The American Spectator : Pundit Class, Not McChrystal, Exercised 'Bad Judgment'

Text Size

Another Perspective

Pundit Class, Not McChrystal, Exercised ‘Bad Judgment’

By John R. Guardiano on 6.25.10 @ 6:07AM

Civilian control of the military was never the issue.

President Obama agrees with me: General McChrystal is not guilty of insubordination. “Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully” [emphasis added], Obama said Wednesday.

But what about “bad judgment”? Were General McChrystal and his staff guilty of saying and doing things that, although technically permissible, nonetheless reflected poorly upon them and the U.S. military?

I don’t think so. It seems to me that the political and pundit class have overreacted to remarks that are rather tame and innocuous.

Yes, I said tame and innocuous. We keep hearing about the general’s “reprehensible” and “inappropriate” comments. But what, exactly, did the general say that is “reprehensible” and “inappropriate”? Can anyone really cite a specific incriminating remark? I don’t think so.

Here, for instance, is what McChrystal said about Obama:

“I found that time [meeting with Obama for the first time last fall] painful. I was selling an unsellable position.”

And here’s what he said, with a laugh, about Vice President Biden: “Are you asking about Vice President Biden? Who’s that?”

And so it goes, with McChrystal expressing mild disappointment in his civilian superiors. Big deal. Yet, everyone just blithely assumes that McChrystal was “out of line.” No, he wasn’t.

Sure, the general’s aides were more blunt in their criticism: “Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: ‘Bite me’?”

But given the context of that comment — what was said, when it was said, and how it was said (in a casual conversation filled with good cheer, mirth and joking, light-hearted banter) — the comment clearly is not contemptuous of the civilian leadership. To the contrary: as Peter Worthington points out in “An Unnecessary Firing” at FrumForum:

The unidentified quotes in the Rolling Stone article that were snarky about many of the people around Obama, and on whom Obama depends, were not by McChrystal, and had the flavor of a bunch of guys sounding off over a beer.

They were the sort of cracks about management that happen in every office.

Let me suggest an alternate hypothesis: It is not General McChrystal and his aides who exercised “bad judgment,” but rather the political and pundit class. They’re too thin-skinned; they don’t appreciate the importance of public dialogue and debate; and they adhere to stereotypical notions of military subordination and command and control.

I say stereotypical because to listen to some of the pundits, you’d think that the only good military man is a stupid military man — one who doesn’t think, cogitate and reflect, or who does so only “privately.” But in a free and open society, thinking and analysis aren’t done in solitude. They’re done in the public square and through the media, in the public prints.

That’s because the media and the public prints allow for the type of vigorous dialogue and debate that make our collective efforts better and stronger.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

John R. Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @ResCon1.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (137) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Ret. Marine| 6.25.10 @ 6:45AM

Your last statement is profoundly true, "would that be good for America" And no would be this old devil dogs sentiment. If we had some competence running the Civilain leadership this issue would not have come into question, not by you, the pundit class or any normal thinking person willing to see what was written between the lines, the actual statement (s) coming from the good General. It was never the issue in the first place. The fact of the matter continues to be one of " lack of confidence in the CinC", there is none that I am aware of, at least at this moment in time, nor do I ever believe there will be in the foreseeable future not because of the supposed comments the General, rather because We the People do not have any, nor should we for a person who's records have been shut-out of the process of informed decisions. What We see is what We got, shameful to say the least. I am mindful and thankful for the fact that not everyone will operate on the same page at any given moment. This call made by the pretender-n-theif, the one pretending to be our president while at the same time theiving the American experience out from under any hopeful prospects for this American dream, will futher erode the "trust" needed to resolve even the tinyest of anything having to do with the leadership. There is no trust. With over half of this country devoid of any resemblence of, truth, trust or confidence in the leaders, unaware of the consequences of no confidence will futher erode with every passing day.
The bad judgement express through the media outlets daily is something to behold and at the same time without the trust in the media, still required of a free peoples, there will be no confidence building that can overcome the negative inviroment that has become this regime. The presidency has reached a critical mass at this point, he can no futher continue in his distructive manners or rebuild any confidence in We the People than he can change his colors. That, alone, is rather a sad commentary for the "won" who promised things would change when he became our President, he might be yours, but, I voted for the American. This mightmare must come to an end soon, or there will be more of these commentaries with negative intentions and consequences for this Nation. And YES We the People do deserve better.

Purpleguy| 6.25.10 @ 12:18PM

You really should use more white space if you want your message read. Have a nice day!

Fred Garvin| 6.26.10 @ 8:26AM

Purpleguy - you are a cluess idiot!!!! It;s the comment not the format you fool.

Dan| 6.25.10 @ 5:39PM

Where were you for the last 8 years. We had an election your guy lost. That does not make the winner non American.
"We" have confidence, we are still in a hole caused by a war plan that was at best ill conceived, unbelievably poorly executed that has resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 men and women.
You may have lost your ability to respect the office, let alone the man, but I doubt you ever did.
While you may have been a marine, we'll never know. You show a marked lack of respect for the institution.

Ret. Marine| 6.26.10 @ 6:15AM

It is because of "respect" for the institution that I write these comments. If there were "real men" of God running this country we would not see, hear or read these remarks. You sir have lost sight between the differences of "right vrs. wrong"
The pretender's job is to enforce the laws governing this Nation, he has proven, way too long of a list to write here, that he is incapable of following the rules of our laws. I do not consider this fraud to be a leader, let alone claiming to lead, in fact he is ushering in the times of turmoil, and he alone is responsible for this lack of trust between his party ( see demonrats) and the electorate. I have always been a principled indidual, not a socialist drone. Chew on that for a while and maybe, just maybe you might want to think where you will be when the sheet hits the fan, and it is coming, mark my word on it. I do not consider a person who remains unknown to this Country and it's laws as a legitimate leader, let alone a so-called duly elected president, it is percisely because I took an "oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", I did not swear to defend a traitor or his party over the American Flag, that I have borne no faith or allegience to this terrorist-n-theif of anything American that I write these words, and besides it got you thinking about the whole picture didn't it, moron. Get back to me and the others when you decide who's side you want to be on when, is it America's of the liar-n-cheif, his minions, associates of evilness and the whole picture he represents to us Patriots.

UpChuck.Liberals| 6.26.10 @ 11:42PM

percisely because I took an "oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I know that I remember my oath, I'm sincerely hoping that everyone who has served remembers that we were never absolved of that oath. This is something that socialists will never understand.

bluecollarbytes| 6.25.10 @ 7:42AM

I kept looking for the "challenging of civilian control of the military" that PopMedia kept referring to and never found it either. At worst the general and his staff were lax in allowing a career-seeking reporter to record their verbal exchanges and the backroom letting off of steam that is required during Obamagenda. The reporter saw the 'signs' but hasn't a clue what they mean.

I believe Obama was most offended by the signs of disrespect, because obviously these officers do obey civilian control. But I expect More out of military leadership than a simple silent adherence to just whatever strikes Obama's fancy. I expect American military leadership to let it be known when they believe a strategy is not working, or if a president refuses to allot the number of troops needed to fulfill the mission.

Maybe there were better ways to force a reckoning of Obama's confused unfocused policies. maybe not

Tyler S| 6.25.10 @ 11:49AM

The military's own rules, not to mention the principles enshrined in the constitution that the military is absolutely subordinate to the civilian authority, stand diametrically opposed to everything you're saying. If a general disagrees with the path the country is on, there are mechanisms for him to make his displeasure known. Trash talking in Rolling Stone is NOT part of that procedure. As for your inability to see the "undermining of civilian authority," in what way is criticizing the civilian leaders of the country as unprepared and wrong to the national media not undermining their leadership? Bush sacked generals for much the same reason, as did Truman FDR, and Lincoln. For upholders of the constitution who seem to heavily favor bright-line rules, the readers of this particular noxious rag never seem to0 hesitate to wipe their asses with the constitution whenever upholding it would make them do something uncomfortable like admit that Obama's actions were entirely appropriate. How can we take your support of the constitution seriously when its so selective?

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 12:54PM

. . . Said the cog in the great marxist Machine, known to his friends as Useful Idiot # 11,438,399.

There are three kinds of liberals in 2010 America:

Fools (True believers in spite of all evidence to the contrary);
Crooks (Those who exploit the fools and rape the taxpayer);
Beneficiaries (also known as "pawns," they are the beneficiaries of the money stolen from government).

Which are you, Useful Idiot # 11,438,399?

My guess: Fool.

How's the weather over at the Huffington Post? Still cloudy with a 100% chance of idiocy?

