McChrystal Apologies for Incendiary Article

[Casino67]

Wired.com:

By Noah Shachtman June 21, 2010 | 11:01 pm |

By now, you’ve probably heard about the upcoming Rolling Stone profile of General Stanley McChrystal: The one in which the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan says he felt “betrayed” by his civilian partner American ambassador Karl Eikenberry; the one in which McChrystal’s aides diss the Commander-in-Chief, call the National Security Advisor a “clown,” and make fun of Vice President “Bite me.”

Apparently, that piece didn’t turn out how McChrystal and his guys envisioned it would. McChrystal is apologizing for the article before it’s even come out. He says in a statement: “I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”

We’ll see if the apology (and, I assume, some seriously penitent phone calls to Washington) help keep the general from getting fired. Because, on its face and at this hour, this sure seems like insubordination.

“What in the heck was Gen. Stanley McChrystal thinking?” Marc Ambinder asks. Sure, “he was tired of being the victim of what he believes is [Eikenberry's] concerted effort [to] undermine everything he was given 18 months to do…. He was miffed that a large number of mid-ranking soldiers and battalion commanders and enlisted guys didn’t support his strategy…. What I don’t know is which of McChrystal’s aides thought it would be a good idea to let his senior staff … ven[t] McChrystal’s frustrations and their own.”

Because if there was ONE thing McChrystal could do to reduce trust between himself and the National Security Council leading up to December’s planned policy review, it was [this].

I don’t think McChrystal intended to do this. Nevertheless, he did.

_________________________________________

May be a fun read, unfortunately it may cost him his job/career.

[clearvision]

And Rokke was worried about posting stuff here.

[pollyannaish]

And Rokke was worried about posting stuff here.

 

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I'm sure he'll get back to blaming Obama once he loses his job...

[Casino67]

Here is the link to the article.

[Sanguine]

What WAS McChrystal doing here? I think it may have been deliberate. Shed a little light on the O-man's policies and, ummm, executive abilities?

 

Note, that McChrystal himself did not disparage the pres or his policies, but he sure let unnamed staffers rip.

[NCTexan]

Anybody with a room temperature IQ (and McChrystal is certainly much smarter than Barry and the liberal intelligentsia) knows that they were shouting into a national bullhorn with the Rolling Stone crew.

 

This was not an act of happenstance by McChrystal... He knew how this would play out exactly.

 

Very interesting!

[NCTexan]

Anybody with a room temperature IQ (and McChrystal is certainly much smarter than Barry and the liberal intelligentsia) knows that they were shouting into a national bullhorn with the Rolling Stone crew.

 

This was not an act of happenstance by McChrystal... He knew how this would play out exactly.

 

Very interesting!

 

[righteousmomma]

WSJ.com Best of the Web online has this:

 

June 22, 2010 -- 4:15 p.m. EDT

 

A loose-lipped general brings more trouble for the commander in chief.

By JAMES TARANTO

 

"Gen. Stanley McChrystal's job appeared in grave jeopardy Tuesday as an infuriated President Barack Obama summoned the Afghanistan war's U.S. commander to Washington to explain his extraordinary complaints about the president and his aides," the Associated Press reports:

 

Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said "the magnitude and greatness of the mistake here are profound" and repeatedly declined to say McChrystal's job was safe. "All options are on the table," he said.

Seems to us that's what they used to say about Iran, though we imagine Obama is more apt to get tough in this case.

 

McChrystal's comments appear in a profile for Rolling Stone magazine; The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has highlights. In quite colorful terms, McChrystal and his aides criticize and mock Vice President Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry, White House national security adviser Jim Jones--and the president himself:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

The suggestion that Obama was "intimidated" must sting, especially given the president's recent weakness in the face of the BP accident. And while the source of this quote appears to be someone other than McChrystal himself, a military officer is responsible for enforcing discipline among the men under his command.

 

CNN notes that McChrystal was quick to apologize: ""I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

 

This apparently wasn't good enough for the president, who summoned McChrystal to "explain"--a rather humorous description of what Obama is seeking from the meeting. ("Sir, let me tell you exactly what I meant when I said you seemed 'intimidated' . . .") Presumably the president's real objective is to extract a further show of contrition--that is, to humiliate the wayward general.

