a point where the Obama administration feels comfortable enough to assert its constitutional authorities in a Truman-esque kind of way, we are at a point where the administration is at least acknowledging -- and pushing back against -- the undeniable fact that McChrystal is mounting a challenge to those authorities. And, in the most important part of the whole back and forth -- the debate about whether to defy the will of the American public and massively escalate the war -- Obama is at least, for now, not rushing into anything.
Stay tuned -- my guess is this will only get more heated and more high profile.
White House furious at Gen. McChrystal for publicly objecting to ...
McChrystal Flown to Denmark To Discuss War With Obama
Letter From Washington A Voice Worth Heeding on Afghanistan
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
After almost a decade in the army special forces I can tell you a number of universal truths about Generals.
-They never seem to understand the big picture regarding the regional fallout of a military action.
-They never look at the history of the region or its people. Somehow everything will be different when they face us. The Russians were laughing at us during 'Nam and now again in Afghanistan.
-They always seem to think the enemy are unintelligent, inept warriors with zero backbone. Our massive fighting power will either quickly destroy them or force them into an even quicker surrender.
-They have zero understanding of human nature. They don't think the enemy would react in the same manner as we do. They believe we can obtain the hearts and minds of an occupied territory by force.
-They have their military playbook and they stick to it. The PLAYBOOK states that when fighting an unconventional guerrilla war with conventional troops on foreign soil we need to outnumber the enemy 10 to 1.
Based on McChrystal's goal of 600,000 total troops, he is stating that the enemy in Afghanistan is 60,000 strong. So much for the last throes of the Taliban. How are we going to eliminate this number of enemies spread out across cities, villages and harsh terrain? And how do you do it without creating a greater number of bad guys in the process?
Do you agree with the author that the General leaked this? I find that hard to believe. The report was on Obama's desk for over three weeks before it leaked. Chances a politician from one of the cmte leaked this thing.
Generals usually have no clue... huh? After 19 years in our service, I can tell you that most flag officers are very smart and capable people who not only understand the history of the conflicts they are fighting... but also have access to information from such a wide variety of methods that you do not, that perhaps it might be you, who has no clue of the larger strategic and tactical objectives.
LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!
Gen. Westmoreland's plan wasn't smart. He believed that the VC would do a k1ll-ratio assessment after each battle and come to the conclusion that they should surrender. Never mind the fact that these people had been at war since the days of Ghengis Khan.
Gen. Frank's plan to skip past the smaller villages and head into Baghdad didn't do us any favors.
The only unclassified personal experience I can talk about is the Battle of Mogadishu. Gen. Garrison had us fast rope (instead of combat drop) into hostile territory, without air cover and during the day when the enemy would be high on Khat. Once the mission went to clusterfk, it took him hours to decide to ask for help in getting APCs for extraction. We eventually got air support but he sent them in groups as opposed to a steady-stream relay. I will never forgive him for leaving my friends and I behind to run the Mogadishu mile without any cover while he watched us on closed circuit TV.
I have easily a couple dozen more examples from my own experience that would make you scratch your head in amazement.
I will concede that I was harsh with my blanket assessment. You are right there are a number of good officers. I would say that there are a number of leaders who are unfit for their position because they never served in combat, or they got their job by kissing up to the right people.
McChrystal is really just a new name for Petraeus. They act confidently and get the media drooling about them and their policies which only increases the general's desire to make sure that if HE doesn't get what HE wants it will be Obama's fault. Obama has a very healthy understanding of the power of the media himself and so he'll be walking on eggshells trying to deal with his commanders; yet he actually acts as if that is exactly what he wants....to let the "commanders on the ground" control the progress of the war. Disgusting. We don't need to understand what this commander or that commander has to say about more troops or less troops, although it will ALWAYS be about more troops. It's Obama's job to assess the recommendations, not the media's nor the public nor the rest of the administration. As much as I agree with Natl Sec Advisor Jones, he should not be adding fuel to a fire. Either Obama IS in charge or he is not. I wonder if Obama knows which is which.
