General McChrystal Crushed By Rolling Stone
I learned a lot about General McChrystal in the past twenty-four hours. He is a hard ass who sleeps four hours a night, eats one meal a day, sees his wife 30 days out of the year, has a strategy he believes in and fights tirelessly for, takes the time to personally respond to troop emails, doesn't fear going out on missions and to everyone's great surprise, he doesn't always see eye to eye with cigar smoking, pedantic politicians sitting in leather armchairs in Washington. This begs the question, “what is there not to like?” Well his favorite beer is Bud Light Lime but everyone gets one free pass. Am I the only one alive who remembers the opening of Patton and thinks, “thank God we have men with balls like that in our military?” This Rolling Stone article has certainly stirred up controversy but reading it was harder than watching a Michael Moore film. Pundit savant and writer Michael Hastings brings up McChrystal's conflict with what Newsweek's Jonathan Alter calls “civilian control over the military.” Hastings points out McChrystal's conflict with Biden's Afghanistan strategy which the general referred to as “shortsighted.” The author also freely criticizes McChrystal “of trying to bully Obama” when his report conducted last June that called for 40,000 additional troops was leaked to the press. What exactly is the alternative? Are we better off it McChrystal didn't have a strategy he supported and a vision? Should we have a token general who puts on his five stars and offers no insight from his experience in real combat? Obama, as commander in chief, still retains the final say and any president should do what he concludes is best for the country. The only pressure involved here is political pressure and I think it is disturbing that Rolling Stone has qualms about making a president choose between what is best for the country and what is best for his political capital. A general should believe in what he is doing and if what he wants to do isn't the way the president wants to go, then get a new general. Don't disparage a general for having a strategy. That is his job.
This is the drive by media at its worst, complaining that McChrystal disagreed with Biden, pressured Obama, despises Karl Eikenberry, and criticized Richard Holbrook, all of which make McChrystal a terrible person. He is also Obama's hand picked general implementing the administration's chosen strategy, and has worked hard to develop a relationship with Hamid Karzai the leader of the Afghan government that the United States supports. This too makes him a terrible person. Then Hastings also has the decency to gives us a little background on our “military brat” general. He graduated from West Point in 1972, the last year before the academy admitted women (apparently his fault). There was a hazing tradition called “rat fucking” that is clearly relevant because it sounds disgusting but apparently only involves shaving cream and throwing a person outside in the snow or mud. I can only assume McChrystal is responsible for hazing in the military, fraternities, high school football teams etc. Our beloved general also received 100 hours of demerits for “drinking, partying, and insubordination” while at West Point making him a “century man.” I for one am shocked an appalled that kids in the military drink and do stupid things. I can only imagine that you are all as shocked as I am. I hear rumors that McChrystal also had his name written on the chalk board in elementary school and sometimes wouldn't line up at the door. All these qualities are clearly the reason that McChrystal has been heralded for his work in Iraq and made it to the rank of general. Being the dirty, insubordinate, drunk that he is, McChrystal even got rid of bars on bases in Afghanistan and fast food joints that represent American excess. Clearly this guy is out of control and we haven't even gotten into COIN.
COIN is the counterinsurgency strategy being implemented in Afghanistan that McChrystal supports along with the administration. It is essentially a boots on the ground strategy that is meant to overwhelm insurgents, protect the civilian population, and provide stability while Afghanistan rebuilds. Clearly by fact that the strategy is being implemented it has won over enough people to be used, but the author is quick and insightful to point out that our only strategy with support is bad. Hastings quotes retired colonel Douglas Macgregor saying, “The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people. The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.” An Eikenberry cable was leaked to the New York Times that claimed Karzai was “not an adequate strategic partner,” and questioning if the counterinsurgency plan was “sufficient.” Hastings even points out that “Team McChrystal” has doubts about Karzai. What is surprisingly missing from Rolling Stone's clusterfuck of journalistic integrity is documentation of any alternative solutions.
We all know that the folks making the tough decisions in our country don't operate like the Borg in Star Trek. People and personalities clash and we don't always have the same plans and strategies. I just can't for the life of me understand why we are attacking the only guy with a plan. There was another guy who was mentioned in the Rolling Stone article. People often refer to him as “Mr. President.” I have some questions about him. In reference to the presidents first meeting with McChrystal an advisor to the general said, “It was a ten minute photo-op. Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.” The real issue here isn't why is the president and administration being criticized by General McChrystal and his circle. The important question is whether the criticism is accurate.
Tyson Bam
June 23rd 2010
