Interesting news out of Afghanistan

[TC]

Jun 22, 2010 11:45:43 GMT -5 Boz said:

One note: are we sure that McChrystal himself reviewed and approved this article? I haven't seen that in any of the news reports I read. But I did read that McChrystal's press aid has resigned today, which makes me think maybe it's possible he's the one who reviewed and approved it.

Let me get this straight - you're suggesting McChrystal spent 10 days with this reporter for Rolling Stone - didn't bother to review the article and that all of this is on his flack?

Eric Bates, the magazine’s editor, said during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that McChrystal saw the piece prior to its publication as part of Rolling Stone’s standard fact-checking process — and that the general did not object to or dispute any of the reporting.

Asked if McChrystal pushed back on the story, Bates responded: “No, absolutely not.”

[rosslynhoya]

If you can get past the provocative headline, this is worth reading:

voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/dont_blame_mcchrystal_blame_ob.html

[Boz]

Jun 22, 2010 12:53:49 GMT -5 TC said:

Jun 22, 2010 11:45:43 GMT -5 Boz said:

One note: are we sure that McChrystal himself reviewed and approved this article? I haven't seen that in any of the news reports I read. But I did read that McChrystal's press aid has resigned today, which makes me think maybe it's possible he's the one who reviewed and approved it.

Let me get this straight - you're suggesting McChrystal spent 10 days with this reporter for Rolling Stone - didn't bother to review the article and that all of this is on his flack?

If he has a full time press aid on staff, that's exactly what I am suggesting. That would be that person's -- you know -- job.

Wait, on edit, I'm sorry.

No, I'm not saying it's all on his flack. I'm saying it's very likely that McChrystal, who we can guess doesn't really want to spend a lot of time on this stuff, assigned the job of approving this story to his aid.

It doesn't mean he bears no responsibility, but it does mean he might not have reviewed and approved everything before publication.

Now, you and I might say that's crazy, but reading the article, would it really surprise you to learn that Stanley McChrystal didn't assign a huge priority to reviewing a Rolling Stone piece?

[TC]

Jun 22, 2010 13:01:07 GMT -5 Boz said:

It doesn't mean he bears no responsibility, but it does mean he might not have reviewed and approved everything before publication.

Check the quote I highlighted - Politico is saying that he did, but then again I didn't see the Morning Joe interview directly and it's Politico and Politico is so moronic and trashy that they could turn something like "McChrystal's office reviewed it" into "McChrystal personally reviewed it". They suck hard.

This on the other hand gets into details like "did he review it directly" much better:

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/rolling-stone-editor-explains-fact-checking.php?ref=fpa

[Boz]

Fair enough. I think this is a side issue. I was just wondering about the possibility. I think it's notable in the Politico piece that the RS editor said that they ran everything by "them," not by "him." But whatever.

My revised overall opinion doesn't really change. I do think Obama might keep McChrystal on, even after this article. I think Robert Gibbs was noticeably muted in his criticism, simply echoing the comments of Gates that he made an enormous mistake.

[SFHoya99]

The problem isn't conflict within an organization. It's the public airing of it. Both sides seem pretty guilty of it, frankly.

[rosslynhoya]

Jun 22, 2010 13:44:45 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

The problem isn't conflict within an organization. It's the public airing of it. Both sides seem pretty guilty of it, frankly.

Agreed. I also think that the President would/will have a difficult time replacing McChrystal too. I can't imagine there's a deep bench that POTUS can draw up in this circumstance -- "hey, here's an extremely challenging job that your predecessor was fired from not for failing to meet admittedly unclear objectives, but because he allowed his aides to publicly mock some of the most distinguished foreign policy gurus of my administration."

Anyone who'd leap to take over for McChrystal in Afghanistan under those circumstances should be instantly eliminated from consideration for the position.

[Boz]

My favorite comment of the day, by far, from Jim Treacher:

"Perhaps the most troubling revelation is that the general’s favorite beer is Bud Light Lime. Why would you admit something like that in public? If Obama’s going to fire him, it should be for that."




BTW I retract my earlier observation about Robert Gibbs. I only saw an except from his press briefing. Apparently he went on for much longer and was much harsher, definitely raising the possibility of firing McChrystal (though not in those exact words, of course).

[hoyawatcher]

Jun 22, 2010 13:51:37 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

Jun 22, 2010 13:44:45 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

The problem isn't conflict within an organization. It's the public airing of it. Both sides seem pretty guilty of it, frankly.

Agreed. I also think that the President would/will have a difficult time replacing McChrystal too. I can't imagine there's a deep bench that POTUS can draw up in this circumstance -- "hey, here's an extremely challenging job that your predecessor was fired from not for failing to meet admittedly unclear objectives, but because he allowed his aides to publicly mock some of the most distinguished foreign policy gurus of my administration."