Yesterday, on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer parroted the remark that has become a mainstream-media cliche: "Does Obama dare ignore the advice of General McChrystal?" These media clowns genuflect at the mention of McChrystal's name as if he is a national hero and that his reputation is unassailable. That is not the case. McChrystal was directly involved in the Pat Tillman cover-up scandal and reprimanded because of it. McChrystal has a dark side that brings his credibility into question. This is being ignored by the sycophants of the press.
Some people think MacArther was a lot smarter than McChrystal. Pat Lang's comments: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/10/a-generals-public-pressure-ackerman.html
Or could McChrystal be looking at a 2012 McChrystal/Palin ticket???
Um, Mr Sirota, I seem to recall President Obama (of whom I'm a huge fan) asking General McChrystal for an assessment and a recommendation, and the way I always thought it works is that when POTUS "asks," it's an order -- especially to a flag-rank officer.
Another respondent here mentioned that maybe the communication chain was being short-circuited, a speculation given some credibility by General James Jones' implicit criticism of General McChrystal's recommendations. (I also happen to have a lot of respect for both those gentlemen, too.) But military politics can make civilian politics look like search-and-destroy versus a Sunday stroll through the park, so there may be a fierce back-channel war in progress, though obviously that's speculation on my part.
I've been very critical of what I saw was another corporate driven neoliberal regime like Bill Clinton's,There IS an upside to this admin., besides the important fact that it's not a Neanderthal Neo-liberal disaster like the last, and despite its coziness with the corporate plutocracy including the casino-big/banks (now happily-for-them only [the disaster of amoral capitalism], having swallowed the "littler" fish, and becoming now even more "too big to fail" [more propaganda from the establishment - (see Ellen Brown - http://www.webofdebt.com) - it is providing a friendl(ier) atmosphere for progressives in Congress to stand up, "come out," without fear of being called unpatriotic, act/stand firm, and it's good news that they aren't a military-industrial complex whurolesaler, so far, as Cheny/Bush was so blatantly greedy nakedly amorally so.
I meant, of course "neo-CONSERVATIVE" like the last - even worse than neoliberal lol
While in the military, I passed by a car with a flag that had a general's star on it. I didn't salute it(because I felt saluting a parked car was just stupid) and I was reprimanded for this. I learned back then about the chain of command. This general is a clown and out of control. He's probably a right-winger who listens to Beck, Limbaugh, et al.
he and his mentor , Patraeous should be gone
Can you say hyperbole? Or gross exaggeration perhaps? First off, the comments McChrystal has made publicly do not exactly constitute a decalaration of war with civilian leadership. He has a firm opinion on the matter and has stated it succintly. A resolute judgement based upon first hand assessment on the ground. If his task is to win the war in Afghanistan, he believes that soldiers must be available not only to fight for control village by village, but there must also be soldiers to remain in villages long enough after the skirmish for control has ended to provide local security and humanitarian support for the local citizens to win their hearts and minds. To do that, additional troops are needed. Now if you think the war can be run Biden style with focused surgical strikes on the Taliban and/or al Qaeda, without emphasis on reasonable measures of winning the support of local citizens by provision of humanitarian and security support, he believes it will result in a quagmire. So what if he has stated it publicly - get over it. Obama certainly has the power to dismiss him, but I'm guessing McChrystal would rather be dismissed rather than follow what he might consider to be misguided and ill-fated strategy. While you're imagining an assault on the constitution, maybe you could provide your source for McChrystal deviously leaking his report?
apparently you were never in the military. you claim "McChrystal has made publicly do not exactly constitute a decalaration (sic) of war with civilian leadership". McChrystal should immediately be relieved of command and sent home packing. People in military do not ever ever ever publicly say anything, much less challenge their boss. This guy should be in civilian dress , retired maybe demoted before retirement but gone immediate.