 

The Washington Examiner's Byron York writes that McChrystal was, in the headline writer's words, "an accident waiting to happen." York quotes an unidentified "retired military man" as saying of the general: "He had great disdain for anyone, as he said, 'in a suit.' . . . He is probably one of the more arrogant, cocksure military guys I have run across. That in itself is not necessarily a character flaw, but when you couple it with his great disdain for civilians, it's a very volatile combination."

 

The president is in a "bind," York argues:

 

There's no doubt Obama would be fully justified in firing his top general. But at the same time Obama has committed himself to a rigid timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Changing commanders could complicate that enormously. Right now, because of his own policy decisions, the president has no good choice.

There's another problem for Obama here: While McChrystal's comments were highly improper, they will strike many observers as having a ring of truth. Even if the president gives the general the ax, the whole episode is further grist for the developing media narrative of an administration that is incompetent and adrift.

[pollyannaish]

Let me preface this with what the General and his aids said DOES show a complete lack of good judgement and should NEVER have been even hinted at in the public arena, BUT a couple of observations:

 

1. If this had been a General spewing all over President Bush, the mainstream press would have FLOCKED to his defense, it would have been a story for weeks and he would have been called heroic. Especially if the General said President Bush was dumb and Cheney/Rove really were in charge. That fit the narrative.

 

2. It is telling that no one ever DID do this to President Bush. (Caveat: It's possible I missed it, but I do not remember the top level general doing this or even lower level folks.) I am sure there was much frustration with decisions that President Bush made, and that many things were not agreed to—but they respected the man, even as they disagreed with him and it showed.

 

3. If any of this is true, it is probably good that it came out. If Obama is not solidly in control of the effort, the American people are better off knowing, rather than letting this administration drive us further into disaster. BUT, McChrystal still needs to be held accountable and he needs to resign immediately. It is not, however, outside the realm of possibility that someday we'll thank him for falling on his sword, either on purpose or by lack of judgement.

[clearvision]

CNN reports he turned in resignation based on "anonymous" report. Lots of media start reporting him resigning based on CNN report. Now CNN retracts and says he only offered to submit his resignation, but now all kinds of reports will be in morning news that he resigned.

[Valin]

What Would Lincoln Do?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN

 

IF Abraham Lincoln’s experience is any guide, Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s fate will be determined by President Obama’s judgment of how his firing would affect the war in Afghanistan.

 

For months during the Civil War, Lincoln chose to ignore insolent behavior by Gen. George McClellan, who served at times as the commander of the Army of the Potomac and the general in chief of the Union Army, arguing that his breaches of protocol were worth tolerating as long as he was exerting a positive influence on his forces.

 

For example, one night in 1861, Lincoln went with his secretary of state, William Seward, and his young aide John Hay to McClellan’s house. Told that the general was out, the three waited in the parlor for an hour. When McClellan arrived home, the porter told him the president was there, but McClellan passed by the parlor and climbed the stairs to his private quarters. After a half hour more, Lincoln again sent word, only to be informed that the general had gone to sleep.

 

(Snip)

 

McClellan’s bad behavior did not end. In letters to his wife, he regularly referred to Lincoln as “the original gorilla.” He considered the cabinet “some of the greatest geese I have ever seen,” and called Seward “a meddling, officious, incompetent little puppy.” Still, Lincoln kept him on.

 

When a critic in Congress demanded McClellan’s firing, Lincoln asked who should replace the general. “Why, anybody,” the senator replied. “Anybody will do for you,” Lincoln said, “but not for me. I must have somebody.”

 

So McClellan remained, until in November 1862 Lincoln finally lost faith in his commander’s commitment to the mission, his fighting spirit and his ability to prosecute the war to ultimate victory. Only then did he fire “the young Napoleon.”

 

_____________________________________________________

 

Alas "The One" is not Lincoln

[Pepper]

The closest that Obama and his confidantes have been to a uniform might have been as bus boys at Denney's.