Anyone who'd leap to take over for McChrystal in Afghanistan under those circumstances should be instantly eliminated from consideration for the position.

I have to admit I have a bit of a viceral Geitner reaction to the idea that this General is the only one smart enough and good enough to do this job. I can understand if the Prez decides he doesn't want to go though a change while still trying to get out next July but I really don't want him to come back and say McCrystal is the ONLY one who can do this job.

[jerseyhoya34]

I agree, watcher. I am also concerned that McChrystal likely gave a pro forma vote of confidence after the CiC made the Afghanistan decision but veered off course with this Rolling Stone expose. If he didn't agree to the extent he could keep his mouth closed publicly, he should have resigned when that decision was made.

[rosslynhoya]

Jun 22, 2010 15:10:31 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

I have to admit I have a bit of a viceral Geitner reaction to the idea that this General is the only one smart enough and good enough to do this job. I can understand if the Prez decides he doesn't want to go though a change while still trying to get out next July but I really don't want him to come back and say McCrystal is the ONLY one who can do this job.

That's a great analogy IMO. The difference between McChrystal and Geithner is that I don't think it's McChrystal's capacity for the job that makes him uniquely qualified to hold his current position (although I know some people are in fact making that argument).

1. I don't think ít'll be easy to find a replacement that has both the confidence of the Biden/Holbrooke/Eikenberry bloc and simultaneously that of the rank-and-file serving in Afghanistan. As the article makes clear, McChrystal has trouble enough with that problem as it is.

2. If Obama fires/forces McChrystal out, the "optics" look terrible from a 2012 perspective (aka, the only one that matters). It looks petty and reinforces the impression that Dear Leader can't withstand any criticism or tolerate dissenting views amongst his advisors. I'd go ahead and wager that the GOP would LOVE to see McChrystal canned this week, if only they didn't care about the outcome of the GWOT. At the very least it makes a Draft Petraeus campaign that much more viable ;-)

3. If McChrystal stays on and things take a turn for the worse in Afghanistan, it will be easier to blame McChrystal, the Pentagon, the military, or just the unsolvability of Afghanistan. If Obama switches generals at this critical juncture though and something terrible happens, the balance of blame will naturally shift toward the White House. Benign neglect is probably a safer course of action than an actual sin of commission.

[Nevada Hoya]

For calling Hoya basketball alumnus Jim Jones a clown, McChrystal has to go. You might disagree with Jim on some of his policies, but a clown Jim is not.

[TC]

Jun 22, 2010 14:16:46 GMT -5 Boz said:

"Perhaps the most troubling revelation is that the general’s favorite beer is Bud Light Lime. Why would you admit something like that in public? If Obama’s going to fire him, it should be for that."

I half expect McChrystal to show up at the White House and try to ice Obama.

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/media/09adco.html?ref=business

[DFW HOYA]

The general is insubordinate. If one of his divisional commanders spoke of the senior leadership that way, McChrystal would bust the offender down to a one-star and send him packing to finish out his career at a weather station in Nome, Alaska.

This is a West Point grad and a general officer. He absolutely knows better, and he knows what should await him.

Corrected.--Admin

[Boz]

Jun 22, 2010 17:50:48 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

The general is insubordinate. If one of his divisional commanders spoke of the senior leadership that way, McChrystal would bust the offender down to a one-star and send him packing to finish out his career at a weather station in Nome, Alaska.

This is a West Point grad and a general officer. He absolutely knows better, and he knows what should await him.

See, I disagree with the first part. One thing I got out of that article was that McChrystal seems to welcome that sort of thing, at least among those who serve with or under him in uniform. The "in uniform" part being the key phrase there. He sure doesn't seem to have much respect for civilians.

But you are ultimately right. He does -- or should -- know better.

(I hesitate on the "insubordination" charge, only because I don't know enough about the UMCJ to know whether what he said rises to that charge. His staff sure seems to though.)

[SSHoya]

McChrystal is not a Marine.

Article 88 of the UCMJ:

usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-88.htm

Corrected.--Admin

[SSHoya]

www.armytimes.com/community/ask_lawyer/military_askthelawyer_070827w/

[DFW HOYA]

The general's comments about the VP certainly skirts the line of Article 88, much less his comments about Gen. Jones. To date, anyway, he has not publicly denied these comments.

In this political climate, McChrystal is not going to be prosecuted, however.

[TC]

Note : McChrystal did not make the comments about Jones, one of his aides did.

[DFW HOYA]

Jun 22, 2010 21:08:18 GMT -5 TC said:

Note : McChrystal did not make the comments about Jones, one of his aides did.

Understood--that's the problem with a story like this, he catches a lot of grief even if he was not the source of the quote.