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 12:55PM

Excuse me - with respect to "beneficiaries," I meant government money stolen from the aforementioned taxpayer; government has no money it does not confiscate.

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 4:21PM

Well ... I guess of the three options you've given me, 3 would be the closest. Still, that's not really a response to what I was saying, its an insult. What's wrong? Nothing on topic to say? Engage me in debate rather than just calling me names (not saying you can't call me names, I'm certainly gonna call you some, ass-hat, just that I wan't something substantial and on topic with it) and we'll see whose beliefs are better rooted in fact.

Purpleguy| 6.25.10 @ 12:23PM

It's not insubordination, which "challenging control" would be... It's contempt for your superiors, which is a Court Martial offense in the UCMJ - and not just the President, but VP, Secretaries of Defense, Armed Forces, and Transportation. All State Governors, the entire Congress and all State Legislatures. Cracking jokes and making snide remarks of a superior is a violation of the UCMJ and the higher your rank, the more troubling it is for the violator. McChrystal will be lucky to not be Court Martialed, along with his coterie.

They can spin all they like, but President Obama did what a President should do and everyone knows it... especially in a time of WAR! His behavior could not be tolerated. Period.

Tim*| 6.25.10 @ 3:03PM

"Now it can be told," elaborates Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic "The story about [McChrystal] voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really."

Yes, really. The revealing Rolling Stone profile also tells us that the general "banned alcohol on base [and] kicked out Burger King and other symbols of American excess."

Purpleguy| 6.25.10 @ 3:46PM

Who cares about Marc Ambinder? Stay on point ... try to stay focused on the discussion at hand ...

Tim*| 6.25.10 @ 4:17PM

Whaa da matta ObamaBoy Mouth , can't address the fact that Presidente For Life Obooboo fired your Fellow ObamaBoy ?

AmericaFirst| 6.25.10 @ 5:52PM

I was proud to serve in the United States Air Force under a real America Ronald Reagan. I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States not the UCMJ or to Fuhrer impostor Obama. We should be firing Obamanation not the General

RacerJim| 6.26.10 @ 12:43PM

Be careful what you wish for, "Purpleguy", you may not like the result.

If Obama directs the DOD to Courts Martial General McChrystal, then during the prelimary (evidence disclosure/discovery) hearing General McChrystal would be able to demand proof that Obama is eligible to serve as POTUS.

John Chifley of Oz| 6.25.10 @ 8:26AM

If we ask these men and women to kill and die for us - we can surely take the occasional spray. I agree - a vast over reaction

Anthony| 6.25.10 @ 8:42AM

Forget the deplorable MSM, they are beyond salvation.
The person who truly over-reacted here was Obama. Yes, our thin-skinned, least qualified president, could not take these tame comments in stride. Why? because he & his goons know they are weak, dangerous to this country, and governing against the will of the people.
Like most authoritarians, Obama cannot tolerate dissent. He sees it as a personal affront to his grandiose image of himself.
To hell with the war and our soldiers, Obama's ego must be protected. His power unchallenged.
If Bush had done this, the media spin would be 180 degrees different. McChrystal would be the brave clarion warning, and Bush, the cowboy spoiled brat, frat boy, who cares more about himself than the war.
America had better wake the hell up in November.

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 12:01PM

People on this site are crazy. You have created this crazy world for yourselves where everyone agrees with you yet is somehow out to get you at the same time. Where the opposition is weak willed and stupid, yet seems to confound and defeat your strong, noble intentions at every turn.
Its a pretty impressive feat of mental gymnastics, but utter dreck.

Oh, and Bush DID take similar action with some admiral and, apart from members of your extreme liberal loony bin counterparts, there was very little uproar BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION. Generals do not get to lead this country's war efforts. Civilian control of the military is one of the cornerstones of our constitutional government, and probably one of the primary reasons the US has never faced a coup attempt. As soon as generals start getting uppity and confrontational with the civilian leadership, we shit-can them. Happened to McArthur under Truman, that Admiral under Bush, generals under FDR and Lincoln, and will happen to any other general stupid enough to openly criticize the civilian leadership of either party.

carnot| 6.26.10 @ 8:52PM

oh pls. you abstract from context. most of the vituperation is payback: Murtha, Pelosi, Obama. Biden, Reid, et al, spent the two years leading up to the last election doing everything possible to undermine the sitting President and the military. Who are you kidding? Some of the most atrocious, offensive, borderline traitorous things I have ever heard were uttered during this period by these people.

no doubt, you sternly protested that excess.

oh....the issue isn't about civilian "control" of the military....that was never in play. this is all about the politics of publicizing demeaning comments. which, oh btw, haven't been examined for what WASN'T said......probably much to Mr Hastings frustration. we all know what he really would like to have reported.

I knew McC had to go: for the integrity of the military. anyone who has ever been on any senior staff knows that if you embarrass the boss publicly..you are history. Gen McC embarrassed his chain and the CiC. Can't have two sets of rules.

arlo price| 6.25.10 @ 8:45AM

The obamagedon PIMP thugocracy chugs along......

Even the naivete' of the 'conservatives' is sometimes boundless!!! Petraeus is being set up like Theodore Cleaver buying his first used car at Jake the Snakes "Garden of the Gears" (Yeah, Eddie Haskell is 'helping' the Beav!!!)

Jake: "This is a really nice car only driven 3 blocks to church on Sunday's by l'il ol' lady Simpson"

Eddie: "Go on Beav.....buy the car. I know Ms. Simpson and she took real good care of this car...Look at the shiny paint and hubcaps, and those round, black tires sure look nice. Go on Beav... Buy the car......"

Beav: "Uhh.....I dun'no Eddie, dad said to wait for Wally to look at it........Oh O K, Here's the $2500 Mr. Jake...."

Halfway home the overpriced beater brakes down, as Eddie & the Beav are walking to the Cleaver's who should stop to give them a ride?.....None other than ol' Ms. Simpson in her trusty ol' car!!!!

Yes Petraeus is smarter than the Beav.....Let's just say Mc Crystal was "Inspector Harry Callahan" with a cap gun (30,000 troops instead of 50,000, a withdrawal timeline, restrictive rules of engagement, lame stream press etc.).

Jake was played by the usurper-in-chief, Eddie Haskell was portrayed by rahm 'deadfish' emanuel and Petraeus as the Beaver.

Petraeus went to Capitol Hill and took the best shots that the spll / jihadist traitor dhimocrapts had and he made them eat their words. Do you honestly think that they forgave and forgot???

Petraeus is now in a no win situation. He will be skewered. Our troops hands will be further tied by panty-waist traitor RoE's which will result in way more U S Armed Forces casualties which the lame stream press will start ballyhooing is Petraeus' fault at a time that is most beneficial to the administration, likely the negative press will start in the late spring of 2011, in early 2012 Petraeus will be replaced. The spll / jihadist traitor dhimocrapts kill 2 birds with 1 stone by setting Petraeus up and knocking him down, they further demoralize the military and they eliminate a potential future G O O P politician.

As a side note, why was the military delayed from entering Port Au Prince after the earthquake and, being that the military was best equipted to handle the situation, why was it not given the lead role as it was proven in the 2005 Pakistan quake and the Christmas tsunami (numerous other examples abound) that the military was best at relief operations? Additionally, how is it that in 1974, at the height of the cold war, the U S can muster the resources to pluck a sunken Soviet sub off the ocean floor at a depth of 16,500 feet in an effort to acquire Soviet military/nuclear secrets, but the PIMP can't/won't come with the resources to plug a hole in the ocean floor in water that is only 1/3 as deep??? 35 years and oceanic exploration technology is digressing?

barry the usurper lies about everything else, do you really think that he gives a tinkers dam about our sons and daughters in harms way? They are merely 'human capital' to be used for the pimps benefit to further his political agenda.

The obamagedon PIMP thugocracy has made no secret that it wants a civilian force more numerous and better equipted than the military. In order to kill the dragon you must chop off it's head. The head of the REAL U S military is it's warrior generals.

The PIMP "did what he had to do" to promote his political agenda as any politician would do; a STATESMAN would have never hand-cuffed his generals in the first place!

WTFU America!!! This is past pathetic, way past insanity and is now rapidly approaching national suicide.

Hopefully, the generals have a plan for dealing with the current insurgency in the Distrct of Corruption. As for me.... I'm bored with this bloodless coup.........LET'S ROLL

UpChuck.Liberals| 6.26.10 @ 11:59PM

"Hopefully, the generals have a plan for dealing with the current insurgency in the Distrct of Corruption." Oilbummer hasn't blatantly destroyed the Constitution....yet. So any plans on the part of the military would be treason. That said, like you I took the same oath you did as did millions of us. There's a reason gun sales are up through the roof. Oilbummer can have his fancy boys marching around, they won't last long, thugs never do.

