Memo to Obama: Dismiss McChrystal

Mr. President:

As you are more than well aware General Stanley McChrystal is a highly decorated soldier who has served America fearlessly and capably for many years. Earlier this year, you appointed General McChrystal to the post of Commander of both the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and US Forces Afghanistan.

In his new command, General McChrystal assumed responsibility for a military plan for Afghanistan. In late August, General McChrystal submitted his 66-page confidential report to your Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. Three weeks later, General McChrystal's confidential report leaked to The Washington Post in what some have described as the most egregious leakage of national security documents since the Pentagon Papers.

The stark language and disturbing details in General McChrystal's confidential report shocked the American people, and public support for the war plummeted in its aftermath. Today, less than 40% of American voters support the continuation of the war, and over 50% no longer support the war in Afghanistan.

But the political damage of General McChrystal's confidential report is much worse than that, because these numbers are not static. The popular trend is definitely moving against further US involvement in Afghanistan. In the wake of McChrystal's stunning concatenation of US and Allied failures, a growing majority of Americans now perceive US military involvement in Afghanistan to be a frighteningly familiar déjà vu -- a Vietnamesque predicament.

Since the leakage of his confidential report, General McChrystal has seen fit to make provocative and controversial public statements in a high profile appearance in London at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). During his appearance before the IISS attended by the international press and media, General McChrystal used the term "Chaos-istan" to describe a plan backed by Vice President Biden designed to avoid sinking further into an appalling strategic situation.

During the question and answer session in London, General McChrystal made two dubious statements:

(1) The insurgents will quietly lay down their arms if they are given jobs, and

(2) It will take at least four years for the Afghan security forces to cope with the rapidly deteriorating situation.

At that point in time in 2013, American involvement in Afghanistan will be over three times the length of our involvement in World War II. In the unlikely event that General McChrystal's vague, hopeful and amorphous plan succeeded in stabilizing Afghanistan, there is strong reason to believe that Al Qa'ida will simply move out of Central Asia to a new base of operations in: Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia or the Philippines.

In his 66-page report, General McChrystal exhibited a startling amount of naivete concerning the culture of Afghanistan. For instance, in McChrystal's lamentations that the prison system harbors the most virulent and lethal insurgents, he offered no cogent proposal to rectify that deplorable situation -- other than his ironic scheme to build more prisons -- a formula that will multiply the problem it seeks to eradicate and transform a disaster into a catastrophe.

The General's confidential report is laden with clichés and euphemisms that are utterly devoid of strategic content. In its essence, General McChrystal's report represents the official documentation of mission failure that promised results based on military planning from the Vietnam Era that can be accurately described as escalation into quagmire.

Indeed, during General McChrystal's appearance before the IISS in London, he resorted to a conglomeration of vacuous assertions. The perspicacious General asserted that we, the American and allied forces, need to "respect the people" and "change our mindset" without giving specific recommendations on how to accomplish those hazy objectives.

Many conclusions can be drawn from General McChrystal's report -- but that is not the purpose of this brief memorandum.

Due to General McChrystal's public statements about the war in Afghanistan, it now seems prudent for you as Commander-in-Chief to follow in the footsteps of President Harry Truman in 1951. When General Douglas MacArthur wrote a letter to a Congressman and proposed a reckless escalation of the Korean conflict to broaden the war to China and issued an ultimatum to the government of China, President Truman finally took notice. In effect, General MacArthur attempted to commandeer the power of the president to make foreign policy. When President Truman realized that General MacArthur was insubordinate, he dismissed him. When General McChrystal spoke out in London, he usurped the power of the president to design and execute foreign policy.

Mr. President, it is time for General McChrystal to consider his future. In fact, the General said as much during his public appearance in London, when he stated his hope that his speech would result in lucrative offers of civilian employment.

For these reasons and many others, one thing is perfectly clear.

He's gotta go.

Follow Michael Carmichael on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alchemistoxford

Comments

[WorldofTomorrow420]

You don't seriously think our president has the guts to fire the general, do you? Unless Michelle told him to, of course.

