The loud public outcry is practically demanding that Obama fire him. First, because it is intolerable to have someone in his position not be loyal and supporting the Commander in Chief. Secondly, if Obama doesn't fire him, then he will look weak and kowtowing to the military brass.
It's not a matter of squelching dissent. McChrystal has the president's ear in private; he participates in weekly strategy meetings. Public disloyalty is another matter. A military command has to have one Commander in Chief and a clear line of authority that is accepted all the way down the ranks. Military discipline is necessary; otherwise you have chaos.
Kieth Olbermann has a different take. He says: Take the letter of resignation, fold it neatly and put it in a drawer, and then tell the general to go back to Afghanistan and get to work cleaning up the mess he helped create. I assume he refers to the consequences of the counter-insurgency strategy that he instituted -- and in fact was given the command because he was the best one for that.
Olbermann's reasoning. He's no worse than any likely successor, and not accepting his resignation would be a politically powerful move for Obama.
What exactly will the ouster of General McChrystal provoke, in our stupid, under-informed, constantly propagandized America of 2010? Who will be the first to identify McChrystal as a martyr to the evil Obama Administration? How many Americans, still looking for a rationalization to justify their rage at a Democratic president, or a black one, or an intelligent one, will have new fuel to feed their blind hatred?Interesting take on it. I was originally on the side of firing him -- a la Harry Truman and Gen. MacArthur. But remember his "old soldiers never die" speech to Congress? Truman survived it politically and has been lauded in history for his courage in reining in a popular, but clearly insubordinate, general.
Keep him, Mr. President. You will not merely neuter the political blowback, you will present a front of force, and calm, and intelligence, and a willingness to, dare I use the phrase Sir -- a willingness to listen to the Commanders on the ground, even when they shoot off their big brass-covered bazoos.
You can own him, Mr. President, and own the political aftermath, now pregnant with opportunities for your critics. The General can be your voice to speed up the de-escalation. My goodness, he could be your mouthpiece if you suddenly saw the morass for what it is and decided to declare victory and get the hell out now. Who would fight you on that, Sir?
"Which is more useful to this President and this nation right now?" he asked. "A martyred ex-General, around which an irresponsible and potentially dangerous opposition can coalesce? Or a spared and humbled General, surely no worse than any potential replacement, whose retention can recalculate the political formula... without a drop of blood, or a drop of teers, being shed?"
In the end, I believe President Obama will make his decision without my advice. And I am glad of that. I don't really know enough about it all to make the decision, not do I want the responsibility.
Ralph
Obama has made his decision and relieved Gen. McChrystal of his duties as commander in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, the political opposition would have tried to use it to smear Obama, whichever decision he made. He was being weak or dictatorial - take you pick.
Bringing Petraeus back in is probably a brilliant stroke and should quell those who want to paint this as an Obama failure. P's standing with the right is pretty high, if I'm reading it right.
ReplyDeleteThe whole counter-insurgency strategy is Petraeus-originated. Having his protege run amok and be relieved of duty puts him back in the driver's seat. If it fails in Afghanistan, then it will not be because an underling failed to execute it properly.
From Obama's position, I can't think of a better solution to the dilemma that McChrystal presented him. It leaves him looking decisive and in control, without seeming dictatorial or failing to listen to his military advisers. No one can say he got rid of McC and put in a yes-man.
McC should never have been in that position to begin with. The fact that he covered up the killing of Tillman, and recast him as the victim of enemy fire, when he knew that wasn't true, should've been enough for him to be removed.
ReplyDeleteBut he wasn't. And that fed his arrogance, made him think he was above the law.
But he should've been gone a long time ago.
richard
he should've been gone a long time ago or never there in the first place. As someone who almost reflexively defends Obama, my main difficulty with him is that he's not a great judge of people. McChrystal's arrogance has been apparent from the start. Gates, Geithner, McChrystal, even Rahm, not my favorites - all on the grounds of personality.
ReplyDeleteI agree jnardo. The issue is judgment. Obama has done a terrible job of selecting people. He kept in too many from the Bush administration. His Supreme Court choices were not the strongest. And he still, consistently, overvalues his enemies and alienates his supporters(witness the recent attacks on the unions in Arkansas - vs. the way he has kowtowed to BP).
ReplyDeleteIf there were any strong Republican candidate, he'd be one and done.
richard