LQQKY| 6.25.10 @ 9:47AM

I seriously doubt that General McChrystal ever heard of Rolling Stone; much less having read or granted an interview to such a rag!

Old Joe| 6.25.10 @ 10:00AM

I for one, am very glad that McChrystal is gone and I think that his departure will greatly improve our chances of winning in Afghanistan. Here’s why I feel this way:
• McChrystal openly admits that he voted for Obama. I know rednecks and Cajuns from south Louisiana with 10th grade educations that were educated enough and smart enough to figure out Obama was a commie more than two years ago. He voted for a community organizer over a war hero. He has no loyalty to fellow warriors. McCain is a social liberal but at least he is an ex-military social liberal.
• McChrystal was stupid enough to allow the Rolling Stone reporter into his inner sanctum. Is he so stupid or ill-informed that he doesn’t know that Rolling Stone is a liberal, military hating magazine? My God, he invited the fox into the hen house.
• McChrystal failed to tell his staff to guard every comment that they make to the reporter. Doesn’t he and his stupid staff understand that loose lips sink ships and general’s careers? Did they share battle plans too? Will those battle plans be in the next issue of Rolling Stone?
• McChrystal is an avowed social liberal. He has banned Fox news from the TVs in his headquarters. He didn’t want fair and balanced, he wanted MSM socialism 24/7. McChrystal likes the direction Barry O is taking America.
• McChrystal was hand-picked for the job by Barry O. Barry O doesn’t care about victory so McChrystal was picked for his Socialism beliefs. McChrystal should have offered his resignation in protest when Obama only gave him 2/3 the troops he requested. He didn’t because he was more interested in making Obama successful than he was in victory.

I feel this was a victory for America. We are rid of a socialist general who was more interested in Barry O’s success than in victory. Barry O has had to fire his had picked general and make the very embarrassing move of asking Bush’s general to pull his cookies out of the fire. I would bet Barry had to guarantee Petraeus that he would get whatever he wants for victory. This is a win-win for America.

Ole Sarge| 6.25.10 @ 11:00AM

Shacked! Direct hit, I repeat, Direct hit!

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 12:13PM

Okay, dumbo, listen carefully, YOU CANNOT POLITICIZE THE MILITARY. I can hardly believe anyone would be so unbelievably stupid as to judge a general based on his social politics. Indeed, one of McChrystal's worst sins in this whole mess was letting out who he voted for. The military is not a civilian institution (seems incredibly obvious but apparently some need reminding). This is a disparate group of individuals from many walks of life who's success and very lives depend on their ability to set personal differences aside and work together as a cohesive, individual unit. That's one thing I've always admired greatly about Petraeus (one of many things, actually, the guy seems on course to go down as the greatest military mind of our era), he never lets his personal politics affect his actions in any situation. You wanna have a discussion about the appropriateness of Obama's reaction to the situation, fine. I think he was acting well within reason, not to mention the rules of the military, but I guess there's room for disagreement on that front. Where I will draw the line, however, is ever judging a military leader based on something as completely irrelevant as his personal politics. You're beyond stupid, you're a danger to the constitutional relationship between the military and political government of this country, which has been central to this country's success since its birth.

LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 1:26PM

If you really want somebody to "listen carefully" to what you say maybe you should try to forgo the name calling in the first sentence.

"Where I will draw the line, however, is ever judging a military leader based on something as completely irrelevant as his personal politics. "

It's obvious you have never served. Personal politics is another way of saying beliefs and values which are fair game.

"...one of McChrystal's worst sins in this whole mess was letting out who he voted for."

Really? That's the biggest mistake he made eh? I think exactly the opposite. It didn't make any difference except in your mind.

Calling people "beyond stupid" and a "danger" over their opinion is laughable. He's a danger? Really?

Please expand on your view of the, "...constitutional relationship between the military and political government of this country..."

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 3:32PM

Last thing first, the constitution makes the President the commander in chief of the armed forces. I don't know if you were expecting something else, I'm sure you're aware of this provision. It's impact is profound, however. We did not make a political government which can only control the military by enforcing rules and overarching directives, we made the civilian head of state the direct commander of the armed forces. As such, he is due all respect and authority that the UCMJ require that any subordinate show their commander. On any decision regarding any military order, his decision is final.

Such insubordination as shown by McChrystal would never be acceptable within the ranks, why would it ever become so when it is the supreme commander to whom you are being insubordinate? Surely, none here would argue that in war it is imperative that the chain of command be respected, lives are at stake. While you can brush off McChrystal's remarks as largely inane, they nonetheless undermined the authority of the CIC and showed disrespect a superior. How do you think it'll affect troop morale to hear one of your superiors publicly critical of the CIC?

As for judging a soldier based on their personal beliefs, you really don't think that the only metric by which we should judge our fighting men and women is by the valor and effectiveness they show on the battlefield? I mean, really? So if Patton were pro gay marriage, you'd judge him poorly as a soldier for it (Sorry if I err in assuming you're against gay marriage), regardless of his ability to successfully motivate and lead his men? That's pretty shitty.

As for name calling, c'mon, I love sparring with people I disagree with, and one thing I love about this rag is that no one minces words on these comment boards. I've been called far worse here on numerous occasions and none of y'all objected to name calling then. Get over it, crap-for-brains.

LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 3:53PM

I'll answer your questions since you replied to mine.

How do you think it'll affect troop morale to hear one of your superiors publicly critical of the CIC?
No effect. Happens all the time.

As for judging a soldier based on their personal beliefs, you really don't think that the only metric by which we should judge our fighting men and women is by the valor and effectiveness they show on the battlefield?
Doesn't matter what I think. In reality those who are doing the "judging" and deciding who gets the next star on their shoulder take more that their "effectiveness" into account.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 1:38PM

Ah, yes, the littlebrain speaks: You cannot politicize the military.

Show me any military, anywhere, that hasn't been inextricably intertwined with politics. Or as Clausewitz put it so aptly, "war is the continuation of politics by other means."

And exactly what do you think "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was when Clinton made it his first misstep out of the gate in 1992?

And what do you think the current brouhaha over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" represents now?

Hint: It ain't about winning wars.

It's about P.O.L.I.T.I.C.S.

Tyles S.| 6.25.10 @ 3:47PM

I was speaking to the metrics by which we judge our fighting men and women, I would not argue that politics can never affect the military. My wording could have been more clear.

Politics is not an acronym, buddy.

LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 5:08PM

He was spelling it out for you. Probably figured you were spelling challenged, Tyles.

carnot| 6.26.10 @ 9:02PM

again...what planet are you living on?

you don't think repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is politicizing the military?

you don't think the dozen and one times Democrats have fought counting absentee votes is implicitly politicizing the military?

you don't thing every GD red/yellow/green light sermon every service person has had to sit through for decades isn't politicizing the military?

you don't think every time Obama stands in front of a military audience (more often than Bush - just like his golfing) or delivering a speech at West Point isn't politicizing the military?

yup. this administration would never for a moment even dream of politicizing the military. after all, it's an institution they all served in at one time or another and their core intellectual and emotional dispositions all fall squarely with the military. (you know 1/2 half of the evil complex).

Donna| 6.26.10 @ 9:18AM

Old Joe, you nailed it perfectly. You echo my thoughts entirely. Even though this story broke prior to the release of the RS Mag on newsstands - we who read counter balanced information didn’t have a clue what was so explosive in this article and wondering all along what’s the big deal. Without that information, one could only conclude hubris by this high ranked officer is how this happened. It could only be poor leadership (not judgment) and thus your conclusion that this is a win-win for American is soundly deduced.

Ted| 6.25.10 @ 10:02AM

Although I generally like McChrystal's military leadership, he was a damn fool for letting a reporter get that close to his command group. If in fact he did vote for the President, that's another tick against his judgment in my book.

On the other hand, the fact that he, as a LTG, went out on combat patrols with his men (and ended up in at least one firefight) says something good about him, too. Although if I were his deputy I'd have advised him against doing it, since he was at the time an LTG, not a BN commander.

Seems like old Stan is like the rest of us... A mixture of great, good, neutral, bad, and ugly... With some smart and stupid thrown in, too.

Old Joe| 6.25.10 @ 10:04AM

Sorry for the technological problem that posted my comment so many times. I did not mean to do that. One set of my rant is plenty.

erp| 6.25.10 @ 10:24AM

Did Barry dis the general by referring to him as Stan?