[Profyank]

McChrystal's assessment lacks two major components to progress in Afghanistan although they are beyond his pay grade and the responsibility of the White House. First, McChrystal mentions the presence of Quetta Shurra Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan but it does not propose what should be done about them. Pakistan has had some recent success against the other Taliban forces, particularly against those in the Swat Valley. More needs to be done about getting Pak to attack QST command structure in Quetta (Balochistan) and AQ in Waziristan. Second and more important, there is no true regional geopolitical strategy to deal with Taliban. Rather than relying on NATO, a regional geopolitical strategy would foster cooperation with countries from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan and was formed to fight cross border terrorism along but also contain growing US power. Interestingly, these countries have had to fight Taliban trained and supported insurgents. Many of these very Islamist insurgents have been fighting as Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then returned home to fight against these governments. We need to overcome our differences and reach an agreement with these SCO countries to work on isolating the insurgents. We missed an opportunity after 9/11 to partner with China and Russia in counter-terrorism. If he played his cards right, Obama turn the SCO from countering US to cooperating and get SCO troops to help stabilize AfPak.

[Profyank]

The people like Carmichael debunking McChrystal, calling for his dismissal are often comparing him to MacArthur or Westmoreland. They are clueless. He is more like Bush's Shinseki. In other words...a general that political leaders, the public should listen to. You also have to remember that McChrystal has been in Afghanistan less than 90 days. Dismissing him now would hurt Obama and US efforts. Calls for his dismissal and personal attacks against seem like the GOP/ neoconservatives treatment on Shinseki, who was right from the beginning.

If any of the critics of McChrystal had bothered to read his assessment, you will note that McChrystal is frank and forthright about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the "resilient and growing insurgency." He points out the NATO forces are stretched and under-resourced in Afghanistan. Not surprising as it is a big country and many of the 60,000 troops are not combat soldiers. McChrystal indicates that more troops and resources are not the solution ...rather a new approach is. That approach is a partnership with the Afghan people. He does state "success is not ensured by additional forces alone, but continued under-resourcing will likely cause failure." This is not a man who is claiming US progress or deliberately underestimating success of the enemy, which is Westmoreland. This is not a man that ignored his president and took military action that was against his president's wishes, like MacArthur did.

[Entebbe1]

In Viet Nam, we were naive concerning the culture of the Vietnamese, and we lost...sons daughters, sisters and brothers. Once again, we are naive concerning the culture of the Afghanis, and...do we really want to risk the spilling of blood of 40,000 Americans?

[jhamm1]

"The stark language and disturbing details in General McChrystal's confidential report shocked the American people, and public support for the war plummeted in its aftermath. Today, less than 40% of American voters support the continuation of the war, and over 50% no longer support the war in Afghanistan."

If that's the essence of your argument, then I'd say McChrystal deserves a medal.

[MalleusMaleficarum]

A medal? - For advising the president to send 40,000 more troops into the quagmire? Then why not give medals to Bush and Cheney for sending over 100,000 troops into Iraq? McChrystal should be fired because he is a loose cannon on deck who attempted to seize the powers of the presidency by going public in an international press conference to put pressure on a sitting president - instead of going through channels - he communicated with the Commander-in-Chief through the front pages of the world press. Give him the boot, not any more medals.

[S1m0n]

And while you're at it, finally charge him with complicity in the Dasht-i-Leili massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasht-i-Leili_massacree), committed by Warlord "General" Rashid Dostum with the assistance of McChrystal's troops.

Charge him also for his role in creating Task Force 6-26's prison and torture chamber at Camp Nama. This was a special forces base in Iran where suspects and sometimes their family members were tortured and interrogated on an 'anything goes' basis. Conditions here were so harsh and so obviously illegal that the CIA, the unsqeamish agency charged with running the overseas 'black prisons' where 'high value' al Qaida prisoners were waterboarded and otherwise abused, declared Camp Nama out of bounds to CIA personnel.