 

Obama and Regime now own the oil gushing in the Gulf.

 

If Obama accepts the rumored resignation of General McChrystal, Obama will clearly own Afghanistan.

 

In that case, we should get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW.

[Pepper]

Per Fox screen crawler

 

Patraeus reportedly replacing McChrystal

[Pepper]

Breaking

 

pResident Obama accepts McChrystal's resignation.

 

General Patraeus to replace General McChrystal.

 

"The conducted that was presented in [The Rolling Stone] article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general." - Obama

 

Conduct unbecoming?

 

That is rich, coming from the Pretender-in-Chief, the Poseur, the Golfer while the Gulf boils over and we lose soldiers in Afghanistan.

[SrWoodchuck]

Just my opinion:

 

McChrystal is a warrior. He's who you want at the front, prosecuting your war. He may have the warrior mentality, but he also didn't get where he was, by not playing "the game" with politicians.

 

Did he really vote for Obama?

 

Why pick a known liberal rag & 'pseudo-embed' the reporter with your group of hard charging Knights, for weeks?

 

I think this was played by McChrystal, to benefit our troops in harms way. He is rumored to have lost the support of many field grade officers, non-coms & enlisted, in theater; due to his COIN rules of engagement. This was a factor placed on him by Karzai and the very team of civilian honchos that he ridiculed. [both in Washington & A-stan]

When everyone has an opinion that must be considered, it dilutes the pure strategy.

 

I think McChrystal knew he had to fall on his sword, and made as public a statement as he could.....in the magazine & in Washington.

 

I salute you, General McChrystal. Thank you for your service. You've earned your rest, but stay ready in case you're needed to remove Obama from his command.

[Pepper]

Good points, SrWoodchuck

 

See here for TRR link to article by Michael Yon on McChrystal, Patraeus, and Afghanistan

[SrWoodchuck]

Good points, SrWoodchuck

 

See here for TRR link to article by Michael Yon on McChrystal, Patraeus, and Afghanistan

Pepper!

 

I've been watching Uncle Jimbo @ Blackfive & his comments on same. Jimbo recently conceded to Michael Yon, on almost every point. Thanks for the backlinks!

[Casino67]

HeyTammyBruce

 

Petreaus is going to find out exactly just how incompetent Obama really is. about 1 hour ago via web

[Pepper]

Casino67 I would agree with that statement.

 

 

 

 

And this fly is about as close to the action in Afghanistan as Obama is.

 

 

 

HeyTammyBruce

 

Petreaus is going to find out exactly just how incompetent Obama really is. about 1 hour ago via web

[Valin]

Just my opinion:

 

McChrystal is a warrior. He's who you want at the front, prosecuting your war. He may have the warrior mentality, but he also didn't get where he was, by not playing "the game" with politicians.

 

Actually you don't get 4 stars without playing the game.

[Casino67]

Just my opinion:

 

McChrystal is a warrior. He's who you want at the front, prosecuting your war. He may have the warrior mentality, but he also didn't get where he was, by not playing "the game" with politicians.

 

Actually you don't get 4 stars without playing the game.

 

Wesley Clark is a fool, but he knew how the game was played. And Clinton loved him for it.

[Valin]

Just my opinion:

 

McChrystal is a warrior. He's who you want at the front, prosecuting your war. He may have the warrior mentality, but he also didn't get where he was, by not playing "the game" with politicians.

 

Actually you don't get 4 stars without playing the game.

 

Wesley Clark is a fool, but he knew how the game was played. And Clinton loved him for it.

 

 

Yes?

[Sanguine]

[quote name='Casino67' date='24 June 2010 - 12:30 AM'

Wesley Clark is a fool, but he knew how the game was played. And Clinton loved him for it.

 

Everybody misspells his name: it's "Weasley", not "Wesley".

[Sanguine]

Just my opinion:

 

McChrystal is a warrior. He's who you want at the front, prosecuting your war. He may have the warrior mentality, but he also didn't get where he was, by not playing "the game" with politicians.

 

Actually you don't get 4 stars without playing the game.

 

Exactly.