What a mean spirited little punk is our president. My take, McChrystal fell on his sword deliberately to get everyone's attention that his soldiers are being killed because the CiC isn't giving him what needs and has send moron second guessing sycophants (Holbrooke et al.) to micro-manage and to report back to him.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 10:32AM

McChrystal lost me the minute I learned he voted for Obama.

Every single person in this country who voted for this piece of shit is guilty of treason.

John II| 6.25.10 @ 12:05PM

Well, we all have our learning curves, Grzzy. I've heard that McChrystal is a straight-up lib in every respect except his love for his country. There's quite a bit of such sentiment in the military--after all, the life of the lifers is basically socialistic. Go figure.

At least we can reasonably expect that the General won't be voting for the Professor in 2012--or for anything like the Professor thereafter unto the General's permanent retirement to the Great Bivouac in the sky.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 2:32PM

Yes, John II, it breaks my heart to think some of our military are libs - seems to me to be irreconcilable with the values our military supposedly stands for.

I figure if he granted access to Rolling Stone, he is indeed a lib - and a bit of a loose cannon, to boot. I hear Petraeus has already changed the rule of engagement. If those were handed down from McChrystal, he's got American blood on his hands.

We can hope that McChrystal has been slapped awake by reality. Would that it would happen to all liberals. If that had happened 20 years ago, Obama would be second assistant night-shift manager at a McDonald's somewhere in Dearborn, Michigan, a job commensurate with his abilities.

carnot| 6.26.10 @ 9:06PM

cmon now. I can guarantee that the overwhelming % of officers are Republican, conservative or independent. very, very few Liberals.

can't speak for the enlisted though the same pattern prevails among the more senior enlisted.

jd| 6.25.10 @ 10:47AM

I cannot imagine why ANY military member would have voted for Omumbojumbo in the first place.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 10:54AM

Perhaps McChrystal's a proponent of the "new army," in which an enemy is just a friend we haven't accommodated yet, and where we go forth into battle armed with hugs, not bullets.

And if you must kill the enemy, kill him with kindness.

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 12:16PM

That's because you're stupid and narrow sighted. People can and do disagree with what you believe. In fact, I would bet a great many people disagree with you. Probably not as many as disagree with me, being, as I am, on the incredibly extreme liberal fringe (unlike the president, I could fairly be described as a socialist), but at least I'm not dumb enough to think everyone must believe as I believe.

LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 1:30PM

"...but at least I'm not dumb enough to think everyone must believe as I believe. "

Right, but if they don't then, "That's because you're stupid and narrow sighted."

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 3:50PM

Wow, that's not even close to an in context quote. He's stupid and narrow sighted for being unable to believe anyone in the military would disagree with him, not because he disagrees with me.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 2:37PM

Your comment here not only exposes the absolute vacuity of liberal thinking, but is fundamentally dishonest (but I repeat myself).

Hate to break it to you, but just because most of your squishy fellow metrosexual demographic think exactly like you do doesn't make you right.

And everybody who holds an opinion about somehting by definition thinks he's right and others are wrong - that's why he holds the opinion. I know, socialists HATE to be so Neanderthal as to think they suffer from a sense of primacy, but of course it is your very hubristic elitism that drives the phony "social justice" agenda in the first place.

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 4:06PM

Know how compromise and debate are things that people do? They don't work without acknowledging that ideas other than your own exist and that just because you believe something doesn't make it automatically correct. Unless you're already in possession of all information that exists (I hope you don't believe you're omniscient), you have to be open to the possibility that someone else is in possession of ideas and information which would require you to reevaluate your own beliefs. To fail to acknowledge the existence and potential validity of opposing view points renders one wooden and unable to react effectively to new and changing circumstances. I'm guessing you think I was spawned as a liberal brainwashee in some NY baby factory by a nice gay satanic couple? I was raised and continue to reside in the Midwest, and I once considered myself to be a conservative individual (though I would never have passed a conservative litmus test today). Over the course of my life, I have learned things which have caused my to reevaluate almost every position I once held, and I stand ready to do so again.

Nick| 6.25.10 @ 6:32PM

Tyler S.,

"Over the course of my life, I have learned things [...]."

Is this a circumlocution for enjoying some kind of perverted sex act and being unwilling to denounce it as perversion?

I only ask because I find that most, if not all, bleeding hearts are liberal only because they suffer from being a slave to some type of sinful behavior.

The majority of these sinful acts violate the Commandment against adultery in some form. The others involve stealing (tax the rich,) sloth (welfare,) or lying (lawyers/politicians.)

In order not to be hypocritical, they reluctantly find a group that supports their sinfulness, and in return will support whatever sick and depraved actions they favor.

The adulterer will accept, at first, the homo. Then they will openly support them. Think The Swimmer Kennedy. The pro-abortionist will ally themselves with the union thug. The dope smoker will join hands with the Che lover. The tree-huggers will break bread with the euthanasia supporters. And so on.

This is why the democrat party is a coalition party, comprised of people who wouldn't have anything to do with each other, normally, except to make deals to get more power.

How do I know these things? I've had (white) family members who were diehard democrats (some of them on welfare,) who had no use for blacks, Jews, and other minorities. But the democrats were for the "little guy," so they put up with "those people."

Margie| 6.26.10 @ 11:43AM

Right on Nick. It says in the Good Book, "If you see a thief, you are a friend of his; and you keep company with adulterers." Ps. 50:18.
Tyler S. /Liberal reader? is a sure example of the twisting of the pretzel that must take place in order to give up the values he once held. I once knew a wise man who made a comment I'll ever forget: "Man's greatest drive is to justify himself."

Nick| 6.26.10 @ 6:11PM

Margie,

Excellent quote!

I'll have to remember that one. Thanks!

Margie| 6.26.10 @ 7:15PM

You're welcome. I should add as a hopeful note the following.. Thank God for the Lord Jesus Christ, who because of His sacrifice, His dying on the cross in my place, for my sins so that by His Grace I am actually justified by faith. My point is that it takes a twisted pretzel to know a twisted pretzel. But it's so much easier admitting it because God says we're all twisted pretzels (ruined sinners). So much easier (what a relief!) to cast that heavy burden on Him instead. Especially since He says that "He waits to be gracious to us."

"Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you; therefore He exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for Him." Is. 30:18.

John II| 6.25.10 @ 3:18PM

Whoa. You're not by any chance the Tyler Schicklgruber I knew in the Army, are you? It was back in the Vietnam era. Ol' Tyler knew everything.

In fact, he was the most shameless know-it-all I've ever met, before or since. He knew what we had to do in Vietnam (either nuke 'em or get out), he knew exactly what was going on in headquarters (especially when headquarters wasn't saying anything), he knew everything about the Catholic Church (some kind of conspiracy theory the details of which kept shifting), he knew precisely how Wall Street worked (but he wouldn't tell us), and of course he knew what was best for everyone (yes--he was a socialist!).

Yo Tyler--is that you?

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 3:40PM

Schickelgruber? Really? As in Adolf Hitler's illegitimate father's last name?

I don't think Tyler is related. Sure, his politics line up, but he's of the squishy socialist variety of leftist; I'm sure he would rather be outed on Oprah than wear a military uniform.

Besides, he doesn't have the knees for lederhosen; they're scarred from all that genuflecting before false idols.

John II| 6.25.10 @ 4:16PM

Actually, his name was Schneider, but I took to calling him Schicklgruber [sic--without the first "e"], and I'm not sure that he ever caught on to the joke. It's remarkable how humorless the Left is, but also convenient.

Oh--and I think it was Hitler's illegitimate father's mother's last name--I mean, Hitler's paternal grandmother. Sometimes I'd call Schneider "Paperhanger," but that didn't register either. Which struck me as odd for someone who knew everything.

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 4:32PM

It's really very flattering that you all want to know more about me, but might I posit that these personal attacks offer nothing of relevant substance to respond to. If you disagree with me be specific, don't just call me Hitler in a weird, roundabout way, that's dumb. And no, I'm not the individual to whom you refer.

John II| 6.25.10 @ 5:13PM

Tyler! It IS you! Still the pose of indignation when the ribbing gets a tad thick. You haven't changed at all. Don't you remember me? On the R&R in Tokyo, we drank champagne from your right combat boot--the one with the plastic inner sole! Three quarts! (It would have held more if it hadn't been for that sole.)

Anyhow, to respond to your points, just as in the old days:

1. You may posit whatever you like, as you frequently do, but I should posit in turn that mockery is indeed relevant to that which needs to be mocked. You need to bone up on Book IV of Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, Tyler (may I return to calling you "Schick" for short?).

2. I never called you Hitler in a weird, roundabout way, Schick; I called you Hitler's grandmother in a very direct way, and I'm still shocked, after all these years--SHOCKED, that the reference is lost on you. Perhaps it's the burden of knowing everything, I don't know.

