-
24
Jun
I have received some criticism for mocking Stanley McChrystal in a recent post. I am going to stand by it. The level of disrespect I showed in an obscure blog post is nothing compared to the level of disrespect he showed through his actions and those he tolerated from his subordinates. I may have made a mistake about predicting which network will hire him (MSNBC might be more likely than Fox), but suggesting he will be opportunistic in his post-military career is much less offensive than what he and his staff did. One of the main points of the Rolling Stone article was that McChrystal saw himself as above the rules that apply to others. What I wrote is far less obnoxious than this attitude.
- Published by Barak in: Blog
12 Responses to “I stand by my post”
It’s your snide tone that forces me to believe that you intentionally insult a person that has served his nation honorably, with the exception a this recent event. It’s reminiscent of your post about the Haiti earthquake, which you titled, “Rubble Reduced to More Rubble”. And you insult Stanley McChrystal’s integrity for automatically assuming that he will be attempting to profit from his military service. While it is true that many retired generals go on to become consultants and contractors, it was your prediction that he will go on to become a war profiteer and a Oliver North-esque talking head for a conservative station, while the article clearly states that he is not politically conservative, that bothered me.
But it wasn’t the first time; it was at least the third time. The first was his work covering up the events surrounding the death of Pat Tillman (which included lying to Tillman’s parents). The second time was his speech in London last year where he claimed the US would lose the war in Afghanistan if Obama did not implement the strategy he wanted. That speech showed total disrespect for Obama and I thought the president should have fired him then. Instead, Obama gave him a warning which we now know he disregarded completely. You are correct, I was snide – for good reason.
You didn’t really address my points. McChrystal seems to be getting all of the blame for something that is really Obama’s fault: not having command of the military and allowing for Afghan policy and strategy to get completely out of control. Do you think Eikenberry and Holbrooke should be relieved of their position? And while I agree that McChrystal should have been relieved for his specch in London (again, a failur on Obama’s part), here is a good article making a different case: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/killing-the-horse-midstream/58622
McChrystal violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Whether he respects, likes, or agrees with Obama is irrelevant. The UCMJ doesn’t have an opt-out clause for people who disagree with the policies of elected officials.
Not sure he actually violated the Uniformed Code of Military Justice: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/20106221660405882.html
Let us not all believe that we became experts on the UCMJ overnight.
He publicly undermined Obama’s authority as Commander in Chief in his London speech. Civilian control over the military in the US means that military leaders execute the policies of the Commander in Chief, not question or dictate them.
I’m not disagreeing about whether or not McChrystal should have been relieved of his command. I believe that it should have happened. And technically, he didn’t violate the UCMJ. My problem is that you assume once McChrystal if officially done, he’ll become a war profiteer and a talking head on Fox News, akin to Oliver North. Had you actually paid attention to the details of the Rolling Stone article, you would have known what you previously stated in “After the Fall…” is highly unlikely to happen.
And “moments of crisis” are much more likely to happen in civil-military relations if the mission, goals, and strategy given by the Commander-in-Chief are more ambiguous than they are clear. Is Obama actually committed to the July 2011 timeline? On ABC’s “This Sunday”, Rahm Emanuel stated that the July 2011 date is firm. Joe Biden said that in July 2011 that “a whole lot of troops” will be leaving. But Defense Secretary Gates stated that such a thing is not the case. Why is their such confusion in the policy and strategy? Most likely, the answer lies in the Oval Office and the West Wing.
I don’t know why you presume I did not read the article. I did and I don’t see where it says anything about what McChrystal would do if he left the military. It does say he voted for Obama, so perhaps I guessed the wrong network for my snarky comment. My thought process at the time was that he might want to blow off some steam about Obama in public now that he is a civilian and Fox would be a good place for this.
As for lack of clarity on Afghanistan, you are preaching to the choir. This has been one of the most common themes on this blog.
Interesting article about McChrystal, the values of Social Liberalism, and the special forces community.
Here it is:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/10/06/mcchrystals-social-liberalism-and-the-integration-of-gays-in-the-military/58663/
Thanks. The issue here was never about McChrystal’s political views (as it ought not to be).
Leave a Reply