Jules Crittenden calls it “Chaos-istan.” He’s talking about the Obama v. McChrystal fight being waged on the airwaves and on the Potomac:
Theoretically Obama must be PO’d at Petraeus, too, because he essentially, if more diplomatically, said the same thing a couple of weeks earlier.
The big question now is whether this is going to be about Obama’s ego, or about winning in Afghanistan. If any general is ill-advised to shoot his mouth off, this business may also teach the administration something about blowing off generals at (unnecessarily extended) criticial moments and insisting that political parameters trump military ones in wartime.
And Ed Morrissey backs the General:
McChrystal didn’t act insubordinately by speaking his mind. This is not even close to the situation which forced Harry Truman to cashier Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War, when MacArthur dared to publicly challenge Truman’s authority and judgment. McChrystal may have acted in an impolitic manner, but at this point, I doubt McChrystal cares much for political niceties. He has waited weeks for an answer to his analysis and request for more troops and resources, and he’s apparently not worried about being honest about his assessment in public.
If Obama wants a counterinsurgency campaign, that’s his decision. But he’d best listen to the generals, when they advise him about how to wage the war of his choice.
“What is really interesting about this whole affair is the reversal of elite opinion. When leaks indicated that the some of the uniformed military were critical of the conduct of the Iraq war under George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, those critics were seen as necessarily speaking truth to power. David Ignatius of the Washington Post argued that the military needed a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who would “push back” against Rumsfeld and the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq. The always entertaining Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wondered why Bush refused to take advice from his much more experienced and clear-headed uniformed officers. And one genius at the Huffington Post even called upon the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to “relieve” Bush as commander in chief for dereliction of duty. Only Bush hatred could get the lefty blogosphere to call for a military coup.” -Mackubin Thomas Owens
Dear Liar spend more time lobbying for the Olympics than meeting with the general in charge of Afghanistan?
To me, that is dereliction of duty.
Of course, the Left is spinning this as the military is trying to take control and force Obama’s hand. I was handed that one at a party Saturday night. Just about choked on my scotch.
There are no depths to which they won’t stoop.
I think this general is speaking his mind in a political climate under which the President isn’t controlling him from speaking his mind. He’s lobbying for something, the President is lobbying for something else, and that parts of this are being done publicly isn’t the end of the world by any measure. My guess is that Obama isn’t having a hissy fit over a general venting, since it can allow for the soldiers actually there to know that their leaders, political and military, are listening to them. If the general wasn’t saying anything, I’d be worried that Obama isn’t letting him talk. If the general was saying too much, it would also be bad and suggest that the President isn’t in control. Pretty much anything in between may look a bit chaotic, but it’s probably the best course for morale, making changes in the policy, and getting toward the right one.
I have no faith in the outcome being good, but I think the outcome can be less bad using these deliberatively obtuse meandering means toward coming up with a decent Afghanistan/Pakistan policy. Still won’t happen since there’s no way to have a good policy that can please everyone, but it’s better to be the commander of a mess than to choose the wrong clear position. In other words: what a mess.
The point of a good policy isn’t to please everyone. It is to get the job done as effectively and efficaciously as possible, given the circumstances. Any other consideration is a waste of resources, and guaranteed to lead to horrifying unintended consequences. Not that there won’t be a lot of waste and unintended consequences anyway, but if we keep our eye on the ball, there’s a much higher likelihood of getting the results we want, at reduced cost.
The problem is that the results we want (at a reduced cost or not) are impossible. The Taliban, who are popular enough in that region, won. They are less corrupt than Karzai has proven to be (his election makes Iran’s presidential re-election look like Reagan ’84 in comparison,) are the only group that can control enough of Afghanistan to call it a country, and are also evil sphincter nutjobs. Geo-politically, they aren’t such a big deal as long as Pakistan is stable (it isn’t,) but again: what are we gonna do? with what troops? according to what deadline?
Our continued presence in the region is guaranteed, but the mission isn’t. My guess is still that Al Qaeda isn’t a huge presence, our presence in the region is counter-productive, and the place is a backwards outhouse of mountainous slopes and most of the people live in valleys. Militarily we’re doing our best to not inflame Pakistan, which is where the problem hides out. It’s a losing strategy, but only militarily. Politically, it’s for the best that we do so but we don’t want Pakistan to become the home of a Pol Pot in a turban. Again: what a mess.
Jon, you left out one very important consideration: the Taliban provided al Qaeda with a safe haven from which to plan and carry out 9/11.
There’s no statute of limitations on that kind of thing.
The question is: will they make that mistake again, or leave it to some unnamed people in Pakistan?
McGeehee,
The Taliban gave Osama a room at their inn, so to speak. That’s undeniable. But the 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Canada and in the United States, if the revealed information is to be believed. I’m not sure of our Great Lakes ship numbers, but I’m not in a rush to have 1812 Part Two. Celine Dion and Glass Tiger may still deserve to die, but I hope no one targets The Kids in the Hall. We’ve decimated enough of Germany and the US to give them a pass.
So what you’re saying is that we and Canada need to get tougher on immigration? Can’t argue with that.
I agree with you on that. A sane immigration policy here in the US would help alleviate many of our problems with illegal immigration in much the same way a sane drug policy would alleviate many of our problems associated with drug prohibition. There isn’t much we can do to make Canada take things more seriously other than to share intelligence and not torture people (which makes sharing intelligence more likely, since some countries have governments that might actually prosecute human rights abuses.) But Canada is taking things seriously (they got a similar intelligence wake-up call after 9/11, since they were able to put 2 and 2 together as well as we could, after the damage was done.)