Obama’s Military Problem

23 Jun

General McChrystal, one of the country’s best military minds, has been fired for having a (at best) nonpolitical or (at worst) judgment-poor one. In his place enters demoted General Petraeus, who leaves his coveted Central Command post to pull another President’s ass out of the fire. The savior of the Bush Iraq legacy is now janitor to the Obama Afghanistan policy.

In his speech today, President Obama called for unity. But one major casualty of a long, drawn out, public airing of grievances when formulating war strategy is exactly that. At the end of the day, the military always must salute smartly to civilian leadership; it is a key strength of our country that our military always does so. McChrystal was way off base (though not a breaker of the Code of Conduct, as Obama mentioned), and needed to be sacked. But just because General McChrystal was wrong on tact and judgment does not make him wrong on facts. Obama has an Afghanistan problem, and a military problem, and today made neither better.

McChrystal’s key complaint, or revelation if you will, is that the Obama administration is fragmented, out of touch, and unsupportive. How could be anything but? Despite Obama’s complaint that the Bush administration took its eye off the ball on Afghanistan, he clearly is more consumed by Healthcare, the Economy, the BP Oil Spill, and even Immigration than the war. The meeting McChrystal was kicked out of was the monthly Afghanistan War meeting that the President attends. Obama has visited Afghanistan once since announcing his Surge. The administration is thinking about other priorities, and even on Afghanistan, does not speak with one voice. Despite a career as a lawyer and Senator, Vice President Biden fancies himself a strategic mastermind, and was publicly at odds with the military before, during, and after the Surge decision was made. His Stand-Back-and-Shoot-Missiles-At-Them approach didn’t work during the Clinton years, and makes as many terrorists as it kills now in Pakistan. Media savvy Ambassador Eikenberry publicly undermined and outmaneuvered McChrystal, who know where Holbrooke and Jim Jones are, and the Secretary of State is concentrating on other areas of the world. The War in Afghanistan is not even the number one foreign policy issue, much less a priority of the President’s. If McChrystal feels alone and abandoned, do you blame him? 

Chris Smith laid out this morning that McChrystal gave a giant middle finger to the country as a whole, and was a torturer to boot. This is as ludicrous as it is off base. As that Esquire article points out, and those in the “black” or “grey” worlds know, no one has any idea who works for which agency, once the operations begin. That McChrystal was any more involved in the spectrum from interrogations to torture is conjecture at best and libel at worst. But even if he was the Chief Water Dripper, was he not following the leadership of the civilian authority, as “Cheney’s man” (Chris’ mocking title), what we’re mad he didn’t do now? And don’t tell me that officers have to only follow “lawful orders;” the jury is still out on the legality of any of those actions (note the Obama administration’s continued use of Gitmo and rendition). And finally, if McChrystal is such a heinous Cheney torturista, why did Obama hire him in the first place? In the end, the buck stops with the Obama administration’s failed procedural and bureaucratic approach. I say it all the time, but at the end of the day. Americans do not want large or small government – they want competent government. The Bush administration screwed up the Iraq War from the start, and was killed for it. Should we not have learned something, and not make the same mistakes?

Which leads to Obama’s larger military problem. McChrystal was very popular with the troops, and while Petraeus is generally regarded as a rock star, most soldiers aren’t happy when their popular leader is let go for simply “speaking the truth” about a war they are frustrated with. If a President popular with the military were taking the action, it would go over better. Nuke dropping Truman could fire MacArthur. But the military, demographically, is not Obama’s base. As military bases closed throughout the Northeast and Midwest, Blue States lost their personal connection to the armed forces, and fewer sons and daughters joined. The military has consolidated its large posts in Texas, the Southwest, and Southeast: Red America. And while the South has always had a proud military service tradition, drafts and recruiting have previously kept the map balanced. No longer. The military will always follow orders, but when an unpopular Commander-in-Chief lowers already poor morale, it makes the administration’s already tough job only harder.

Did Obama have any choice but to fire McChrystal? Probably not. But now that we’re here, how does he get the unity of effort he desires? And will Eikenberry and Biden get private dressings down for setting up for failure the President’s general of choice?

6 Responses to “Obama’s Military Problem”

  1. STEEL June 23, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    neither I (nor you for that matter) can possibly know the best way out of Afghanistan. Bush wasted 8 years there and turned it into a quagmire. That is water under the bridge but the results are not. They are with us as are all the other Bush nightmares you listed. I don’t know if Obama was correct in firing the General. I do know the good general would have wasted no time ending the career of a subordinate talking public smack about his person, policy, or plans. Obama said he is open to debate and decent in his administration. I believe him when he says that. Publicly dissing the prez is not the same thing however. What the General did was very wrong and it serves only to weaken our country. Based on Bush era rhetoric McChrystal is basically a traitor for criticizing the president. Do you keep a traitor in your employ? Let’s see if he turns up on the Tea party band wagon.

    • Brian Castner June 23, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

      The issue is not the policy (though I believe that the Petraeus/McChrystal plan has the best chance of success), but how it is conceived and implemented. Free thinking inside the administration is fine. Backbiting and failure to get everyone on board after a decision is not. Because McChrystal is just the only one that has gotten caught not in line.

      BTW, how do you know McChrystal would fire someone for talking smack. Any evidence? And is it Bush’s rhetoric, or yours, that he is a traitor?

      • STEEL June 23, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

        You are kidding right? You don’t remember the Bush administration meme that anyone critical of the president during war time was a traitor? Oh how you right wingers are so fast to forget your talking points when they no longer not fit your needs.

        And yes I do think that a lower ranking officer who does not hold the party line in public would get canned quite summarily by the General as would most people dissing the boss in any situation. I think It was up to McCrystal to stay in line and follow his orders or submit his resignation to the President. That is the course to follow. Being a little pisspot and throwing a temper tantrum because he did not get his way was unprofessional and damaging to our country. Take Colin Powell as a good example. He was not on board with the bush war mongers but he held to the program. He resigned when he could no longer go along with the Bush idiocy (He would have served the country well by making a statement by resigning earlier). That would have bene the way for McCrystal if he felt so strongly about this. If he did not want to resign he should keep his mouth shut or face the consequences. Undermining the president is not a way to win a war. It was a stupid thing to do and will be interesting to see if he was playing a little politics. I would not be surprised to see him on the Palin lecture tour soon.

      • Brian Castner June 23, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

        No, I remember Bush ad people calling folks traitors. What I asked was, do YOU think McChrystal is a traitor. And if not, why bring it up?

      • STEEL June 23, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

        I bring it up because the right will will be frothing at the mouth over this when by their own standard they should be calling McCrystal a traitor. I don’t think he is a traitor – just that he is extremely unprofessioinal and he has a job which allows little room for uprofessional behavior.

  2. Ethan June 24, 2010 at 9:07 am #

    McChrystal really f*cked Obama (and the men & women under his command, really) but good on that one; what a dick.  Also, he helped cover up the Tillman friendly-fire death; what a dick.  And yes, Dorothy, he’s also a torturer; what a dick.  I could throw links in there but I think you can use Google as well as I can.

    In the end, though, there’s only one way this thing is gonna end: declare victory (even if there isn’t any) and leave (except for all the special ops.)  How many people will have to die first is anybody’s guess, but you can be damn sure it’ll skewed towards innocent Afghanis. I wonder, if the NY Times ran photos & wee bios of every innocent Afghani we killed every day, how long we’d keep doing it?  

    This war, and every defense of it I’ve ever heard, simply disgusts me.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: