Presidential Stagecraft Around McChrystal: The Suspense Builds

He should have just ignored it and let it die. He’s in a no-win. Firing the only over there who knows what he’s doing because of a few rogue comments makes him look weak and vain. Plus, for the execution of the war, it’s a terrible idea. Unfortunately in this situation McChrystal has Obama by the b***s.

Amazing, no leaks in thirty minutes!

What does it mean?

.
Exactly what this Administration has done since stepping foot into the Oval Office.
.

“Never let a crisis go to waste”

.
In the middle of a JZ special concert at the White House, or perhaps entertainment provided to the First Family by some half-baked magician during the weekly 1 million dollar entertainment sessions, you may get an answer to your question, Michael Scherer.
.
Gen Patton once said;
.
“All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated.”

Obama can’t ignore him and be a strong president. It’s Obama who has McChrystal by the testicles. Obama can ignore him, demand McChrystal’s resignation, or he can court martial him. McChrystal has fewer options.

“There is no SOP on how to resign,” says a senior military officer
.
Way to protect a source MS.
.
Who knows what kind of backlash someone giving that quote would receive.?

Sure Obama can fire him but the situation is not about two men; it’s about the execution of a war with unfathomable consequences.

It’s like if you were deathly sick and got rid of your best doctor because he was arrogant.

In a way, McChrystal is fortunate that Obama handled it as he did by immediately calling him for a confrontation. The political way would have entailed more manipulation and letting him twist in the wind a little more.
.
About the article I do wonder if the McChrystal gang didn’t show their colors to other reporters who let it slide. They only allowed the one RS reporter into their confidence and acted like adults around all others? Unlikely. MS, what do you think?

The half hour is interesting. What does it mean? I think it means that a decision has been made but was not necessarily stated in the meeting. It is either, we’ll let this blow over and get back to business, or it was nice meeting you, have a good retirement. What enters my imagination is that the general did most of the talking, Obama listens stoney faced and tells the general he’ll be advised of the decision shortly.

Just a thought and please don’t dismiss me as a conspiracy nut but maybe Obama wanted to first talk with McChrystal and then hold the Af/Pak meeting so that he can make the most informed timely decision possible.

I mean, I know it’s far-fetched these days and would make a good plot for an Oliver Stone movie but maybe he’s… thinking about his decision in advance of making it.

I’m nuts, aren’t I?

From a purely political standpoint, Obama would be best off eliciting a resignation or apology from McChrystal, rather than firing him.

As others have noted, getting fired is probably McChrystal’s best chance to avoid being blamed for the failure of his own Afghanistan strategy. I doubt the comments were intended to force Obama to fire McChrystal. Largely because the quotes were petty and juvenile. If McChyrstal wanted to become a martyr, he would have been wise to make insubordinate comments that at least made him look good.

Ringwalk would have been telling Lincoln to hold onto McClellan. What a joke his ‘advice’ is.

USA: 1, Alg: 0

Second Round, here we come.

The General Patton that got fired by Truman? How apt that you quote him. And which one has history vindicated? Oh yeah, it’s Truman.

Or it was just enough time for McChrystal to apologize to Obama’s face and Obama to tell him he’s fired.

That analogy makes absolutely no sense. What do McCrystal and McLellan’s situations have to do with each other?

This is least consequential thing that is going on in American life today, with the possible exceptions of the premiere of the new Twilight movie, or Lady Gaga’s foul mouth at baseball games, or Helen Mirren appearing nude above the waist. Not sure which of the last three is the most disgusting waste of mental (and media) energy. Certainly, though, the World Cup is in the running for that distinction.

Haters are put in the neocon group for today
.
I’m very happy for the US team.

The situations of McClellan and McCrystal have nothing to do with each other. Lincoln tolerated McClellan’s far worse press comments. He eventually fired McClellan (twice) because McClellan refused to follow direct orders. There’s been no indication that McCrystal is not following Obama’s policies.

Very exciting game and great outcome!

Alas, it seems to have broken Twitter.

“Old Soldiers Just Tweet Away: McChrystal First General to be Relieved by Tweet”
**Washington’s elite reporters immediately text each other for confirmation. Taliban takes credit on Facebook page. Sudden competition to develop remote “fired youbecauseyouranyourmouthwiththemicrophoneon” apps.
Technology reaches new high point. Afghanistan to be prosecuted through weapons of mass communication. G-mail talks opened in Stockholm. Said one well known reporter “It’s like we’ll never have to move our butts out of our office chairs to report the news ever again. I couldn’t be happier”.**

Thank goodness for overage time!

