For insubordination, for disrespecting the Office of the President of the United States and for allowing derision of the White House among his staff, General Stanley McChrystal must resign.
McChrystal has been summoned from Afghanistan to explain derisive comments and insubordination detailed in a new Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings. As detailed in the article, the general and his staff were clearly disrespectful of the office of the president, as well as contemptuous of the civilian leadership of our country. McChrystal's behavior and his toleration of similar behavior from his staff breeds an attitude of contempt for civilian leadership among his officers, and no Commander-in-Chief should tolerate it. McChrystal should resign, and the president should accept his resignation.
In the article, McChrystal and his aides heap derision on National Security Advisor Jim Jones (a "clown,"), Vice President Joe Biden ("Bite me,"), and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
When shown the article prior to it's publication, McChrystal didn't push back:
Eric Bates, the magazine's editor, said during an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that McChrystal saw the piece prior to its publication as part of Rolling Stone's standard fact-checking process - and that the general did not object to or dispute any of the reporting.
My friend, Michael Cohen, cites the United States Code of Military Justice to show how cut-and-dry this decision should be:
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 Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
General McChrystal, his staff, and his friends over at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) have tried to manhandle this president from the beginning. They've played media games to try to force the president's hand on the most recent troop increase in Afghanistan. Now they've been clearly insubordinate, clearly contemptuous of the civilian leadership of this country. He's corroded respect for the chain of command and for civilian control of the military. He must resign.
If the president wants to preserve a strong White House for the next president, he has to accept the resignation.
Sign our petition calling for McChrystal's resignation. We'll send it to the Pentagon and the White House when McChrystal shows up to explain himself.
Follow Robert Greenwald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertgreenwald
Also see Thomas Friedman's column today.
Perhaps this is Obama's opportunity to get the hell out of Afghanistan and save some face. Blame this idiot general and withdraw now.
The idea that we must surge to train Afghan men to fight is absurd on its face.
CBO states it will cost $158 billion for the cost of overseas contingency operations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the Senate Defense Authorization Act, S. 3454, would prescribe personnel strengths for each active-duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts would result in outlays of $715 billion over the 2011-2015 period.
To a large extent, politics is the process by which we authorize the expenditure of public money. I do not think politics is a matter of principles -- it is rather a matter of principalsl, which of course involves contention by interest groups over the interest from the principal.
Want to talk about disrespect? How about the disrespect shown to our country by Obama and Congress?
So if the grunts have to adhere to the military code of conduct, please explain to us why you think the officers don't. And, again, "it's the truth" is not a legitimate defense because it sure as hell wouldn't work for the grunts if they tried it.
But, I hate to break it to you civilians who have never served with and around general officers, or, in the military--it is very easy when you are in theater and looking back at DC to see Disneyland East. To see clowns and idiots. To see politicians clamoring over each other to score cheap political points on the Sunday talk shows. To be subjected to pontification from "experts." To be second-guessed by every beltway bandit pundit trying to land another contract to bolster their bottom-line.
It's the nature of the relationship between professional military and professional politicians. The military does take command guidance from the President. No one has demonstrated that McChrystal has not taken that guidance or has not implemented that guidance. That does not mean that McChrystal or his advisers are not going to blow off steam at DC.
Yes, but if you are truly the "military man" you imply, you would know that there is a right way and a wrong way to "blow off steam." The enlisted guys very often feel the same way about their general officers as you say the general officers feel about the politicians in D.C. But most enlisted guys are sharp enough to know that if they want to "blow off steam" about the general officers, they can do it amongst each other, as opposed to taking their complaints to the media so their commanding officers are humiliated in public. And if most enlisted guys are sharp enough to know this, then I would hope somebody as high level as McChrystal would be equally as sharp. Since he obviously is not, then he needs to be immediately removed from his command.
It is interesting that Obama removed him because he wanted a unity of effort and did not keep him due to a concern for continuity of effort.
The Rolling Stone article makes clear that there is dissension and disputes between the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department. That is why Obama emphasized that he needed his national security team to pull together on the agreed upon strategy.
McChrystal was not disputing the strategy. Nor was he disobeying orders. McChrystal's comments and those of his staff make clear that the war is not going according to plan; that the July 2011 pull-out date is not really set in concrete; Petraeus was making noises that the July 2011 date is really based on conditions on the ground.
What is more damaging in the Rolling Stone article is the pushing and pulling between the Pentagon and State departments. The strategy is not going well on the ground. The morale of at least some of the troops is low. The Karzai government is not a stable partner.
McChrystal said very little that was hostile towards the White House, save for the comment on Biden. What damaged McChrystal was the negative information regarding the war not going well. That he went to RS suggests how frustrated he is with the chain of command. That is why he was really relieved.
But, firing McChrystal solves nothing. The learning curve for a new general will be steep. The continuity of policies will be doubtful. The military's relationship with Karzai will have to start anew. In short, the strategic situation may very well deteriorate.
Whatever he said or did not say about Obama, the Rolling Stone interview and profile shows just how chaotic the situation is in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is not winning and it shows from the statements of McChrystal's advisers. That is the most important information in the entire article. Take out a few quotes and you see the morass and quagmire. Even McChrystal and his advisers know it.
Obama got himself into the quagmire of Afghanistan. He chose to escalate and double-down on Afghanistan. Nobody forced him to make the strategic choices he made. If it makes him feel better to fire the general, fine. But, it will not change the strategic situation (except for the worse).
For Obama, this is now come to Jesus time. He is better off scolding McChrystal and sending him back to theater to get the job done. Or, he can try to pretend this is Harry Truman moment. At least Truman had served in the trenches in WWI. MacArthur had nothing on Truman in terms of knowing war.
Under our system, this means that our capitalist-politician arrangements is to blame for American imperialist foreign policy. Those serving in the military, many coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, ravaged by the capitalist system, end up serving as cannon fodder for the profits of Wall Street and the few at the expense of the General public. This monopolization of military power in the service of Wall Street should not be confused with military service people, at whatever military rank, that are called to duty voluntarily or involuntarily, in the sense that the capitalist system leaves them few private sector opportunities.
Corporate media wants to fool the average American on the President-General confrontation, Truman-MacArthur confrontation type media feasting. This helps sales, makes for good propaganda for our most vulnerable citizens, and consolidates ESTABLISHMENT values and interests. Let those of us that are Anti-Establishment not be fooled by Corporate owned media as to the hiding of American imperialism with good sales lead stories of President-General confrontations.
Truer words were never spoken
If the president can't trust his generals who can he trust. McCystal is a write off.
*Hey Steve! - Your attempt at stereotyping "wingnuts" supports the fallacy of your views.
for disrespecting the Office of the President of the United States - not a crime, and a specialty of the Left when Bush was President. Shinseki anyone?
allowing derision of the White House among his staff - So while conducting the war and working 20 hour days McChrystal is supposed to be the thought police as well? Derision is not a crime either.
you given no legit reason to fire McChrystal. Obama can do it anyway, but your reasons are not valid at all.
The President in Chief must not be made fun of. Only by us of course. For how long?