Eugene Robinson is the latest to come out and blast General McChrystal for his speech in London. It has become obvious to so many that the General is concerned for America, as well as the troops that he commands. A weak man would sit back and say “yes sir”, and disregard the objective evidence that is right before his eyes. General McChrystal is not a week man, and I highly doubt he will cave into the Obama administration’s arm twisting that will ensue. I am quite sure that the left would love for the General to just site idly by and do what he is told. Gates has said that the advice should be given to the President “candidly and privately”. This would be correct, if the President would talk to McChrystal more than once ever 70 days.
When honor, integrity and the lives of so many are on the line, a real man will stand up and fight for what he believes in. But when Obama appointed the General, he probably expected him to be a “yes man” and take a back seat until he was called upon. Once again, like so many times before, President Obama underestimated the dedication of our American soldiers. General McChrystal took an oath to “Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States”, and he intends to keep it, no matter what!
That’s an oath Obama has yet to show he intends to keep!
Read the article from Investors.com below, then sound of at the bottom:
How to proceed in Afghanistan will be among the most difficult and fateful decisions that President Obama ever makes. But he’s the one who has to decide, not his generals. The men with the stars on their shoulders — and I say this with enormous respect for their patriotism and service — need to shut up and salute.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is entitled to his opinion about the best way forward. But he has no business conducting a public campaign to build support for his preferred option, which is to send tens of thousands more troops into a country once called the “graveyard of empires.”
McChrystal’s view — that a strategy employing fewer resources, in pursuit of more limited goals, would be “short-sighted” — is something the White House needs to hear. He is, after all, the man Obama put in charge in Afghanistan, and it would be absurd not to take his analysis of the situation into account.
But McChrystal is out of line in trying to sell his position publicly, as he did last week in a speech in London.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates was right to lay down the law. Gates said Monday that it is “imperative” that military and civilian leaders “provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”
I believe that’s Pentagon-speak for: “Put a sock in it, Stan.“
McChrystal’s statements came at a pivotal moment when the White House is engaged in a fundamental review of Afghanistan policy. Some officials, including Vice President Biden, have argued for a minimalist approach in terms of goals and resources. Obama has called Afghanistan a “war of necessity,” but now must face the implications of an open-ended escalation.
McChrystal, in his public advocacy for more troops, seemed to be trying to limit Obama’s options. But what we want to achieve in Afghanistan is a political question, and we don’t pay our generals to do politics.
That’s the job of the president and the Congress — and whether our elected leaders decide to pull out tomorrow or stay for 100 years, it is the generals’ job to make it happen.
For the record, this would be my position even if McChrystal were arguing for an immediate pullout — or even if George W. Bush, rather than Obama, were the president whose authority was being undermined.
In October 2006, when the chief of staff of the British army said publicly that Britain should pull out of Iraq because the presence of foreign troops was fueling the insurgency — a view I wholeheartedly shared — I argued that he ought to be fired. I wrote that I didn’t like “active-duty generals dabbling in politics, even if I agree with them.” If military officers want to devise and implement geopolitical strategy, they should leave their jobs and run for office.
Eugene Robinson should check the facts on General McChrystal’s speech. Mackubin Thomas Owens posted this observation about McChrystal’s London speech in The Corner on National Review Online on October 5, 2009, at 1:02 PM. “…but the fact is that his (McChrystal’s) comments in London had been reviewed by the White House — and no objections were raised.”
Nice catch!
It seems that Obama is utterly lost in his role as our president. He is proving on an almost daily basis that his skill set is no where near the level of his marketing campaign.
He is an ineffective leader. He lacks the ability to perform the risk analysis that should be applied to every decision he makes. He is driven by feelings and his “moral obligation” to convert this country from the land of “equal opportunity” to the land of “equal” with no regard to real world impact.
Our men are dying in Afghanistan while he and his advisers evaluate the political impact of complying with the General’s request. Kudos to Gen. Stanley McChrystal for taking a stand!
I am also curious to know if our objective in Afghanistan is still not necessarily to win.
This is exactly what happens when an uneducated public elects a liberal with no business or military leadership experience. The worst is yet to come.
P.S. Eugene Robinson needs to take a little trip to Afghanistan so that he can develop a basic understanding of that which he speaks.