3. Finally, it's just like you to deny that you're you. There's only one Tyler Schicklgruber, and the intonation is unmistakable. I knew it. I KNEW it!

Good talking with you again, Schick. Just like the old days.

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 5:23PM

You drank out of a combat boot? I have to say that's pretty awesomely disgusting. Did you wash it first or just full on drink the foot stank?

John II| 6.25.10 @ 5:34PM

"Did you wash it first or just full on drink the foot stank?"

That's exactly what you asked when you polished off the first half! Same syntax too.

My God, it really IS you, Schick!

Nick| 6.25.10 @ 4:01PM

Tyler S.,

"In fact, I would bet a great many people disagree with you."

Consevatives outnumber liberals 2-1, according to Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141.....erals.aspx

You are a minority within a minority, Tyler!

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 4:12PM

This year, consevatives seem to hold a majority, next year, who knows. The political center of this country, to which none of us here belong, is a fickle crowd. You cannot possibly be dumb enough to believe this political ascendancy will last forever, can you? Also, 2 to 1 is generous, I don't deny the political winds currently blow in your direction, but I hardly think you looked at several polls and chose one in the middle.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 5:36PM

Hey Grz.
Tyler is simply stuck on stupid or an unrepentant communist...heh... or perhaps a failed free citizen.

Evidently he grabbed for the "brass ring"...and missed.
I must remind you not to masturb---his mind here.
You have too much to offer in original thought.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 11:13PM

Hey, Ken:

Well, thank you. Point well made. On the other hand, sometimes I like to go skeet shooting, and I think, if Tyler works at it, one day he may be of service to the world - as a clay pigeon.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 11:19PM

But I have to say this, in all sincerity:

Tyler, you are a lost soul, and you know it, somewhere deep down. Your rather erratic and faintly desperate writing betrays you.

And you ain't got the intellectual firepower to warrant taking the big guns out of mothballs.

But I was amused that you thought anyone would think politics is an acronym. Just so you know, I was indeed spelling it out for you.

Liberal, meet reality. Reality, I'd like to introduce you to another fungible liberal . . . gee, where did he go? I know, I know - Back down the rabbit hole, where up is down, good is bad, in is out, chaos is order and decline is achievement.

Ret. Marine| 6.27.10 @ 5:47AM

Records, that is voter records showed they did not vote this punk in, that would be the idiot's, it's all about me, theivn' little socialist, progressive mao-mumblers, demonrat party members, and losers of life generally voted their punk in, and I might add too, they failed to vet this punk as well.

Pete| 6.25.10 @ 11:25AM

Yes, clearly a command and control military is what they value. That is why they hamstring them with ludicrous engagement rules and force them to shack up and trust their lives to NAMBLA members.

With the Mocha Messiah's ultimate dictatorial fantasies, I am glad to see him disrespect the military. They will not follow him when asked, and that gives me comfort.

J.P. Travis | 6.25.10 @ 12:00PM

I say good riddance to General McChrystal. The mand has stumbled from one stupid mistake to another for years, and whether you think the comments in Rolling Stone rise to the level of insubordination or not, they're stupid as hell. As I read about him, I found myself saying to myself, "I don't want this idiot running any kind of war for my country." I wonder what Pat Tillman's mother thinks about his dismissal... http://www.jpattitude.com/100625.php

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 12:02PM

Heh Heh...

What if General McCrystal simply "misspoke" about voting for Obama.
Heh,
Maybe he was making a joke that ACORN stole his absentee ballot while overseas.

Purpleguy| 6.25.10 @ 12:17PM

This article is such bs ... this writer has NEVER been in the Armed Forces ...
"Yet, the minute U.S. military men and women dare to think for themselves, we hear overwrought cries of concern from the Washington political and media elite. Such thinking "threatens civilian control of the military," they cry." --- they aren't to think for themselves, they follow orders, period, end of story. The doctrine of military discipline demands no less. Anyone who has been in service or even more so, in command, knows this. Moreover, you do NOT break the law, and those laws are clearly laid out in the UCMJ - and they were broken, and retribution should be severe and swift - especially in time of war.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 3:45PM

Oh, please. Funny how quick liberals are to mount their high horses and pretend to care about the military.

Don't pull a muscle puffing your sunken chest out, ok, big guy?

And since when does the rule of law mean one damned thing to an Obama supporter? Obama's motto:

"Laws? Laws? We don't need no stinking laws."

Purplefool, you are an ass.

Purpleguy| 6.25.10 @ 3:52PM

What's a matter, baby? Can't debate the argument, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks? Is that it?

You ought to find out about the liberals that have AR-15s and Mosbergs, belong to the NRA and those that have a military background before you downgrade an entire group with your opinionated tripe. As usual, you are wrong again.

Oh, and the name calling? I am rubber you are glue ... remember?

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 4:00PM

Sorry, but an ass is an ass, and you are an ass.

It ain't ad hominem to call a spade a spade.

Besides, debate what? Your patently insincere puffery? Your counterfeit patriotism is obvious from a great distance. Peddle that shit elsewhere.

You're like all liberals - you put all your energy into posing about social justice and tolerance and diversity and how fucking evolved you think you are, and you are the vainest, angriest, pettiest humans on the planet. Just look at your fearless "leader," St. Barack, patron saint of lost souls and petulant adolescents.

But yes, by all means, I am excited to have a simpering moron who spends his days being a troll lecture me about civility.

Do go on.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.10 @ 4:26PM

BTW - how many liberals DO belong to the NRA, smart guy?

Enough to fill a Volkswagen, no doubt.

A liberal belonging to the NRA is about as natural as a liberal being pro life.

I mean, of course, minus the lip gratuitous service.

Yes, I'm sure there are many liberals in the NRA - about the same number as leprechauns living in Brooklyn, or unicorns at the zoo, or tooth fairies putting quarters under children's pillows.

Well, I may be wrong. No doubt there IS a certain rush among democrat politicians around election time to join so they can "prove" their ersatz bona fides among skeptical independents within an electorate for whom they have nothing but contempt.

Liberals aren't against guns, it's just law-abiding citizens they want to prohibit from owning them. But if you're a criminal, hey, how else are you going to level the playing field?

Just so you know, the rigidity of liberal dogma doesn't allow for demurral on any of the big issues; hasn't the Huffington Post taught you anything?

You think as one. You act as one. You pick your victim groups as one. You rape the taxpayer as one. You destroy the country as one.

Or do you believe the claptrap about tolerance and diversity? Pssst: That's just for pop culture consumption.

Nick| 6.25.10 @ 5:25PM

PurpleJackass,

Name one reg of the UCMJ that General McCrystal, or any of his staff, violated.

Just one.

Ret. Marine| 6.27.10 @ 5:52AM

Nick, Nick, Nick, don't aggrivate the little troll, his head might explode all over this page. Heh, heh, heh, now send him kiss's n' huggies, he still on the traineee list here.

chris haynes| 6.25.10 @ 12:31PM

The general lets out he voted for the boss. Brown nosing your way to the top?

Funny, for a guy whose war plan was nation building and political, he flubbed it. Made it easier for President Obama. Looked good firng his guy and putting Bush's guy back in.

Tim*| 6.25.10 @ 3:09PM

" During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence. They want to be able to fight – like they did in Iraq, like they had in Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the Taliban," one soldier says.

"I'm not saying go out and kill everybody, sir," the soldier persists. "You say we've stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don't believe that's true in this area. The more we pull back, the more we restrain ourselves, the stronger it's getting."

As the discussion ends, McChrystal seems to sense that he hasn't succeeded at easing the men's anger. He makes one last-ditch effort to reach them, acknowledging the death of Cpl. Ingram. "There's no way I can make that easier," he tells them. "No way I can pretend it won't hurt. No way I can tell you not to feel that. . . . I will tell you, you're doing a great job. Don't let the frustration get to you." The session ends with no clapping, and no real resolution. McChrystal may have sold President Obama on counterinsurgency, but many of his own men aren't buying it."

John II| 6.25.10 @ 12:34PM

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

That's Latin, Purp. It means you're full of shit.

Dixie Pixie| 6.25.10 @ 12:54PM

I have a open question to consider.

Why is it that under “civilian” control the US military can not win a war.
After all, the enemies in Gulf War II and the Afghan War are no where in the USA military weight class.
Yet after 8 years of warfare they can not be subdued. By any conventional measure both Gulf War II and the Afghan War should have taken only 6 months to win.

So here is the question::: Using the Afghan War as a test case, What factors prevent the USA from winning a War outright?

