thanks for nothing, general

Posted on Wednesday 23 June 2010

The Runaway General [Rolling Stone]:

    This article describes a man unfit to lead. I suppose that the valid criticism of the President is for picking such a person in the first place. There are plenty of his sort in the military. One of the first things one learns in the service is how to avoid having to deal with them…

President Obama:

    Today I accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s resignation as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country…

    I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement on strategy, nor do make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I’ve got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform. Over the last nine years, with America fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our nation’s finest soldiers. That reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence and his love of country. I relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in Afghanistan. So all Americans should be grateful for General McChrystal’s remarkable career in uniform.

    But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security. The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

    My multiple responsibilities as commander in chief led me to this decision. First, I have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war, and to the democratic institutions that I’ve been elected to lead. I’ve got no greater honor than serving as commander in chief of our men and women in uniform, and it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the vital mission that they are carrying out. That includes adherence to a strict code of conduct. The strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted privates and to the general officer who commands them. That allows us to come together as one. That is part of the reason why America has the finest fighting force in the history of the world.

    It is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. And that’s why, as commander in chief, I believe this decision is necessary to — to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy.

    Second, I have a responsibility to do what is — whatever is necessary to succeed in Afghanistan and in our broader effort to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda. I believe that this mission demands unity of effort across our alliance and across my national security team. And I don’t think that we can sustain that unity of effort and achieve our objectives in Afghanistan without making this change. That too has guided my decision…
  1.  
    Carl
    June 23, 2010 | 5:21 PM
     

    I think I want to develop a training course specifically targeting men. It will address the two greatest challenges that men face in their brief dance of days, to wit, how to keep your fly up and how to keep your feet out of your mouth. My first customer will be the service academies. Certainly it should be the advanced staff officer training at the War College, Leavenworth etc..

    I’m not sure I agree entirely with Mickey that Gen. MacChrystal was unfit to lead though his blood and guts, Geo. Patton archetype is offensive to me personally. In the end, his is a failed leadership because of his poor self-control and powers of perception. And the costs of failed leadership at these levels with so much human stuff at stake is staggering. Larry Summers can say a thing or two in this connection as well, along with Mr. Sanford and the rest of the current panoply of boneheaded public failures.

  2.  
    Joy
    June 24, 2010 | 9:31 AM
     

    You know if you read bios about John McCain there strikingly similar to the General. McCain’s time in Annapolis sounds a lot like McCrystals cadet time in West Point. McCain had a father who was an Admiral and McCrystal had a father who was a General. Their getting into trouble sounds as if these guys were more identical than identical twins. And I know a little bit about identical twins because I’m one and they beat us in that dept. with their wild and rude behavior.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.