Ellen –
Perhaps more importantly Mackubin Thomas Owens agrees with Mr. Robinson. Also from his post in The Corner on National Review Online:
“As much as I may agree with Gen. Stanley McChrystal when it comes to Afghanistan, I must say that my old friend Jim Jones was correct when he told CNN’s John King that “it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.””
and then later in Mr. Owens’ post:
“The cornerstone of U.S. civil-military relations is simple and straightforward: The uniformed military is expected to provide its best advice to civil authorities, who alone are responsible for policy. While reasonable people can disagree over the wisdom of military action against Iran or any other adversary, the decision to take such action lies with civilian authorities, not with a military commander.”
And lastly (from Mr. Owens):
“But the American tradition of civil-military relations requires that they not engage in public debate over matters of foreign policy, including the decision to go to war. Moreover, once a policy decision is made, soldiers are obligated to carry it out to the best of their ability, whether their advice is heeded or not.”
Geez, it sounds like Mr. Owens and Mr. Robinson are on the same page here.
— Mackubin Thomas Owens is a professor at the Naval War College and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
First off, as a mother of TWO soldiers serving in Afghanistan, I support Gen. McChrystal voicing his opinion in the manner he did. Unlike Obama, he has a backbone!
It is obvious why the Gen. did what he had to do, as his mission to protect my children and this nation is more important than a chain of command, that should be deviated from as it was with Bush and his top commanders in the field.
Perhaps Mr. Owens should go fight side by side, with my two sons, in Afghanistan. I am quite sure he would sing a different tune.
Come to think of it, isn’t it interesting to note that the ones who are there (in Afghanistan), or have been there FIGHTING for this nation, are the ones who support the troops and McChrystal, while the ones who are “Analyzing” the data and yelling how he should use “the chain of command”, are doing so from the confines of a safe and secure office?
Why don’t you tell my sons, and families of those who have died for this Country, that their commander should just “shut up and solute” a man who has never worn the uniform of the U.S. Military!
Mom of Troops:
I think he know what he is talking about – silver star, wounded twice in Vietnam.
Mackubin Thomas Owens is an American military historian and conservative political figure. He is currently the Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and Professor of Strategy and Force Planning for the Naval War College, as well as a contributing editor to National Review.
Owens served as an infantry platoon commander from 1968-1969 in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, during which he was injured twice, and awarded the Silver Star. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1994.
I am sure he knows what he is talking about, when discussing Vietnam. But we are not fighting the vietnamese, and he is not over in Afghanistan, yet he is far removed from actual combat situations.
Mom of Troops – we are with you and hope that General McChrystal continues bringing the needed attention! God Bless all the troops.
Eugene, as Barney Frank would ask, “what planet do you live on?”. McChrystal is Obama’s pansy. American’s are privileged to have General McChrystal serving our Country, looking out for the interest of our troops, and this Country. I encourage everyone to call the Pentagon and leave a personal message in support of General McChrystal for Gates and Obama. I did. Obama approved the speech and know he is whining like a little child because Obama can’t make decisions or has Communist China making them for him.
While a chain of command exists for the smooth operation of, discipline, policy implementation and carrying out orders in the military, there’s nothing wrong giving updates on a situation when approved by the White House. Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with officers respectfully voicing their opinions and offering advice–especially when they are theater commanders doing so to the President. McChrystal is doing his job, which is looking out for the men he leads and the mission at hand. His job is not to say “yes” to the President in order to make him look good politically, it’s not even remotely close to being a part of his job.
Obama and the Left are simply angered because they can’t find any top military leaders who are of the opinion that weakness wins wars or believe that retreat equals victory. Again, the White House approved McChrystal’s speech, and he has a right to offer professional opinion in answer to questions that do not violate OPSEC–and so he did. If Obama and the Dems don’t like it, they should try actually DOING something instead of just running their mouths.
The military needs more leaders willing to tell it like it is and stand up for the men they lead. The number of NCOs and Officers in the military who believe their rank carries an obligation to speak out on behalf of the men they lead–no matter the consequences–when they know something needs redress, fixing or is flat out wrong has been dwindling for decades.
While it is indeed acceptable and preferred for advice to come up the military chain of command, there’s something called an “open-door policy” that many civilians are apparently not familiar with. That aside, many officers give policy speeches, present ideas, and offer analysis in the realm of their profession…writing papers, giving speeches and so on.
Obama was probably just worried he wouldn’t get his Nobel prize for doing nothing if McChrystal’s speech forced him to give in to common sense and actually do something.