McChrystal’s “MacArthur Moment”
This is a “MacArthur moment” for the President, except that Gen. Douglas MacArthur was both more popular and successful when he was fired by President Truman in 1951.
McChrystal has some serious ’splaining to do after all too-revealing profile of him in the upcoming edition of Rolling Stone entitled “The Runaway General.”
Except for one important factor. The U.S. is not making any real progress in Afghanistan under the Petraeus-McChrystal plan. The U.S. has deployed one of the most effective fighting forces ever to hunt the Taliban in Afghanistan. It’s winning battle after battle, but not turning the tide of the war.
There are about 100 reasons for that, the main one being that Afghanistan is a true insurgency, dare I say, like Vietnam, and it will take more troops and much more time to win, perhaps a decade or two. That’s not entirely McChrystal’s fault. He’s not the first field commander to be dealt a losing hand by his civilian overseers. (Anyone remember the previous commander, Gen. David McKiernan who begged for more troop to implement a strategy not unlike what McChrystal was called in to do?)
But the fact that the strategy is not working, that the U.S. is paying a significant price, without significant progress, will likely doom McChrystal to an ignominious end to his Army career.
We’ll see. To err is human, and to forgive divine, but neither is the policy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. McChrystal has been summoned to the White House. It’s not going to be a pleasant discussion.
Tags: Afghanistan, McChrystal, Obama
« « Afghanistan Sinking | What WAS he thinking? » »
Comments (19)
0
Jim Garamone · 155 weeks ago
Looking at history, I don't know if this is going to be a MacArthur
moment or a Patton moment. Truman fired MacArthur for essentially
challenging the commander-in-chief. Patton slapped enlisted men
suffering from battle fatigue and -- once forgiven for that -- went on
to say in a speech in England that the UK and US were going to rule the
world. MacArthur was not needed to run what had become a stalemate.
Patton was a brilliant battlefield leader who went on to command 3rd
Army across France and Germany. To my mind, this call is 50-50. I guess
we will know tomorrow.
0
Devilpup · 155 weeks ago
actually, we hit stalemate after MacArthur was fired. double check your history
0
Carl Degen · 155 weeks ago
Actually, MacArthur set the stage for the stalemete, by getting so out
of touch with reality that he refused to accept the fact that China
would intervene if UN forces crossed the 38th paralell and pushed on to
the Yalu. MacArthur should have been fired in 1942, after allowing the
bulk of his air force to be destroyed on the ground in the Phillipines
hours after the last bomb fell on Pearl Harbor!
-5
jamie · 155 weeks ago
I'm not such a big fan of Patton. Overrated. Unless you're talking about the movie. George C. Scott was great.
+2
IronV · 155 weeks ago
Patton is certainly a viable candidate for history's greatest field commander...
+1
Ptrick · 155 weeks ago
I don't see how you can even consider that....Patton was one of the
greatest Generals this country had ever seen......he had to be hard
driven to do the job at hand.
-5
Devilpup · 155 weeks ago
frankly, McChrystal should loose his job over this, he was caught
publicly criticising the president, and that goes against the Military
code of Justice. on top of that, he is an incompetent commander, and his
"strategy" is flawed beyond measure. the Army has had their chance at
running the war, i say let a Marine have a chance and we'll see how long
were there for
+3
bburn · 155 weeks ago
Why is every post you write always filled with bashing the army?
0
Done · 153 weeks ago
BY the name Devilpup I know that you are either a DEP or a BOOT.
Therefore you all ready gave away the fact that you are an Idiot. I did
my 4 and got out the Corps. So I rate to say this. You more than likely
are one of the ones that gets 1 drink in you and you want to fight the
biggest guy in the Company. I hate people like you . You are not "Hard
Asses" your just Dumb Asses. Always finding a way to ruin every one else
s good time. Shut your hole until you got some brains. Until then you
are wasting all of our time.
+4
William Normand · 155 weeks ago
politicians have never won a land war. Korea and Vietnam are exultant
examples where politics tied the hands of the American fighting man. If
you have a war let the military do what is best to achieve the
objective. If yu just want to mess around give the senators and
representatives weapons and they can face the enemy and use there BS on
then till the cow's come home. If a shot is fired see how long it takes
for then to call the military to save them.
+3
Max H · 155 weeks ago
Obama's desire to revamp every facet of US policy at once is failing
and creating a perfect storm for real change. It won't be long before
key-players in his administration see the writing on the wall and start
deserting ship...Emanuel, Hertzog, and now McChrystal are all looking
for a way out of his administration. They want to distance themselves
from the cluster ***** that is coming our way. We should thank him for
clearly defining the far-lefts radical agenda...forcing the moderates
and independents to wake up and reassert their will.