[Ryan P McDermott]

I have to disagree with this column in its entirety. Let's calm down a little before we start blaming the military brass. But, let me caveat this by saying that I'm on the same side. I believed Iraq was a blunder from the beginning and misguided war afterwards. I know, I was there in 2003.
I also believe the President is right to rethink strategy in Afghanistan and shouldn't be rushed to judgement by his subordinate commanders.
However, blaming the General for waning political support starts to cross the line. He is obligated to the President to provide his assessment as he sees fit.
One big assumption of this column is that General McChrystal was the source of the leak. That is highly unlikely in my opinion. If he was the source of the leak, then the President would most likely know and would have relieved him by now. If he leaked his own report, then it does warrant replacement.
Instead of targeting frustration at the General, why aren't we questioning how we got here in the first place. Everything coming out of the Pentagon reaffirms our argument that we've had all along - that Iraq diverted our attention from real threats. The Afghanistan War has deteriorated over six years, not six months. It was fought with limited resources because President Bush diverted our attention to another war - one that should never have been fought. Now, where's the outrage on that?

[MalleusMaleficarum]

There is plenty of outrage about Iraq, Afghanistan and the ugly melting pot of Bush-Cheney foreign policy. When a General flies to London to hold an press conference to put international pressure on the president, he is clearly insubordinate and usurping presidential authority. This column does not state that McChrystal leaked his report, but whoever did it was applying pressure to the president. People are still trying to put pressure on the president to adopt McChrystal's report that would extend US involvement in a failing war for years to come. If Obama retains McChrystal, he will be granting carte blanche to every US military officer to be insubordinate. Is that what you want to see, Ryan? A military government, of the people, by the people, for the people?

[Kaviraj]

You may have been in Iraq, but your comment shows that this does not make you qualified to speak - on the contrary, it shows your bias and the inability to separate your own experience from your judgement.

You also obviously don't undertsand anything about Afghanistand and Afghans and you echo McChrystal's ignorance on the same subjects. There is no way in the world Afghanistan is going to be "pacified" - not by "jobs", not by money and not by any military force, even if you were capable to put 2 million boots on the ground.
I lived 10 years in that region and McChrystal has been there 6 months. He is but a tool for the MIC - which is his job. That is no qualification to put POLITICAL pressure on the President.

Mc Chrystal's audacity to go to a foreign country to put political pressure on the president shows his contempt for the president and the urgent need for him to be dismissed. It shows he has gone outside his job. You want the Honduran situation in the US? Leave him in place and it will be only a matter of time - sooner rather than later.

[Rule Of Law]

Obama doesn't have the stomach for that sort of response.

[catbyte]

Wyldthings,

Get your history straight--no general spoke out against Shrub while in uniform. They retired before criticizing him for his and Rumsfeld's, et. al's bone-headed decisions.

Diane

[WellTickleMeWillie]

McChrystal is insubordinant and deserves to be fired by Obama. Hell, he has a nice job waiting him at one of the military industral complex corporations knowing all he knows about endless wars and the prospects of guaranteed lucrative contracts to these defense contractors. And, the ReThugs are looking aimlessly for a 2012 candidate to put up against Obama since a Palin-Limbaugh ticket might be too risky for them. Perhaps a Romney-McChrystal or Huckleberry-McChrystal ticket might work for them.

[pizzmoe]

When did a general speak out against Boosh?

[Kaviraj]

when they did, they were immediately fired.

[rmreddicks]

Seems little doubt now that the originator or fomenter of the leak is McChrystal. A fireable offense.
(Wyldthings in an earlier post doesn't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between a commanding general and a retired general.)

Just his involvement in the Pat Tillman scandal should have been reason enough for his dismissal.

For more info you can get a number of reasonable sources by searching on "McChrystal and Tillman".

[wyldthings]

Of course when Generals spoke out against Bush they were hero's.

[btemple]

Only retired generals spoke out against bush which was their right as private citizens. McCrystal is not a private citizen. He is a military officer and is therefore subordinate to the president.

You could say that there was some dissent between generals and the white house on strategy but this only came into the public light during congressional hearings when generals were asked under oath for their assessment of the situation and the resources needed. These generals in contrast to McCrystal weren't grandstanding for the press.

[S1m0n]

No, they were fired.

One such was General Taguba, the soldier ordered to investigate the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. He was ordered to retire simply for conducting and writing an honest investigation, which was inadvertantly leaked because someone at the Pentagon didn't understand how Abode Acrobat's PDF formatting worked and released a censored version to the press without realizing that the entire orginal document could be recovered by hitting the 'undo' button a few times.