Emerson is not necessarily telling us that consistency is bad. He is more likely saying that consistency can in fact become irrational if based on the wrong factors. Do not be afraid to change course because the facts change. This, after all, is also the man who said, “Hitch your wagon to a star.” Blind reluctance in the face of great opportunity is possibly a hobgoblin; blind reluctance in the face of new facts is most certainly one.
“Ich kann nicht anders.” Martin Luther [“ I can do no other.”]
Martin Luther, it is argued, took a stand against foolish consistencies. Rules instituted by men in Christ’s Church, were placing Christians under the Law and defiling God’s Grace. Luther defied certain men in the Church in order to stand for Grace. He stood on valid principle. He was ex-communicated. The Catholic Church Reformed and rid itself and of “Indulgences,” but not before schism separated Christians into factional denominations, that continue even today.
Still, one can argue that certain, principled obstinacy is a good thing. The question of the moment is where that principled obstinacy lies. Is it a question of facts or a question of politics?
Are we being prepared for a big change. Is General Stanley McChrystal’s rising star about to become a Roman Candle? Is General McChrystal about to be unceremoniously “canned” for “bucking the Chain of Command?” Is General McChrystal acting foolishly consistent or, “Kann er nichts anders?”
Or, perhaps the better question: Is President Obama acting with foolish inconsistency?
Review: Mr. Obama and his Democrat allies in Congress cynically selected Afghanistan as their “cause celeb.” It was popular to oppose those churlish Taliban cut throats and to promote chasing down bin Laden in the draws, ravines, mountains and caves of the Afghan Mountains. It was all just a “good war - bad war” campaign ploy. Iraq after all, and the evil George Bush lied and soldiers died, etc., etc. … you know the rest. God forbid that the American public would absolutely expect Mr. Obama and the Democrats to keep their pledge to end the Taliban-Al Qaeda threat and pursue bin Laden to the ends of the earth.
Review: We were going to be out of Iraq in 16 months, recall? The “Surge” would be a miserable failure, recall? Iraq could never be stabilized, recall? Harry Reid said the war was lost, recall? Vice-President and Foreign Policy Genius, Joe Biden wanted to break up Iraq into three separate states, recall?
Now Biden and his pals in Congress suggest fighting a war of interdiction with robotics and guided missiles. Yes folks, these are the same people who bewailed civilian casualties as our troops fought bravely in Iraq with boots on the ground to take land from the bad guys and form alliance with local sheikhs to restore peace and stability.
In March, Barack Obama talked tough about our goals to pacify Afghanistan, to kill and drive out the Taliban and Al Qaeda for good. In May 2009, McChrystal was introduced glowingly by “Time Magazine.” At that time, General Stanley McChrystal was the man of the hour, the man for the job: brilliant, West Point Class of 1976, all the right experience, all the right credentials; the a man with the plan. General McChrystal was just the guy to turn things around. In June he was confirmed by Congress and given the job.
Now, nine months into his Administration, my oh my, how Mr. Obama’s rhetoric has changed. Now Mr. Obama reminds us that he never said what he said. He tries to convince us that what he says only counts in the moment that he says it. There is no accountability. Now, if Obama were a true battlefield Commander in Chief, issuing orders in a fluid situation in which he has kept pace and studied, we might applaud this inconsistency. Instead, Obama’s inconsistency displays itself not as resolution and confidence, but as vacillation and defeatism.
But is America ready for victory over evil, or just tired of war and looking for a way out? Just last week, Evan Thomas wrote an article for “Newsweek” that gave a tough portrait, unflattering to some, of this tough General. General McChrystal has dared to take on the prevailing opinions. In the absence of regular communications from his Commander in Chief, he has dared to become “too” vocal. Such a man seems to me to be just the tonic we Americans need in tough times. Yet, incredibly, the deconstruction of General Stanley McChrystal seems to me to be at hand.
On the real battlefield, not some “virtual” one, a true Commander of Troops reviews plans constantly and modifies them as the necessary to achieve the objectives as the situation changes. He does not have to stick his finger in the air to see which way the winds of public opinion and party politics are blowing. He does not concern himself with politics when soldiers’ and civilians’ lives hang in the balance.
General McChrystal has commanded and led wisely and nobly. However, he is no politician. He is about to find out the hard truth about democrat war fighters. This White House and their supporters, the timid diplomats at State, more than a few in the Pentagon, and the hypocrites and cowards in Congress led by a chorus of the usual Leftist Losers, are now on a head-hunting safari. The Left wants McChrystal gone, out, finished…. So they can slither back under that despicable state of disgrace forged by political defeat in Vietnam and the ever-evolving National self-deprecation introduced by Jimmy Carter and his Internationalist friends.
The Liberal Left’s great cause and true war against terrorism, the one in Afghanistan, is no longer a worthy objective. It has fallen into disfavor. It’s too involved, too complicated; it is becoming too bloody. Worst of all it is staring to affect Democrats’ and Mr. Obama’s poll numbers.
General McChrystal, though the public is not yet be aware, may be in transition from hero to scapegoat. General McChrystal was taken to the woodshed on Air Force One for a 25 minute “verbal boarding” session by Barack Obama. The President who could only manage 20 minutes for General McChrystal in the previous 70 days suddenly flew to Copenhagen to render a butt-chewing, only after failing to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. [Then again, perhaps Mr. Obama flew to Copenhagen to render a butt chewing and used the 2016 Olympic Selection as cover.]
Barack Hussein Obama, for all his rhetoric to the contrary, neither practices bi-partisanship nor does tolerate dissent. I can all but guarantee you that General McChrystal has received instructions to shut up and sit down and do what the President tells him to do when the President tells him to do it. Have we seen this before? Can you say LBJ? I think the Obama Administration, with all of their “military expertise” and experience may have “mis-underestimated” General McChrystal.
In 1951, President Truman fired General MacArthur, Commander of Troops in Korea for insubordination. Historians still rightfully debate that issue in the larger geopolitical sense. Was General MacArthur in the wrong to go around Truman? General MacArthur had made remarks out of hand regarding policies and courses of action and answer provocations by the Red Chinese. Was Truman wrong to ignore the larger implications or the signals his relief sent to our battlefield enemies and our subsequent failure to obtain victory in Korea? A 56 year old Armistice signed in July 1953 tells that tale. The North Koreans unilaterally withdrew from the terms of that Armistice on May 27, 2009. The state of belligerency, that never really left, has returned.
Now back to the question of General Stanley McChrystal. Is Barack Obama man enough to take it straight from his generals on the ground and do the right thing? Or, are we in for another “MacArthur Moment?”
Consider the following:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. … Speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon-balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today.” Ralph Waldo Emerson