A Governmental system who can not find reality and prefers to live in a self imposed fantasy land.
[ ] yes
[ ] no
A civilian oversight who does not want to win but looks upon warfare as a unlimited make work jobs program.
[ ] yes
[ ] no
A complete inability to create a war winning strategy .
[ ] yes
[ ] no
A Officer class too inept and stupid to win a war.
[ ] yes
[ ] no
A NCO class which can't implement the tactics and strategy conceived by the Officer class.
[ ] yes
[ ] no
The lack of the proper tools and equipment to win the current Afghan War.
[ ] yes
[ ] no
A political class who simply does not care as long as they can make money off the war.
[ ] yes
[ ] no

I will leave it up the the reader to come up with further questions and answers.

John II| 6.25.10 @ 2:54PM

A dim-witted squishiness about the character of Islam, owing to a smug utilitarian secularism incapable of making distinctions among religions and religiously devoted to a selectively nonjudgmental pose.

[ ] hell yes
[ ] don't know

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 3:03PM

Sorry for double posting, I messed up and wanted to make sure my response got attached to the questions it related to.

These questions seem to indicate a pretty simplified view of a hugely complex situation. I know you all love playing the blame game and, honestly, I do too, it's so much easier if we can simply put all failure at the feet of a few individuals. You're guilty under Obama, I was guilty under Bush. The reality, however, is that highly intelligent people from across the political spectrum (and largely throughout history) have found Afghanistan to be an impossible situation.

Part of it is that attempting to be an ally with a country you are currently occupying, while at the same time fighting groups of insurgents which, though they're actions show a callous disregard for the wellbeing of their own countrymen, come from the local population, and therefore have stronger ties to it than foreign occupiers who are largely separated by a language and cultural barrier from the people they hope to protect.

Part of it is that our entirely justifiable desire to destroy as much of the Afghan opium industry as we can (90% of the world's opium, from which heroin is derived, comes from Afghanistan), nonetheless destroys a major industry for a country with an already extremely weak economy. As the U.S. knows all too well from Columbia, drugs can exert influences on a country which make it extremely dangerous to our interests and its own government, even where that government is allied with us.

Part of it is a redefinition of what constitutes "success." In the age of information, the citizens of this country are far more aware of the day to day occurrences of the war than they have ever been. we are exposed to the horrors of war and insurgent violence in a way previous generations never were. In the past, the US has gone to war to protect our interests and then left. The fate of the populous of the defeated enemy was never a major concern. We felt no need to worry about the fate of people who had just a short time ago been our enemies on the battlefield, and we never really saw what happened. Horrors occurred, as they do all over the planet, with or without U.S. involvement, but there was little exposure to these horrors for the average U.S. citizen, and there was no real sense that it was our problem. Now, with 24 hour news cycles and the endless information provided by the internet, people are much more aware of what can happen when even a bad government is toppled and a power vacuum ensues. It's not really anything we can be blamed for, and in the case of Sadam and the Taliban the power vacuum can't really be much worse than what was in place before. Nevertheless, we as a nation have decided that where we act, we want to minimize the possibility of our actions negatively impacting another country, even ones we have just defeated, so we redefine success to mean not just the defeat of our enemies, but the rebuilding of our defeated enemies as robust allies. I don't really think we've gotten worse at war, one need only compare casualty figures for the U.S. and anyone they've fought recently to debunk that, I just think we've aimed so much higher that achieving "victory" is a far more difficult feat. And, while you can point to Germany and Japan and say we've succeeded in something similar there, the cost paid by this country in WWII and the ensuing cold war, both in lives and in finances, so far surpasses anything we've lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, that the comparison tells you nothing helpful.

In closing, I would mention that while I still don't feel that it was the right decision at the time it was made, the Iraq war is finally reaching a largely acceptable conclusion, thanks in large part to (gotta give credit where due) bush, the repubs, and, more than anyone, General Petreaus.

Dixie Pixie| 6.26.10 @ 5:05PM

Greetings Tyler S
I hope this day sees you hale and hardy.

Please see my ---6.25.10 @ 6:51PM--- post below.

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 3:01PM

In closing, I would mention that while I still don't feel that it was the right decision at the time it was made and at times the effort was less than successful, the Iraq war is finally reaching a largely acceptable conclusion, thanks in large part to (gotta give credit where due) Bush, the repubs, and, more than anyone, General Petreaus.

John II| 6.25.10 @ 3:31PM

Tyler!!! It IS you!

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 4:36PM

Nope

Dixie Pixie| 6.26.10 @ 5:04PM

Greetings Tyler S
I hope this day sees you hale and hardy.

Please see my ---6.25.10 @ 6:51PM--- post below.

Eric Damon| 6.25.10 @ 3:35PM

Dixie Pixie:

How have we lost every war under civilian control of the military? Did we lose the Spanish-American War? World War I? World War II? Desert Storm? The Civil War?

The civilian authorities have always had ultimate control of the military, although in some cases much of the actual war planning was left to the military. But as Clausewitz understood, it is not the place of the military to fight wars in the way they want to, but need to be constrained by civilian leaders who have a big picture view of the reasons for fighting.

As for McChyrstal, he left the president no real choice. He and his staff showed a disdain for the civilian leadership and had to be replaced in that command. Would there have been this outpouring of condemnation from my fellow conservatives if some poor noncom had been dismissed for speaking publicly about a commander in this manner?

John II| 6.25.10 @ 4:24PM

" . . . civilian leaders who have a big picture view of the reasons for fighting."

Er . . . who would that be in this particular case?

Dixie Pixie| 6.25.10 @ 4:28PM

Greetings Eric

Prior to the National Security Act of 1947 the US military officer corps had full control of strategy, tactics and practical control of armament design and production. The Act and the Amendment of 1949 brought the Officer and Non Commissioned Officers corps under the SecDef for the first time.
This was the start of civilian and Congressional control of the military.

Since that time the US military has won out right only Gulf War I and Grenada. Note both of those engagements was for limited objectives and gains against far inferior forces.

Despite having almost complete military superiority in every war and military incident the US has lost outright or could only maintain a tie.

With a budget larger than the next 5 largest military's combined, the USA can not win after 8 years against a bunch of barely armed religious wing-nuts??? WHY???

The question is why the military has not won the Afghan War by now.
The above post has a list of possible reasons why the military has not done so.
Perhaps you have the answer you would like to share with the rest of us.

Tyler S.| 6.25.10 @ 5:02PM

I don't really disagree, however I would offer some caveats.

That may have increased the direct exertion of civilian control, but the constitution has always made the president the commander in chief.

We've also never paid as dear a cost in any war as we used to. You can talk about how powerful we are now and how we used to win then, but those conflicts cost hundreds of thousands of american soldiers their lives. Surely you cannot argue that the cost of these modern wars has been anything like comperable? In fact, since 1949 the cost our enemies must pay to take an american life has shot up, while the overall levels of our casualties have plummeted. We may not have had a lot of out right victories, owing more to our growing national desire to avoid a long casualty list (which is hardly a bad thing), but none have successfully challenged our might.

John II| 6.25.10 @ 5:29PM

Dixie was addressing Eric, Tyler. Whoa--you haven't changed at all, after all these years.

Dixie Pixie| 6.26.10 @ 5:03PM

Greetings Tyler S
I hope this day sees you hale and hardy.

Please see my ---6.25.10 @ 6:51PM--- post below.

carnot| 6.26.10 @ 9:18PM

dixie...pls define what you mean by winning...... especially as the idea applies to Afghanistan.

Dixie Pixie| 6.26.10 @ 10:18PM

Greetings Carnot

To answer your question I refer you to the Carl von Clausewitz lesser definition of War.
“War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument.....”

What do I consider a victory in Warfare, simply a government that the USA can live with.
The USA achieved this in WW II and the Grenada Affair but has not achieved the same in the Afghan War.

Dixie Pixie| 6.25.10 @ 6:51PM

Greetings Tyler S
In your posts you seem to be wandering around quite a bit.
I humbly suggest reading the following books.

Shooting Blanks: War Making That Doesn't Work
By James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi
ISBN-13__978-0688140663

Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War
By Eliot A Cohen
ISBN-10__0723280822

Great Military Disasters
ISBN-13__978-1407555638

Most can be found in your local library system or can acquired through a inter-library loan.

Each explores the theme of how wars can go so wrong. Each offers numerous examples from actual historical battles, campaigns and wars. All have relevance to the current Gulf War II and the Afghan War.

wordsmith| 6.25.10 @ 7:06PM

Just so we understand each other - the definition of "pundit" is "a person of great learning". Somehow it has come to mean anyone who has an opinion and runs his mouth about it or writes about it - - perhaps even Mr. Guardiano

Thomas Sowell is a pundit. Charles Krauthammer is, William F. Buckley was. A bunch of over-the- hill hippies, stringing for Rolling Stone are not.

