McChrystal Speaks Out, Obama Angers

Which one is really in charge here?

General Stanley McChrystal, whom Obama appointed to head the United States effort in Afghanistan after the president said the existing strategy there wasn’t working, has made headlines worldwide by giving a speech in London where he sharply disagreed with the slowness of and ideas from the Obama administration.  But was what he did right for a soldier?

McChrystal delivered his speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London in the midst of an ongoing debate within the Obama administration over US strategy in Afghanistan.

According to media reports, significant elements within the civilian leadership of the government, led by Vice President Joe Biden, have opposed McChrystal’s plan for an intensified counterinsurgency campaign aimed at breaking the resistance of the Afghan people to US occupation. Instead, Biden and others have proposed an alternative strategy, which reportedly relies on air strikes, accelerated training of Afghan puppet forces and the use of US special forces troops to strike against insurgents across the border in Pakistan.

Supposedly, the civilian government of the United States, having heard the advice of its military commanders, is to decide the strategy that best serves the so-called national interest, and the generals are bound to accept and implement it.

In this case, however, there is an increasingly evident campaign by McChrystal and others within the military to impose their will upon the White House, or, at the very least, make it politically costly for Obama to reject their counsel.

Asked to present recommendations on US policy in Afghanistan, McChrystal submitted a confidential report that represented an unqualified brief for his counterinsurgency policy—”success demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign”—giving Obama no options and warning that unless the general’s own strategy is implemented, defeat will be virtually certain. Reports circulated that if his plan were rejected, McChrystal would resign his command.

McChrystal’s report was soon leaked to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, who published the juicy bits.

During McChrystal’s speech he made the following remarks:

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.

When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”

He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.

New Obama button!

During Obama’s presidential campaign he made many remarks about the need to deal with terrorists in Afghanistan and to work hard to help there:

It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.

With Obama in trouble at the polls, Cap and Trade dead for the year, Obamakare in critical condition, and Lefties breathing down his back about the “war on terror” Obviously the president doesn’t have what it takes to make the hard choices.  Instead he is stalling on the 40,000 additional troops that have been requested.

I have no issues with General McChrystal’s patriotism nor his love for his country or for his troops.  From everything I have read about his statements, his strategy is a correct one if success is to be attained.  However, there is a chain of command and, like it or not, Obama is his boss.  McChrysal’s speech in London “was scheduled and approved by the Pentagon weeks before the Afghan political jitters seized official Washington” according to the Wall Street Journal so the outcome could not have been a total surprise.

I’m sure that McChrystal is frustrated, concerned that his men are being needlessly put in harm’s way, and that our president is a hypocrite when it comes to his dawdling on Afghanistan (Obama did appoint McChrystal whose experience is in counter-insurgency).

McChrystal is walking a very dangerous (and I believe incorrect line) however with Obama so weak, pressure so intense, and with the general having said if his way isn’t taken there will be failure in Afghanistan, he may win this game of chicken.

As to Liberals who strongly rebuke McChrystal the Wall Street Journal makes a good point:

Gen. McChrystal’s liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama’s Veterans Secretary. In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama’s order to fight the war properly. His superiors, the Central Commander David Petraeus and Adm. Fallon, back him, but can hardly be said to question civil control of the military.

Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.