The flap about General Stanley McChrystal's "resignation" was nobody's finest hour. But there are some painful lessons in all this that go beyond any of the individuals involved-- the general, the president or any of the officials at the Pentagon or the State Department.
What is far more important than all these individuals put together are the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans fighting in Afghanistan. What is even more important is the national security of this country.
t is certainly not politic for a general or his staff to express their contempt for civilian authorities publicly. But what is far more important-- from the standpoint of national security-- is whether what those authorities have done deserves contempt.
My hope is that General McChrystal will write a book about his experiences in Afghanistan-- and in Washington. The public needs to know what is really going on, and they are not likely to get that information from politicians.
This is, after all, an administration that waited for months last year before acting on General McChrystal's urgent request for 40,000 more troops, which he warned would be necessary to prevent the failure of the mission in Afghanistan. He got 30,000 eventually-- and a public statement by President Obama about when he wants to start withdrawing American troops from that country.
In no previous period of history has an American president announced a timetable for pulling out troops. They may have had a timetable in mind, but none of these presidents was irresponsible enough to tell the world-- including our enemies-- when our troops would be leaving.
Such information encourages our enemies, who know that they need only wait us out before they can take over, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. At the same time, it undermines our allies, who know that relying on the United States is dangerous in the long run, and that they had better make the best deal they can get with our enemies.
But the worst aspect of the national security policy of this administration is its clear intention to do nothing that has any realistic chance of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. This may be the most grossly irresponsible policy in all of history, because it can leave this generation-- and future generations-- of Americans at the mercy of terrorists who have no mercy and who cannot be deterred, as the Soviet Union was deterred.
All the current political theater about "international sanctions" is unlikely to make the slightest difference to Iran. Nor is the administration itself likely to expect it to. What then is its purpose? To fool the American people into thinking that they are doing something serious when all that they are doing is putting on a charade by lining up countries to agree to actions that they all know will not have any real effect.
There is another aspect to General McChrystal's "resignation."
Everyone seems to be agreed that Stanley McChrystal has been a soldier's soldier-- someone who knows what to do on a battlefield and is not afraid to put himself in danger to do it.
Do we need more generals like this or do we need political generals who know how to cultivate Washington politicians, in order to advance their own careers?
Some people see a parallel between McChrystal's "resignation" and President Harry Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur. No two situations are ever exactly the same, but some of the parallels are striking.
MacArthur was proud not only of his military victories but also of the fact that he won those victories with lower casualty rates among his troops than other generals had. But General MacArthur too was not always discreet in what he said, and also had reasons to have contempt for politicians, going all the way back to FDR, who cut the army's budget in the 1930s, while Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were building up huge military machines that would kill many an American before it was all over.
If we are creating an environment where only political generals can survive, what will that mean for America's ability to win military victories without massive casualty rates? Or to win military victories at all?
Thomas Sowell
A Sad Day
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust and Intellectuals and Society
Geraldo Rivera
Rolling Stone writer did 'terrible thing'
Byron York
Gen. McChrystal's real offense
Pundit Class, Not McChrystal, Exercised 'Bad Judgment'
By John R. Guardiano, American Spectator
President Obama agrees with me: General McChrystal is not guilty of insubordination. "Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully" [emphasis added], Obama said Wednesday.
But what about "bad judgment"? Were General McChrystal and his staff guilty of saying and doing things that, although technically permissible, nonetheless reflected poorly upon them and the U.S. military?
I don't think so. It seems to me that the political and pundit class have overreacted to remarks that are rather tame and innocuous.
Yes, I said tame and innocuous. We keep hearing about the general's "reprehensible" and "inappropriate" comments. But what, exactly, did the general say that is "reprehensible" and "inappropriate"? Can anyone really cite a specific incriminating remark? I don't think so. READ MORE…
Perhaps there was a bigger agenda??
--> McChrystal out, Bilderberg Petraeus In <--
WATCH: Media Praise Obama's 'Brilliant' Handling of McChrystal Controversy
The only part that was brilliant was how pathetically brilliant the lame stream media’s continuing Obama worship is!!
A Slobbering Love Affair continues…
Is General Petraeus Being Betrayed? - An Op-Ed
In the past couple of days, the media has been in a feeding frenzy over remarks made by General McChrystal’s aides and maybe a comment he, himself made to a definitely known left wing magazine reporter. The question a lot of “talking heads” is, WHY? There has been speculation of whether it was poor judgment, not only about the comments, but in granting the interview. Well, I’m not a “talking head” but I’ll add my two cents to the speculation and the possible outcome.