0
Rome · 155 weeks ago
We haven't won a war since WWII, politicians need to stay out of
wars....We have a military to get those jobs done..Give the military the
go ahead and stay out...yes there will be casualties, military and
civilians. But that is what war is about..Here we have a good commander
of throops...Hey should of heard what we used to say about Trickie
Dick/Nixon in Nam......Patton where are you!
A viet nam Veteran
A viet nam Veteran
0
kgrant · 155 weeks ago
I always hear we haven't won a war since WW2 but nukes have been on the
battlefield since too so leaders have to rein in their generals or else
S#$t will blow up in everyone's face. No bombing of china, can't invade
north Vietnam or else the nukes will fly.
-1
Roadblock · 155 weeks ago
McChrystal may have criticized the president, and his policy, but he
was not insubordinate. McArthur, was about to go against orders, and
either attack, or provoke China into attacking. That was the reason he
was fired. You become a great commander when your boss has the
confidence in you to voice your opinion, but can still FOLLOW your
orders if you disagree. Take it from a retired SGM. As you can see, he
still soldiers on, as ordered to do.
+1
Bill · 155 weeks ago
This was McChrystal's policy that the president was supporting, not
Obama's. The president was convinced of the strategy by McChrystal.
General Petraeus will be great for the job, even though it will be hard
for him and his family once again to put country first. The left shoe
waiting to drop is the results of the investigation into the Wanat
firefight which broke in the news only minutes ago.
0
fFedrick · 154 weeks ago
As a career soldier McCrystal should have known that his personal
opinions should have been kept to himself__I wonder what reaction would
have been if on of his commanders had been quoted as saying these
things__abuout him.fred
0
Brad McKinley · 153 weeks ago
Within the operational chain of command is different as military
commanders may end up giving direct commands to lower troops either in
passing or as a result of death of a subordinate.
The C-in-C will never be in that position. All his orders are buffered through military commanders who are respected by lower troops. Basically the C-in-C is in the legal chain of command but not operationally in battlefield command.
The C-in-C will never be in that position. All his orders are buffered through military commanders who are respected by lower troops. Basically the C-in-C is in the legal chain of command but not operationally in battlefield command.
0
Brad McKinley · 153 weeks ago
But I suspect McCrystal made no mistake. He was falling on his sword to
tell the "emperor" "you have no clothes". Someone has to occasional
tell the truth - i.e. your civilian advisers suck and should not be
advising a schoolyard game of battle ball.
0
Brad McKinley · 153 weeks ago
As far as President Obama himself goes...being elected President
requires and conffers no military knowledge or expertise. So why his
conduct of war is supposed to be beyond reproach is a fairly silly bit
of political politeness, one which is not always within the best
interests of the nation.
A President with no military experience relying almost solely on civilian military advisers without prior military experience shows strong moral confidence and unshakable principles...and quite often a lack of common sense. Even CIA operators have a limited insight into actual military operations as the primary CIA operational function has failed when war starts.
Civilian advisers should concentrate their efforts on final post-war objectives and overarching factors shaping the ROE. But they really should not be selecting the specific options leading to the actual ROE. Options best able to met objectives within overarching are best selected by military experts who understand all implications for success, collateral damages, troop and equipment losses and speed of campaign.
Unfortunately the hallmark of totally civilian formed ROE is such an extensive set of compromises that achieving the goals is so drawn out that the supposed short-term benefits of compromises is lost to long term execution. Basically a short and bloody war is often better despite the horror than a war that drags out so long that even mild weekly causalities and collateral damage mount to astronomical totals while endangering chances of any victory. But domestic politics is like modern business -- all that really matters to popular practitioners is today's or this quarter's results and not long term goals and effects.
A President with no military experience relying almost solely on civilian military advisers without prior military experience shows strong moral confidence and unshakable principles...and quite often a lack of common sense. Even CIA operators have a limited insight into actual military operations as the primary CIA operational function has failed when war starts.
Civilian advisers should concentrate their efforts on final post-war objectives and overarching factors shaping the ROE. But they really should not be selecting the specific options leading to the actual ROE. Options best able to met objectives within overarching are best selected by military experts who understand all implications for success, collateral damages, troop and equipment losses and speed of campaign.
Unfortunately the hallmark of totally civilian formed ROE is such an extensive set of compromises that achieving the goals is so drawn out that the supposed short-term benefits of compromises is lost to long term execution. Basically a short and bloody war is often better despite the horror than a war that drags out so long that even mild weekly causalities and collateral damage mount to astronomical totals while endangering chances of any victory. But domestic politics is like modern business -- all that really matters to popular practitioners is today's or this quarter's results and not long term goals and effects.
No comments:
Post a Comment