GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

McChrystal’s Inappropriate Comments

by

In a choice between General Stanley McChrystal and President Barack Obama to head national security policy (or to determine which strategy and tactics to use to implement that policy), I would, without hesitation, pick the former.  I believe he has a better understanding of the risks we face and the means we need take to mitigate them.

That said, I cannot defend, indeed, strongly criticize the comments the top commander in Afghanistan made to the Rolling Stone‘s Michael Hastings.  I agree with Defense Secretary Robert Gates who, according to Politico

publicly rebuked Gen. Stanley McChrystal Tuesday, saying in a statement that the top commander in Afghanistan had “made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment” in the biting remarks he and his aides made in a Rolling Stone article about President Barack Obama and others in the administration.

Simply put, a military commander should not make “dismissive and derogatory remarks to a magazine reporter about U.S. government officials involved in” setting military policy.  Once again, the indispensable Jim Geraghty:

Many people I know think highly of McChrystal, and he has earned his accolades. But a general in the American armed forces cannot, on the record, mock or deride the vice president and the U.S. ambassador, much less the president of the United States. You and I can; we’re just some schmoes; we don’t report to him in the chain of command. I’m sure many generals have thought many colorful expressions of criticism toward presidents over the years, but they cannot blab them to reporter.

Emphasis added.  In our system of government, the military is subordinate to civilian authority.  You and I may prefer McChrystal’s judgment to that of Obama, but the latter was elected and the former serves at his pleasure.  Criticize Obama we can — and should — but McChrystal has a duty to follow his commands.  If he disagrees with the president, he should make his disagreements known to the Administration, but through private channels not in a widely-circulated (or even a not widely-circulated) publication.UPDATE:  Via the Washington Examiner a joint statement from Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.,

We have the highest respect for General McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. . . . General McChrystal’s comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between Commander-in-Chief and the military. The decision concerning General McChrystal’s future is a decision to be made by the President of the United States.

I agree.

UP-UPDATE:   Glenn Reynolds reminds us how times have changed:   “Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism Of President Bush. Well, sure. Under a Republican President, it’s listen to the generals. Under a Democratic President, it’s all about civilian control of the military.”

Comments

  2. There is a much larger point than McChrystal’s future in all of this. We have been neutered in the Iraq/Afghanistan theaters. America is tired of the whole terrorism theme and the future is now. We are not going to do a thing in Afghanistan to keep it in stasis until a real Commander in Chief arrives.

    Whether McChrystal kisses the ring or not, the die is cast.

    Obama will happily blame the Bush military for losing Bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    McChrystal via Rolling Stone is just the catalyst Obama has been waiting for. He has his designated loser.

  3. You don’t criticize your boss in public and especially not in the media unless you want to be fired. Do you think that’s what McChrystal wants. He can’t be stupid enough to think he could say those things and keep his job.

  5. It appears that the General is frustrated. But, if he is, he needs to resign rather than blab to a magazine. Do not be suprised if the President requests McChrystal’s resignation, and would have every right to do so and probably should.

  6. Had we a Republican in the WH, McChrystal would be hailed as a whistle blower and the liberal media would circle the wagons to protect him.

  8. Dan, we don´t know if he made his demands to his commnder in chief via private channels. We don´t know if they were ignored in toto or in part. If that be the case maybe he used the media to get Obama´s attention. We could be seeing reactment of the Truman MacArthur brouhaha. MacArthur had the last word with his speech to the joint houses of Congress. Old soldiers never die, only their privates do, I mean, they only fade away.

  9. If McCrystal made some of these complaints thru channels, it may explain why he went so public. He had to know how this would play out. our Military serves a secondary position to our civilian leaders. Even if they are boobs, idiots and communty aggitators.
    It does mean that Obamas Afghanistan and overall defense strategy is in deep deep trouble. Can we at least start keeping track of all the people who have labeled Obama as a naive deer in the headlites commander? Britain, France, Copenhagen, his generals, Karzii, BP, Jindal, AZ govenor, Palin,

  11. I think most people are forgetting one important rule. Never take a news story at face value. There is a very good chance that the story does not reflect reality. The reporter may have a story that they want to push, and so selectively report what they saw and leave out contrary facts, or they may simply not understand what they saw, or they may even be lying about it.