Rowdy Boots| 6.25.10 @ 8:15PM

Why do we hold General McChrystal and his staff to higher standards then the President and his Vice President?

I think Biden has spewed many offensive and ridiculous remarks that made Obama look like a jerk.

Obama himself used gutter talk recently and he got a free pass.

Gutless, cowardly, agenda-driven, incompetent, short-sighted, arrogant, pompous, under-experienced--that is Obama and his staff.

NOW FIRE ME!

ROWDY BOOTS

Northern Rebel| 6.25.10 @ 8:50PM

Here are the facts as I know them.

The General consented to an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

RED FLAG ALERT!

Why?

I can only suppose that this whole episode was choreographed, (sp?) in order to get himself dimissed.

Why?

I have a feeling there will be a tell-all book in our future, which will put everything in a clear light, as far as making him out to be the good guy.

Why?

Because I think he is a self promoting weasel, who thinks of nothing first, except himself.

The military is better off without him.

Why?

Because he thinks he comes before his country.

I may be wrong. Tell me why. my mind is open.

Dixie Pixie| 6.25.10 @ 9:18PM

Northern Rebel---You are way off track on this issue.
The only thing the McChrystal Affair proves is in Washington paper bullets kills faster than real bullets.
Don't cry for Gen McChrystal as the good old boy network will provide for a well endowed retirement.

John II| 6.25.10 @ 9:39PM

Wish I could have retired at age 55.

General McChrystal, are you reading this now that you're no longer a liberal? I hereby offer my services as your ghost writer. I'm eleven years older than you, though I never made it past Spec 5 (although I did so in 15 months flat as a low-life draftee, during Nam, when you made fast rank in the Army if you had an IQ higher than 105 and you were reliable and you were lucky enough to be working under generous officers).

I take you for a generous officer, sir, and I still have two kids in college. Send writing assignment ASAP. College prof. without bias against military. Reasonable rates.

Christopher Holland| 6.26.10 @ 4:25AM

Thank God for small mercies - the military contains officers who think Joe Biden is an idiot. I have little confidence that the war in Afghanistan is being won, but I would have none at all if I thought that the army is run by people who think that Joe Biden is smart. That really would be a terrible disaster.

Northern Rebel| 6.26.10 @ 3:25PM

Dixie:

I agree with your point about the media, but as to my being way off, I don't understand what you mean.

Why did he allow a left wing publication that focuses on music, to interview him in the first place? What did he have to gain, if not a chance at exposure? Who, except for the politically astute, (a distinct minority) had heard of him, prior to this interview?

I posit the notion that he knew exactly what he was doing, and hopes to be rewarded in some fashion.

He is now the flavor of the week, and he intends to cash in!

Dixie Pixie| 6.26.10 @ 4:43PM

Greetings Northern Rebel.

What do I mean that you were offtrack.
Try rethinking your words.
“A self promoting weasel who choreographed the whole episode to get himself dismissed.”

There is no evidence that Gen McChrystal is the type of person you described. By all accounts he was a highly intelligent dutiful soldier who inspired his troops loyalty. In short he was opposite of Senator Kerry, who is a self promoting weasel.

Why did he consent to the interview? My guess he was snookered then burned by the “Rolling Stones” reporter. One thing that was certain is he was blindsided by the article.

After working his way up to flag rank, Generals have a tendency to hang on to it with all the resources at their command. Besides, Generals try to avoid at all costs such a dramatic flame out.

As a final point did you notice he did not jump to the talk show / lecture circuit. Nor did he have a book deal lined up. It is obvious he did not have a lucrative deal when he was blindsided.

Please read the following book especially the chapters on the dangers of the media.
As a general rule, Flag Officers are seldom in a position to be hit by real bullets. But the higher the rank, the more dangerous are media “paper” bullets.

Shooting Blanks: War Making That Doesn't Work
By James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi
ISBN-13__978-0688140663

John II| 6.26.10 @ 11:13PM

Can't we split the difference between Dixie and Rebel?

There is not just "either-or" in the world of discourse. There is also "both-and," logically speaking. Rebel, you are implausibly cynical about the motives of the Chrystal. Dixie, I agree with you more than with Rebel, but I'm not sure about the snookered business--unless it was the utterly predictable Rolling Stone that got snookered on a somewhat deeper level.

Conspiracy Theory #293: Suppose General McChrystal decided that he could not communicate with the Obama regime in any other way? Suppose that this soldier's soldier decided that this was the ONLY way he could get his message (that the Obama administration was dangerously inattentive to and clueless about the war effort) to a larger and more serious audience? Suppose it was all a deliberate set-up to force the hand of the Obamanation toward a more winnable strategy? Even if it meant the end of McChrystal's career to force the issue in a way that McChrystal himself shrewdly judged to be a more likely wake-up call to the narcissist-in-charge?

Just suppose. In which case, it's broadly speaking a "both-and" between Dixie and Rebel.

[General McChrystal, are you reading this? If you need a ghost writer with reliable judgment, lots of writing talent and a martyr complex, you can get in touch through the Spectator.]

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 4:10PM

Just for your amusement try Conspiracy Theory #294:::
General McChrystal and staff was convinced Obama and the Washington Elite was so disinterested in the Afghan War that they tuned out everything they did not want to hear. So they were confident they could talk freely to a "Rolling Stones” reporter as the article would dismissed by the Washington Elite. Certainly they were convinced Obama would never see the article.
Surprise--Surprise--Surprise

keyboard jockey | 6.26.10 @ 4:45PM

Red State Update "Obama You Can't Play Afghanistanville If You Fire Your General"

http://youhavetobethistalltogo.....-play.html

Northern Rebel| 6.26.10 @ 11:06PM

Dixie:

I suppose my words are at most harsh, and at least premature.

Time will tell.

One thing I'll say, if he can be snookered by a Rolling Stone reporter, that doesn't inspire confidence in his judgement, or his leadership skills.

There are so many publications, including this one, where he could have been assured of a fair shake, I don't understand why he chose Rolling Stone.

Still, you are right, There is no evidence to justify my skepticism yet. If it turns out I'm right, I'm confident you'll tip your glass in my direction.

I'll do the same for you.

CHEERS!

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 12:11PM

Greetings Northern Rebel, John II and Constant Reader

Go ahead and pop the cork or cap of your favorite adult beverage.
Drink deeply

The only person who knows the truth about the McChrystal Affair is the author of the “Rolling Stones” article. Unfortunately he has no incentive to tell the truth and multiple reasons to lie.

In MSM mythology Woodward and Bernstein brought down President Nixon. Ever since then almost all leftist journalists and writers have tried to duplicate the feat for the fame and glory it brings. In the case of the McChrystal Affair, “Rolling Stones” bagged a four star general. I would not be surprised to see the Pulitzer Prize awarded to the author and “Rolling Stones”. Further fame and glory to follow.

So go ahead and enjoy your adult beverage as the why's and what-for's will remain a mystery.
The MSM has every reason to keep the affair a mystery and no reason to expose the truth.
Besides I was just applying educated guesswork and a theory that fit the known facts.

On a another note I do have a quick question Northern Rebel.
Would you be a person who attended “Old Miss” and now resides in the land of the Yankees?
Just another guess on my part.

John II| 6.27.10 @ 4:17PM

"The only person who knows the truth about the McChrystal Affair is the author of the 'Rolling Stones' article."

But if we're all guessing about this, my guess still counts. If my Conspiracy Theory #293 turns out to be mostly correct, then the only person who REALLY knows the truth so far is Gen. McChrystal, who was playing that silly-ass lefty "journalist" like a violin for his own purposes.

Videbimus quod videbimus. (That's Latin for "opsometha hotina opsometha, which is Greek meaning, roughly, "Rolling Stone magazine sucks.")

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 4:28PM

Very Funny--- John II

However a conspiracy that gets one hung is not the most brilliant of plans.
That is where Conspiracy Theory #293 falls apart. Good try, keep the theories coming.

John II| 6.27.10 @ 4:46PM

Oh. I never thought of that. In other words, non videbimus: even if Conspiracy Theory #293 is essentially correct, we'll never know--because he'd be hanged if word got out?

Unless by "hung" you mean "canned" rather than "hanged." In which case, that's part of my point. Brilliant or no ( and it takes a bit of shrewdness but very little brilliance to manage the kneejerk reactions of a lefty for one's own purposes: believe me, I've been surviving in academia for years that way and I ain't brilliant), the plan according to my scenario is noble: he sacrifices his career for the sake of the mission. That's the difference between the time-servers and the warriors in the military: been there--seen it.