But since you’re goin’ there…Gag-Gag at a baseball game is doubly boring!

A kickball game with a final score of Ace-Nil? Crazy.
.
I kid.
.
On the square.

This is least consequential thing that is going on in American life today
.
I would reserve that distinction for your comment.

^ You’re thinking of General MacArthur. Patton had his command severely taken away after the slapping incident, but this was largely done for intelligence reasons, to fool the Germans as to where the next attack would be. Also, Truman did not come into power until roughly 6 months before Patton died in a most unfortunate car accident.

But, of course, not all prima donnas are successful commanders. Consider newfreedomflog.. clearly as pouty and petulant as any prima donna, equally clearly, not a shred of military success or credibility.

Have just heard a WSJ reporter pontificating indignantly that “Obama must announce a decision. He can’t leave [McChrystal] twisting in the wind!”
.
Also heard Hastings saying that he heard much worse stuff that he didn’t include in the article.
.
And Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday: “I remember once in Iraq being made to feel profoundly uncomfortable by an Army colonel who was openly scornful of President Bush’s tactical leadership of the war effort (this was well-before the surge). I didn’t disagree with his analysis one bit, but I thought it was deeply inappropriate, and even nervous-making, to hear a senior military leader disparaging his commander. Civilian control of the military is a paramount American virtue, and anyone who undermines this core principle is unfit to serve. There’s no way around this fundamental fact, unfortunately. ”
.
So Goldberg clearly heard stuff he didn’t print.

1:30 remarks on the situation from Obama

My mistake.

It’s like talking to half-wits.
.
Lincoln let McClellan’s insubordination go on much longer than he should have. He was concerned about changing generals in a time of war. McClellan thought he was irreplaceable; he wasn’t.

Right. So you are saying that, categorically, no general has enough intelligence or technical acumen that he is worth holding onto in the face of offense A, B or C?

Your argument is ridiculous because it assumes that no humans have capacities that make them particularly valuable. It’s like saying that you can replace Mozart if he gets out of line.

Speaking of “half-wits!”

McChrystal out, Patreas in.

Actually, Patton was relieved a second time shortly after the war because he made progressively more objectionable statements about the Soviets. That said, he was merely transferred from a field command (the Third Army) to a desk job (command of the fifteenth Army, which was working on the history of the war)

Your analogies are ludicrous. General is a position, and many people properly trained can fill it. The only justification to hold onto one is that he does his job well and fulfills his role properly.
.
McChrystal is not the Mozart of war.

Everything is a “position.” I am not arguing that McChrystal is the Mozart of war, but he does seem to be widely respected. Your position is that he, and any general who ever lived, is as replaceable as a sneaker–ie singular military acumen does not exist. It’s a juvenile idea.

I thought Obama would just appologize to the General about the oil spill. No way he fired him.

Obama is being much more gracious than I would have been.

Word gunny. Way more gracious.

but he does seem to be widely respected.

Which is precisely why his insubordination is particularly harmful to the war effort. The entire strategy of taking out the Taliban without undue harm to civilians is unpopular in the ranks. They’d rather be able to call in air support and take out whole neighborhoods. To maintain that posture requires extreme discipline which the General clearly is unable to provide.

Are you dense? Yes, generals are replaceable. They are always replaceable. Sorry you can’t seem to grasp that.
.
You seem to think that because McChrystal is “widely respected” he can’t ever leave his job or that anyone else can do it as well or better. That’s just plain wrong.
.
He’s just been relieved and replaced. No one will miss him. (I’m sure you got your panties all wet over Schwarzkopf, over Powell, over name-your-general. And yet they’re gone and the military still goes on. Amazing.)

Let me add that I respect McChrystal’s years of service to our country.

Ha! So you are saying that no general in human history has had ability above and beyond his contemporaries.

You are saying that military strategy and execution lies outside the field of all human endeavors.

No, I didn’t say that at all.

ringwalk, you also think in circles. Your argument makes no sense. McCrystal may or may not be indispensable – Obama thought not, and I am sure he consulted heavily with Gates, who undoubtedly agreed he could be replaced. I’m pretty sure their judgment is better informed that yours.