I totally disagree and yes I have been in the military. If the General on the ground felt desperate enough to leak information it tells me that the "bad news" was not getting to the boss in a timely matter if it was delivered at all. American's do not expect military member's of any rank to be robots and as they should. Robots gave us those wonderful pictures of Iraqi prisoner's stacked in naked piles for all the world to revel in our just cause. This General has integrity and he did what he needed to do to yank attention back to what is relevant in this conflict: lack of resources. You see, the eye was off the ball for so long that the Taleban have regrouped.
He was asked his opinion about what should be done - plain and simple. If you believe that his actual comments (minus the rabid exaggerations and convolutions of the left) are a simple matter of insubordination then I would quite simply disagree - and your implied service in the military has no bearing on it.
Are you afraid we might win?
Obama won't fire him because he needs him. Obama knew McChrystal was giving a speech on the subject right?... or no? Obama needs to keep in contact with him.
Gates said military and civilians need to keep their plans private... that includes VP Biden who "deviously" leaked his plan out to the public in March. Nevertheless it was rejected which shows you can reject a plan even though it came out in public.
It's The Council on Foreign Relations David, it's all been decided by them already...
The same people who brought us Vietnam...so as to kill the Great Society...they'll always use war to stop any real potential improvement in the lives of Americans..that's how they roll..
Yep, nobody questions how much war will cost and how we pay for war. The only domestic issues that the Republicans want to deal with is a war on something like the ever popular and successful war on drugs.
Now that Bush declared we were at war on terror, then this is the perfect vehicle to funnel the treasure of the U.S. out the back door to the private contractors through the no bid contracts. We can occupy a country for 8, 9, 10 years to the tune of zillions of dollars and nobody ever questions the cost.
Un fricking believable
You're a sharp pair of scissors!
Great insight and understanding of the deadly conservative forces in our society!
As a retired AD Arty Gunner, I know what insubordination is. I have been guilty of that offence a couple of times in a 20 year cycle. I paid my time. I even saw a Captain do it once. She was gone in a month.
This is the first time since Gen.D. Macarthur, which an equivalent rank has done this crime, and the standard for it is being fired.
When a general dared to disagree with Bush he was quickly "retired". Obama needs to do the same with this clown.
I was just sayiing that to my husband tonight. Bush canned a few generals for not being on board; and none were as blatantly defiant as McChrystal has been.
See "Christian Science Monitor" article re McChrystal for another perspective. I find meeting on Air Force One very interesting, especially considering how far away from the Pentagon that is, and nearly no news coverage of that event even more so. McChrystal is pro-COIN (counter-intelligence), which is not the traditional military view in that it puts the safety of the civilians first. Something about this "military controversy" just doesn't pass the smell test, but I can't tell if what I'm being sold is good or bad--not enough information. I saw something on TV recently about the opium poppies being replaced with saffron. Here's the link to the CSM article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1004/p06s10-usmi.html
The smell test?
How about President Obama allowing Robert Gates, the CIA director during Iran Contra to remain as Sec of Defense?
A lot about the Afghan war and Obama's 180 on Bush's war follies (he continues them now) doesn't pass the smell test. Where's all that "change" PBO ranted and raved about on the campaign trail?
Hillary 2012
More of the same, coming from whom?
Along with McChrystal and Biden, Hillary as well has made her policy preferences be known. She wants more troops; sounds like more of the same "Bush" to me. Then again she voted to go to war with Iraq and continued to defend her decision all throughout the campaign.
"While Obama is hearing from more hawkish voices, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state, and Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, some outside advisers relied on by Obama have voiced doubts."
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/obama_advisers_disagree_on_afg.html
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and special Afghan and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke appeared to be leaning toward supporting a troop increase, the official said."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/politics/main5355523.shtml
1. Why did President Do Little keep Bush's chain of command in place?
2. Is there anything to (I'm just asking) a notion that this is Gen. Shinseki part II? Discredit the general who speaks out against the CIC on all fronts?
3. The SNL skit accidently shows what President Obama is all about. If Obama isn't going to listen to McChrystal why not bring the troops home? Oh that would be actual change.
Hillary 2012
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
