HAS McCRYSTAL HEARD OF CHAIN OF COMMAND?
On October first I alluded to my shock that General Stanley McChrystal appeared on 60 Minutes and postured about the future direction of the U.S. in Afghanistan. Having worked for a government agency for a number of years, I am well-aware of the importance of following “the chain of command.” Watching McChrystal on 60 Minutes I had two thoughts. One thought was that he was going rogue. The second thought was that he was set up to do this in order to get the pulse of public reaction. I have settled on the notion that McChrystal has gone rogue.
In further delving into this I have read that in late August General McChrystal submitted a 66 page confidential report to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates which was somehow leaked to The Washington Post three weeks later. In General McChrystal’s appearance before the Institute of International and Strategic Studies in London, McChrystal, much as he stated on 60 Minutes, said that the American and Allied forces need “to respect the people” and “change our mindset.” He also has been lobbying for 40,000 additional troops at a time when many in this country are beginning to see Afghanistan as another Vietnam. Add to this the fact that General McChrystal, in addressing the IISS in London, referred to Vice President Biden’s plan of scaling back in Afghanistan as “Chaos-istan.” That was neither the time nor the place to express such views about the Vice President’s stance.
McChrystal has been provocative and high-profile in expressing his views. His actions are reminiscent of General Douglas MacArthur who in effect commandeered the power of President Truman to make foreign policy by proposing an escalation of the conflict in Korea. Truman dismissed him due to insubordination.
I do not believe that the public determination of strategic policy in Afghanistan is in General McChrystal’s job description. While he is an adviser to President Obama it is unseemly for him to go public, or rogue if you will, in stating his own objectives for Afghanistan. He should be reminded that while his troops are required to follow the chain of command, he is required to do no less.
—cher
19 Comments »
Leave a comment!
The General is correct in his strategy but wrong to say so publicly. We cannot blame him for the leak who knows where that came from. And MacArthur was fired by Truman although his offenses were 10 times worse than what McChystal has said thus far.
Harrison,
I disagree with McChrystal’s proposed strategy, although I do think his advice will be taken into account. My primary issue with him at this point is his lack of countenance. He should be exemplary in his respect for his hierarchy.
As for the “leak” of the 66 page report, I haven’t seen where that came from. But it does bring to mind the incident of Valerie Plame. Someone knows….
Novak is dead and Plame wasn’t a covert operative and her identity had already been revealed before the story was published and the media that said it was a crime had filed court papers saying that.
I don’t think you or anybody else should question his respect… all the facts are not out yet.
The common mistake people in the USA make over and over again is that Afghanistan will be a second Vietnam. First; 40% of the troops fighting there are non-Americans (Canadian, German, Dutch, Brittish, Italian, French – in total 42 nations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force
I’m more interested in the dirty war in Iraq and Blackwater’s role. İt was Eric Prince, founder of Blackwater, who views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe.
I’m with the general, and let the Iraqi’s clean up the mess the USA brough there.
Kindest
hans
Harrison,
Oh, but I do question the impropriety of McChrystal taking his posturing public. And I am not alone. Dan Simpson, a former U.S. ambassador, wrote a piece published today entitled, “Sack the general; stop the war.” As he so aptly stated in the article, “The civilian president is still commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces…The whole thing is usually carried out more in line with what the military call ‘the chain of command.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Oh wait; I did say that. It is an obvious point of protocol and I am glad Mr. Simpson called him out on it. Dan Simpson was an ambassador to the Central African Republic, ambassador and special envoy to Somalia and ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo. He retired after 35 years of assignments from the U.S. Foreign Service.
He would know a thing or two about chain of command.
Hans,
The war in Iraq is a “dirty one.” Blackwater was a private security firm hired by the U.S. Some of their actions were, to say the least, ill-advised. I agree with your assessment of them, but don’t know enough about Eric Prince to address that. I will explore it.
General McChrystal is now focused on escalating OUR troop levels in Afghanistan by 40,000. He has already been authorized 68,000. He believes that number is what it would take to “win” in Afghanistan. If you think we left a mess in Iraq, what do you think would happen if we had 108,000 troops in Afghanistan? Do you think it is wise for Americans to play a dominant role in yet another country?
Simpson might have been in office for 200 years he still is pushing his agenda.
Unfortunately for Obama he has said too many times how important Afghanistan is… these words were spoken by him on August 17, 2009:
“Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
Obama will have to live up to his words or look like an even bigger hypocrite.
I won’t pretend I understand all the complicated reasons why we are entrenched in so many fronts, but I do agree it is rude and inappropriate of him to publicly insult those who are above him in the chain of command. It’s possible to express disagreement without being disrespectful.
What would we do without you guys? Thanks for keeping us up to date.
We enjoy the banter in the comments section too!
Tamara,
You’re right. It was not only rude of McChrystal, but could be construed as insubordination. Obama would never take it to that level (yet), but you can believe they had a righteous talk!
Thanks
SemicolonSmile.
THE GUYS,
We are just glad that you are part of our posse power! THE GUYS rock!
Harrison,
Dan Simpson has no agenda. He is retired and is now an associate editor. He served his country well for 35 years. Why is it that you cannot recognize the respect people deserve? First, you disregard McChrystal’s lack of following the chain of command and then you denigrate a patriot. I don’t get it.
McChrystal answers to the commander in chief, but he also needs to answer to the parents whose sons and daughters are dying in this war (including 8 more this weekend). My husband was in the navy for a number of years and if he or my sons were over there I would want to hear what this general has to say, because I don’t think that this administration has given us enough details about why it seems that we are fighting such an ineffective war and why we don’t either go full force with more troops or get out completely.
Tina T,
That is a point well-taken. We do need more information, explicit information, and it should come from the president.
Firstly, I didn’t disregard McChrystal’s not following the chain of command (I said he was wrong to go public). Secondly, EVERYONE has an agenda they’re pushing (Nancy Pelosi has a lot of years of public service and she’s not pushing an agenda or Dick Cheney?) and stating a fact is not denigrating a patriot. You don’t get it because you didn’t follow what I said.
A quick search on Google of Dan Simpson reveals that he is on the Board of Directors the United States Institute of Peace. A quick search of this organization, which gets U.S. taxpayer dollars, shows that they regularly work with, and support, Saudi Islamic extremist groups such as CAIR, MPAC, ISNA and the CSID. Another Board member, Dr. Daniel Pipes, wrote an article critical of this organization for including Islamic radicals in their organization.
One of the people working for this organization, which Mr. Simpson is part of, is Kamran Bokhari who is the spokesperson for Al-Muhajiroun which has been identified as “perhaps the most extreme Islamist group operating in the West.”
Many of the groups Mr. Simpson’s organization works with have terrorists in their membership rolls.
So no surprise he wants us to leave Afghanistan and no surprise, as I said, he has an AGENDA.
Harrison,
I can counter your information about The United States Institute of Peace measure for measure. This post was not meant to be about Dan Simpson but since I brought him up, I will tell you what I found about the USIP.
Dan Simpson was first nominated (approved) by George Herbert Walker Bush (a Republican) in 1989 as Ambassador to The Central African Republic.
Here are some of the recent efforts of the U.S. Institute of Peace in Humanitarian Efforts:
9/2009: Promoting Peace in Pakistan; 9/2009: Developing Peace and Human Rights Educators in Iraq; 9/2009: The Road Ahead: Strategies for Improving U.S.-Islamic Relations; 9/2009: Engaging With Identity-Based Difference.
Yes, the group gets U.S. tax dollars and Simpson seems to be well respected across Party lines. If he has any agenda, it is one of peace-building. Also, one of the mottoes of the USIP is, “The real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war.”—-Buddha
Yeah, Simpson is a real threat, all right. Gotcha fired up, does he?
I did a lot of looking into the USIP and found some very bad things about the groups they work with. Simpson did not get me “fired up” but the institute did. They have a $108 million building in DC and the CATO Institute listed them as an agency that should not get federal funding (about $17 million per year). They also discount the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
As a matter of fact, next week I’ll post an article about what I found.
Their motto might quote the Buddha but the people they work with sponsor terrorism and many of those people have been tossed out of the US for supporting terrorism and some of those groups I listed above have been banned from England for being terrorist organizations.
If Simpson stays on the Board of Directors then he is obviously not interested that the USIP legitimizes terrorist organizations.
Harrison,
I’ll look forward to your findings.