To begin with, just as everyone else has said, General McChrystal is far from being dumb. He did not achieve the rank of general on good looks. There may have been some politics, but from what I’ve read and heard, that was not the case. He achieved his rank on skill, knowledge, devotion to duty and most importantly devotion to his men. So, why did he allow an interview with Rolling Stone and become “friendly” with the “reporter”? My personal feelings is that he was looking for away to get out of a no-win situation and at the same time send a message to the American public and more importantly the President. Maybe, the general has realized that with the rules of engagement (ROE), which prevented him giving adequate support for his men, whether Marines or soldiers, involved in combat. Maybe it was the idea of giving a medal for NOT shooting. Maybe it was the idea that there is a time line for withdrawal. Again, I do not claim to know what was in the general’s mind, maybe some day General Mc McChrystal will let the world know just what he was thinking.
I can just guess or imagine that there are some out there that are saying, “Why didn’t he just resign?” Can anyone with the sense God gave them realize the effect on the troops, if Gen. McChrystal were to resign, particularly in the middle of the war and particularly with a major offense coming up. As one who has spent time in the military and in a combat area, it would be devastating to morale. The men and women in the field would look at each other, and wonder, “What does he (McChrystal) know that we don’t?” “Is this worth it, when even our commanding general is calling it quits?” Believe me, having been in a similar situation where you look at what is going on in the U.S. and being a professional, as our military are, you continue to do your job, but it begins to wear on you. Morale is as important as the beans and bullets needed to fight. So, maybe, just maybe Gen.
McChrystal planned and executed it with the military precision that a general officer is trained to do in an unwinnable situation. Unwinnable because maybe he was just tired of seeing young men and women going to their deaths because of the current ROE coupled with the timeline for withdrawal, was a little too much for this general to continue fighting, particularly when you have a Clown in Chief (CIC) like Barrack Hussein Obama.
To give one an idea of how detached some of these talking heading are from the way the military operates, was Bill O’Reilly last evening. O’Reilly in a number of discussions kept saying that until Gen. Petraeus gets confirmed, it will be turmoil over in the combat zone. Well, Mr. O’Reilly, I hate to break this to someone who claims to be so smart. The functioning of a military unit does not depend on any one person. There is always a subordinate who is briefed, trained and can step into the leadership role. This does not only hold true at the top, but down to the 4 man fire team. If the leader is killed, or taken out for some other reason, the next senior man will take over the mission, complete it and afterwards will mourn the lost. Does this sound cold hearted to some of you reading this? Most likely, but though the lost is felt by all members of the unit, the discipline to get the job accomplished and victory attained will prevail. So, Mr. O’Reilly, turmoil will not happen, someone, and from I’ve read a British General has taken charge until General Petraeus reports for duty. Our fine military will continue to march without missing a step.
It is ironic, or maybe great minds do think alike, because as I’m writing this, Rush is discussing the past comments by the left about Gen. Petraeus. Isn’t it amazing how suddenly the left is now in love with Gen. Petraeus and his ability to take charge of the war? Even Bill Bennett, this morning, on his radio show, praised Gen. Petraeus, and stated how much he is liked by BOTH sides of the aisle. Does Mr. Bennett or anyone else remember the General Betrayus ad in the N.Y. Crimes? What about the comments made by then Senators Clinton and Obama. Frankly, I feel that Gen. Petraeus is being setup by Obama and the rest of his lap dog members of the press and congress. Common sense should tell the American people, that the CIC does not want to win in Afghanistan nor does he want to admit that he is causing America to “lose” another war. Instead of going into Afghanistan and unleashing total Hell to eliminate Al Queda and the Taliban that shelter them -- permanently and accepting all of the resultant collateral damage that the total hell would cause, then, come the hell home, leaving a failed state. Or we should plan to support the country for as long as it takes them to set up a fully functioning secular republic (i.e., maybe staying there for generations) as we did in Germany and Japan (1). However, I feel that Gen. Petraeus is entering into a situation where he may be being set up to fail. The left will continue to praise Gen. Petraeus until things start going wrong. When this begins to happen, watch the left and media start turning on him. Then come this time next year, when the pull out begins and we have a repeat of the fall of Saigon listen to what the left says about the General. Granted, Gen. Petraeus will do the best he can possibility do under the circumstances that the CIC has placed him in. However, unless Gen. Petraeus can change the ROE in order to allow our military to fight, get as many personnel and as much equipment he needs as soon as he asks, instead of waiting 4 month, and finally is able to fight the war as it should be fought, he will be set up to be blamed for any failure and of course, none of the blame will end up where it belongs, the white house. After all, Gen. Petraeus was the General assigned by President Bush to win in Iraq, which he did. Now, if things do not go well in Afghanistan, and we end up leaving next year without a clear cut victory, it will once again be Bush’s fault.
(1) A suggestion from a friend of mine
Semper Fi,
The Terrific Trio – Song of Truth
No comments:
Post a Comment