http://www.rollingstone.com/
Like the unprecedented shame of the current French World Cup soccer squad, I guess this is what happens when you let your ego convince you that you are bigger than the mission and the country. For a military commander, I understand that playing diplomat at black-tie events and sucking up to politicians (because they control your resources) can be annoying and not really in your job description. But disrespecting civilian leaders and foreign partners won't help your cause, and will probably undermine public support and military morale. Modern generals have to be worldly gentlemen and not tabacky-spitting, ass-kicking macho men. Well I suppose they have to be both at times, but I'd rather trust a commander who speaks sparingly and uses his brain (rather than the other head), than a prima donna crooning for the cameras. Unfortunately, the US military seems to have produced too many of the latter over our history (Patton, MacArthur, LeMay, Schwartzkopf), and too few of the humbler Bradley/Eisenhower types. Because when your ego and ambition are out of control, what's to stop you from putting your soldiers or innocent civilians in danger for your own career gains and power trips? It's really sad that we need to keep reminding our "civil servants" to put the country first.
If he had any honor, McChrystal should step down. Not just for these comments, but also for lack of progress in Afghanistan, and I don't think things will radically improve by next summer (winter makes large coordinated military operations nearly impossible over there, so they have 4 fewer months to work with). Remember the first surge operation in Marja that was touted as a great success? Now that some US forces have moved on to prepare for the Kandahar offensive, Marja has slipped back to partial Taliban control (and insurgents may have shot down a NATO chopper yesterday). We can't be everywhere at once, and the Afghan troops aren't up to task and probably never will be - at least enough to secure their nation to a level of our liking. Heck even the more advanced, institutional, and better funded Pakistani military can't control its Taliban.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
-------
"You're leading by example. That's what we do. Particularly when it's really, really hard, and it hurts inside" - Gen. McChrystal
To be fair to the general, McChrystal's big shot friends and foes involved in the Afghan war may also be egomaniacs and opportunists with their own agendas, so it's not like he's a tyrant and everyone else are victimized lambs. The degenerate, dysfunctional soap opera that was Hitler's inner circle and Nazi High Command during WWII seems to be the rule, not the exception, for wartime leadership bodies (look at Bush's war room with Cheney, Wolfowitz, Condi, Rummy, and Powell being like the only sane one). Some are jealous and resentful of McChrystal's rapid rise to fame (deserved or not), and that may be biasing their views. And I think we'd all agree that it is the biggest pain in the ass possible to wage war under the framework of a vague NATO coalition with a million different opinions, complaints, and special interests to please. NATO doesn't have great nation-building expertise, and Afghanistan is 100X more challenging than the Balkans. But hey, no one invited NATO to come.
If McChrystal's data and experience lead him to believe that Obama et al. are truly wrong on various war issues, he has the right to feel that way and express himself consistent with his military duties and obligations. But so far, McChrystal has "won" the debate and gotten almost all he asked for, so why would he need to bitch to the media? Though he got what he needed by playing dirty - initially Obama/Biden were hesitant to escalate the war, so McChrystal and the Pentagon sensed that and "leaked" a memo to the press, basically warning of doomsday unless he gets 40,000 more boots, which more or less forced Obama's hand for fear of looking weak on defense. After that, McChrystal doesn't have the right to get mad at his former commander, Ambassador Eikenberry, for doing the same and questioning the war strategy in a leaked cable. Well, it's now on McChrystal to prove he's right, but I wonder how many more people will die before he feels vindicated or just gives up. Maybe McChrystal is singing like a canary now as insurance in case his counterinsurgency-development strategy fails, so then he can say that others were fighting him all the way, preventing him from getting the job done. Maybe he'd be right, but maybe this move will make defeat more likely. Or maybe this hoopla is way overblown. I'm sure the Taliban doesn't care and doesn't read Rolling Stone. I wonder how our troops will react. They will probably side with their commander, but his example can't be good for military focus and professionalism.
The RS article said that McChrystal was the son of a general, which probably helped him overcome his 298/855 ranking at West Point, despite being very sharp physically and mentally. He was top of his class in one area: over 100 hours of demerits for poor behavior. During the 2003 Iraq invasion, he was a Pentagon spokesman, not a field commander. Later his office was responsible for the lie/error claiming that Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire, not by friendlies, and there were reports of detainee abuse at Camp Nama in Iraq in 2006, which was under his command. Yet strangely, it was like his poop didn't stink, and Washington and the media gave him a pass during his confirmation hearings for the top Afghan job. Maybe they were so desperate to have a white knight rescue us from the quagmire. But what probably helped his rise was his time leading JSOC in Iraq (basically black ops), and his people were responsible for killing the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, al-Zarqawi. He is known for modernizing Ranger training and using cyber-geeks to help hunt terrorists. But currently as head of ISAF, the troops resent McChrystal's strategies and new restrictions on using deadly force. It's a tough balancing act - using enough violence to scare and beat the Taliban, but restraining yourself so as to not incur more civilian casualties and the political blowback, which unfortunately puts NATO troops in more harm. It's a delicate approach that may not be viable in practice, and the soldiers seem frustrated and confused about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment