Although Barack Obama's rabid, media lapdogs on the left portray the replacement of General Stanley McChrystal as a swift, decisive and "brilliant" move and pundits on the right stand there with mouths agape, shocked that a respected military commander would self-destruct in such a manner, both analyses distort key facts and are superficial at best, for they fail to address the fundamental questions the media should be asking, such as "What really happened?"
Contrary to the lies concocted by the liberal press corps, Stanley McChrystal showed up at the White House with resignation in-hand, he was not
"forced out",
"relieved of command", or
"ousted" as hundreds of media outlets including Fox News continue to suggest. I give McChrystal credit. Even though questions have surfaced over breaches of journalistic ethics by Rolling Stone, who published details that McChrystal's staff says were clearly and absolutely off-the-record, at least he was man enough to take sole responsibility for his own actions and remove himself for the good of the nation, which is far more than I can say for his boss, whose never-ending battle between his own, delicate ego and over-rated hyper-confidence is now tearing our nation apart.
When General Eric Shinseki's very public manpower recommendations for the invasion of Iraq were challenged by the Bush Administration, liberals praised his candor for speaking out against Bush's shortsightedness. But, when Obama was described by the general's staff as disinterested and intimidated or they berate Joe Biden, (who called a Wisconsin shopkeeper concerned about taxes a smart # just this past week and whose own legendary mouth should have forced him out of politics long ago) McChrystal is relentlessly attacked as a reckless, stupid, irresponsible, rogue general who had to be purged from the ranks to preserve the Constitution and save the nation. Just like Dennis Blair before him, who complained he was being handcuffed and prevented from fully doing his job and was also purged.
To be clear, I'm no fan of Stanley McChrystal. There are things he's done throughout his career that are questionable, as I've pointed out before. But, the structure, competitive nature and demand for a military with bold, exceptional leadership means that to rise to the rank of general or above, one must usually climb to the top on the backs of their colleagues. One general's promotion is most often the demise of another's career. Just ask McChrystal's predecessor, General David McKiernan, who was relieved of his command by Obama, which illustrates my next point.
Having served in the military, I diverge from those who believe Obama had to get rid of McChrystal to "look tough". No amount of re-imaging can make Obama look "tough". Bill O'Reilly and his frequent guest, reformed CBS lackey Bernie Goldberg, have shown a fundamental lack of understanding of military culture and a penchant for double-talk in their analysis of McChrystal's demise. While patronizing him as a great man out of fear of being labeled anti-military or unpatriotic, they also insist Obama had to get rid of him, even though, as I've pointed out, the general resigned.
Upon firing McKiernan, Obama trumpeted McChrystal as the right man for the job. Notwithstanding his staff's off-color (and possibly off the record) comments, McChrystal either was the right guy or he wasn't. If he was the right guy, then Barack Obama should have reprimanded him and sent him back to do his job, rather than let his own ego dictate his response to McChrystal's verbal incontinence. If he wasn't the right guy, then I vigorously question Obama's judgment for choosing him in the first place.
Although Obama cited the importance of civilian control of the military in his appointment of General Petraeus, he has twice broken his own vow to listen to his generals and is now on his third in a year-and-a-half. Civilian control of the military means oversight of the purse strings, not micromanagement of the battle space, especially by diplomats. The political objectives may belong to Obama but the tactics used to accomplish them are the bread and butter of combat soldiers and is best left to them. Should Petraeus insist on additional manpower or time, or run afoul of Karl Eikenberry and Richard Holbrooke, will he be fired or forced to resign to cover Obama's narrow little behind?
With the American military now fighting the longest war in our history, it is now time to be asking tough questions of our leadership and their ability to achieve victory. If neither McKiernan nor McChrystal were the right man for the job, then we stand to run out of generals to lead the war long before we run out of soldiers to fight it. While General Petraeus is the best choice to lead the way forward, if he's the only general we can rely on to win a war, then our military is in dire straits indeed.
We need to be asking what really precipitated the resignation of Stanley McChrystal and whether the perceptions reported in the
Rolling Stone article may indeed be true, because the political casualties among those charged with protecting this nation (Blair, McKiernan, McChrystal) are mounting. If true, then as painful as it may be, we must bring our forces home, for without strong leadership, enough time, full support and complete commitment from the top, all sorely lacking under Obama, this is a war that any general is going to have a tough time winning.