Yes, you are right–that is the answer they came up with. That doesn’t mean I’m thinking in circles. I’m actually surprised they did it.

If you read the top of the thread you’d see that I started off saying that I am not a military expert or a DC insider and am only dealing with the conventional wisdom, as I would guess everyone on this board is.

Yes, you started off by saying that McChrystal is “the only (sic) over there who knows what he’s doing” so your premise is wrong. You don’t know that 1) he knows what he’s doing, or that 2) if so, he’s the only one. Based on your flawed assumption, you asserted that he should not be removed, no matter his insolence.
.
Obviously, you’re wrong.

Didn’t know that happened, I remember reading about his outlandish Soviet remarks and how he wanted to provoke fighting with them, sucks for him of all people to have been reduced to a desk job.

Ringwalk,
.
to put it simple – Germany had several very good generals during WW II and lost. Soviet had amongst the worst and helped win the war.
.
Modern wars are not like Alexander the great, Julius Caesar or Ghingis Khan.
.
Armies are larger, more complex and most of the generals of today’s armies rely on staff, commanders of units under them and they’re masters of complex resource management and overall strategy. Commanders under them deal with the tactical minute to minute changes.
.
Well liked is good, but certainly not indispensable and it won’t win something; no amount of likeability can change a fundamentally screwed mission. Alexanders invasion of India rings a bell.
.
The uniform code is simple – he screwed up. If Obama wouldn’t have replaced him it would’ve made him look weak. This is not about if Obama is left or right; it’s about chain of command .
.
Anyone can object to anything Obama does, but military leaders don’t have the luxury of some kind of ever expanding ‘first amendment rights’. He didn’t follow the code and now suffered the consequences. End of story.
.
But it’s funny that the most powerful military on earth have such an Achilles heal that they apparently rely on these super human people and without them it falls into the abyss.

Oh, an SIC! How proper of you. I didn’t know we were contributing to the Princeton Review.

DKG sums my point up better than I can in her column in the NYT about Lincoln and McLellan. Take a gander.

If you have ever fired someone, you know you don’t spend a lot of time doing it.

Yes, McChrystal handled the Tillman cover-up so brilliantly and compassionately. This is karma for that and his abuse of prisoners and his previous criticisms of the administration. By the way, are we winning the war? I know Karzai likes him but that hardly seems a great recommendation.

Lincoln would have kept McClellan if he would have actually taken the fight to the enemy, even with McClellan’s attitude. My point is that McCrystal is (or should I say was) doing exactly what Obama told him to do.

It’s a tough call for Obama. Another reason Lincoln had to keep McClellan as long as he did is because McClellan was darn near irreplaceable. How many generals did Lincoln go through before he found Grant? At least Obama has Petraeus.

Yes, DKG did explain things better than you. McClellan gone. (And with the gift of hindsight we know just how replaceable McClellan was and Lincoln didn’t need to wait.)

The gift of hindsight tells us that Lincoln did not need to keep McClellan as long as he did; that McClellan was not in fact irreplaceable. Yes, Lincoln did have to go through several generals to get to Grant. Another vindication of the easily replaceable general until you get the one who gets it right.
.
Is Obama lucky to have Petraeus? Perhaps. But if Petraeus can’t do the job, then Obama should feel free to replace him as well. The mission is the issue, not the general. The general is the implementer.
.
You know, before this flap, there was talk that McChrystal was balking about the drawdown next year; that in fact he was going to ask for a surge of more troops instead. If true, this is in direct violation of the stated mission that Obama elucidated to the country. So good riddance to McChrystal, and hopefully, Petraeus will complete the mission as assigned by civilian leadership.

Yes because all generals are effortlessly and painlessly replaceable. We heard your stupid contention the first 1,000 times.

It’s hard to blame dumpling and others if you seem hard of hearing.

It’s hard to blame me if they abjectly incorrect. Read about Stalin and Zhukov, for one example. Stalin removed Zuhkov from his position essentially for disagreeing with him; by the end of the war even the egomaniacal psychopath Stalin had come crawling back and Zhukov was the most decorated general in Russian history. If Stalin had listened to him initially half a million Russians would have avoided capture.