    I don’t have any idea what the truth is here. Maybe the story is accurate. But when reading a news story, especially a story that is explosive, we should always wonder what the truth really is.

  12. This seems like a c-f all around. As far as I can tell, McChrystal does show an unbecoming disrespect for the elected civilian leadership. But yes… during the Bush years, the media hailed such traits as heroism; why the double standard? (as if we don’t know)

  14. Contrary to the “popular view”, I suspect that Gen. McCrystal’s 90%-correct in the incompetence at the State Dept., the NSA and within the White House staff. And since-when to I trust a member of the Press not to impose his own narrative on the alleged comments of his subject.

    While the POTUS has the arbitrary-right to fire the him, regional commanders serve at the pleasure of the Commander-in-chief. The real question is can McCrystal win the insurgency…not whether or not he plays well with others. U.S. Grant was a drunk, difficult, but he fought and won battles.

    If the McCrystal is correct is his assessment and any punitive action is taken against the General, he should insist on an open Court Martial and publicly-demolish the allegations against him point-by-point…expose the double-dealing, duplicity and the incompetence of the State Dept. and the White House policy team. Events and the future of Afghanistan are at a knife-edge and the Carteresque Obama administration are about to give yet-another Panama Canal to the Chinese…both paid-for with American blood and treasure.

  15. General McCrystal is a student of history;

    A specialized form of seppuku in feudal times was known as kanshi (諫死, “death of understanding”), in which a retainer would commit suicide in protest of a lord’s decision. The retainer would make one deep, horizontal cut into his stomach, then quickly bandage the wound. After this, the person would then appear before his lord, give a speech in which he announced the protest of the lord’s action, then reveal his mortal wound.

  16. Obama just made comments about McCrystal….
    he called McC comments “incredibly stupid” and suggested a beer summit.
    j/k
    Obama did look awfully small sitting next to Sec Def Gates and
    Sec State Clinton.
    I guess that’s part of the problem though huh.

  17. In a perfect world Gen McChrystal would be out the door. No Commander in Chief can allow anything even approaching the appearance of insubordination. Unfortunately we live in a world where the Ditherer in Chief has set out a policy that at best is a wash for Afghanistan. If he fires McChrystal he might ‘show’ that he can make the big call. If he keeps him after a dressing down you have an otherwise capable military leader permanently hobbled. Given the history of this administration we will probably end up with some ‘CHANGE’ that leaves McChrystal in charge but with a ‘keeper’ looking over his shoulder on a daily basis. A LOSE LOSE proposition for the country. YIKES!!!!

  18. #17 Yep. And remember McCrystal is the 4 star that Obama himself picked for the job in Afghanistan. And Obama chose the McCrystal strategy. Then of course cut him short when only sending 30,000 reinforcements, when I think the General wanted more like 60k.
    I think Obama has to fire McC, civilians run the military. But it then leaves Obama’s Afghanistan theatre in utter chaos.
    The list of people who think Obama is a lite weight is growing.
    It includes PM’s, Presidents, and now Generals.
    The only people afraid of Obama are CEO’s

  20. DB not so fast…..hehe
    BP made Obama their largest recipient of their donations!!
    So he kicks his friends and his enemies in the onions. As long as they are Americans.

  21. I stand corrected. Or rather I wish to clarify. His ‘FRIENDS’ are thanked in the morning BEHIND closed doors. His ‘ENEMIES’ are paraded before the townsfolk, pilloried, hung in effigy, tarred, feathered and THEN are taken over and put out of business. Am I forgetting anything?