Thus might #293 remain plausible.

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 5:28PM

Greeting John II

To my knowledge the US Army does not have a tradition of Kamikaze Media Missions.
So I find it odd that a General would flame out in such a manner.

Try seeing Conspiracy Theory #294 in my above reply to your post.
You might find it slightly more plausible.

Hung--- Past tense of hang.
Its a Southern idiom usually used for Southern amusement and Northern irritation.
The word not the act.

Southern Usage-- He really hung himself with that prime piece of stupidity.

John II| 6.27.10 @ 6:17PM

Well, I saw it but I didn't know what you meant by "disinterested." If you meant "uninterested," that's even worse than saying "hung" for "hanged." I was educated in the South, suh--there was always a julep or two among the beer kegs nestled under the magnolias. That's where I learned to make such distinctions. Where was I?

Anyhow, your #294 really DOES, without warrant, assume stupidity on McChrystal's part. Elementary deduction (of the sort he doubtless applied in the execution of #293) would have persuaded him that "Rolling Stone" is the ONLY publication Professor Obama reads.

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 7:46PM

Greetings John II

I am convinced we will never know the back story to the McChrystal Affair. So it is fun to speculate on possible theories. So in the spirit of lighthearted amusement let us move on to to Conspiracy Theory #295.

A high ranking flag rank officer at Central Command is convinced his brilliant but arrogant subordinate officer must go for the good of the Army. However the General in question has given no cause for dismissal other than losing a war.

So Central Command green lights a far left reporter writing a magazine notorious for its hit pieces to follow the General around on a daily basis. Naturally the reporter writes a article which inflames a notoriously thin-skinned President. As a result the General is history. The USCENTCOM Commander then takes over the Generals command to finish the war his way with a US Army victory.

So it is your turn John II for CT #296. Can you top that and still keep close to the known facts.

John II| 6.27.10 @ 8:24PM

Nope. I'm sticking with #293, if I can't dream up a reason to suppose that the USCENTCOM Commander and Gen. McChrystal worked all this out together during a late-night internet poker game.

Yet I've clearly acquired an instant fondness for #295, for which I thank you, and I shall lock it away for quick reference if and when #293 collapses. Or if we win the war, and there's reason in retrospect to join #293 and #295 in a round, firm, more fully packed conspiratorial explanation.

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 8:44PM

Greetings John II

It is probability best that we stop here.
I was coming up dry on CT#297 anyway.
I am glad you and the rest of the readership were amused by the speculations.

Best of luck John II

Margie| 6.27.10 @ 9:46PM

John II and Dixie Pixie,

I was thinking along the lines of #293 since I read about it. Then today I happened upon a video online (we don't have t.v.) where I watched the actual footage of Obama goiing on and on..and on some more with McChrystal standing there while Obama was shaming him. Both my husband and me couldn't stand it. The droning on and him standing there taking it.

Well, my reaction to having seen it and what came out of my mouth was #295! How weird is that? Anyway, this here readership certainly enjoyed the discourse between the guys.

Good stuff. Thanks.

constant reader| 6.27.10 @ 12:31AM

Dixie Pixie - take note. Northern Rebel has a scorecard. He's "confident" and he's waitin' for that "tip of the glass". Does that remind you of Dan Rather and his "tip of the ol' Stetson"?

"I'll' do the same for you." (grudgingly)

Northern Rebel| 6.27.10 @ 11:01AM

Constant Reader:

Comparing me to Dan Rather, is a rather low blow.

And I have the forged paperwork to prove it!
:o)

Mimi| 6.27.10 @ 11:26AM

HOW TO WIN THE WAR!!! .....Be in it for the long haul... Tell Karzai ......." DRONE " the 50 -100 Alqeda......BOMB the heck out of ALL POPPY farms.......Get the folks there to start digging for GOLD & LITHIUM and reap the benefits and get richer than any DOPE-DIGGING. WE get out sooner rather later....but leave some good schools. Our soldiers need to come home as valient HEROES, and provided for to the max!!!!

Mimi| 6.27.10 @ 11:37AM

Oh Yeh.... Get Karzai a GOLD digging spoon...He'll get out happily! Then go find that patriot/Doctor who really won the last election in that country ( seems like a good guy ) and get him to take over , you know keep things honest, and make sure his people reap the rewards. It' will be like 1849 in California!

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 3:44PM

Mini--- Great lines.

But please tell me you are not the Chief Counsel to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 4:47PM

Mimi
I do humbly apologize for getting your handle wrong.
It all my fault as I was in a hurry to post and forgot to proofread.
Please forgive me.

constant weeder| 6.27.10 @ 1:36PM

Dixie Pixie -and Tyler S. You both provide thoughtful insights as to why we don't seem to be winning wars anymore. I have a simpler answer. Probably as insensitive and off-the-wall as you will ever get.

It is simply that we can't stand the sight of blood and the 24 news cycle brings it to is. Imagine if we were nightly hearing the death toll on the bloodiest battle in American War History - The Battle of the Argonne in World War I . Imagine if we were hearing that the Lost Battalion's only means of commuication was eight carrier pigeons! And one escaped but miraculously the last one made it back to Division HQ to tell them to please have the Americans stop bombarding them, as they were having it tough enough against the Germans.

Imagine today's civilian "audience" digesting the nightly news of the Marines on Iwo Jima, Corregidor or the Bataan Death March.

Imagine our liberal MSM reporting on any of those wars instead of the war correspondents we had.

Compare the casualties in one day in other wars to the NINE YEARS we are wailing about in the Afghanistan War.

One good low bombing run could have them all pushing up daisy-cutters and another one could drop teddy bears over the scene. Teddy bears seem to be our preferred mourning tool in America. But that would be inhumane and would have collateral damage.

Because we cannot bear the guilt of war, we place our own military like ducks in a shooting gallery with our rules of engagement - which are rules of enRAGEment for those who fight and die.

In the South Pacific my brother side-stepped "tiger traps". Today it is roadside bombs.

A Civil War general summed it up pretty well, "War means fightin' and fightin' means killin' " It meant it then and it means it now.

While we are over there trying to democratize what we cannot even civilize, our own southern border is not being protected from invasion.

Dixie Pixie| 6.27.10 @ 3:07PM

Greetings Constant Weeder

While I agree with you that a sensitivity to casualties is a factor, however it is not the primary factor.
After all the fastest way to stop the bleeding is to simply walk away. The left has no hesitation in doing so in the past despite the cost. Cambodia is the classic example. That was Obama's Afghan game-plan while campaigning.

To spend a estimated 2 Trillion dollars and 9 years on Gulf War II and the Afghan War with every military advantage and still not win indicates something more is a fault. In my 6.25.10 @ 12:54PM
post I gave a check list of some of the classic reasons for warfare failure.

Personally I think the Washington Elite lives in classic bubble of delusions and self made illusions. Any intrusions of reality are a unwanted distractions to be dismissed as quickly as possible.

In short the Washington Elite has the classic failure to comprehend the Afghan War. Like Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby the US is stuck in Afghanistan simply because the Washington Elite can not comprehend the situation.

The funny thing is if you want to minimize casualties, It is far, far, far better to win quickly and overwhelmingly. In fact bloodless victory in War is not unknown. It usually takes a true Master to overcome a enemy with minimum of bloodshed. Ronald Reagan and the Cold War comes to mind.

9 Years and counting is folly. That scale of folly can only come from the top.
Obama and the Washington Elite are in way over their heads and don't know it..

Purple Lips| 6.27.10 @ 5:04PM

And just think, the Muslim terrorists prefer areas of high collateral damage. They druel over the thought of bombing or gassing a Mall, sporting event, hospital. Our DC elites know this, but the game demands even more rules for our side. This a great game for those wealthy enough to play it. They have influence and they set the rules. It is these people whom Petraeous and other generals fear.

Mario| 6.27.10 @ 8:49PM

I served under Gen McChrystal. I can not say I know the man but I have spoken to him on several occasions. I found him to be the finest leader I have ever served under. Regardless of his or any of our political views, the nation is worse off for his dismissal. Good leaders in the right position are the key to winning wars. Lets not forget the goal. WIN THE WAR!

Rod Davis | 6.28.10 @ 11:31PM

Whoa! I am sorry, but two things have been made perfectly clear to me by your remarks... (1). You have never spent a day in any branch of the Armed Forces. (2). Generals are responsible for one thing - winning wars. No General has ever been smacked down for winning a war, but there are quite a few that have been sent packing for running off at the mouth - that, my friend, is not part of a General's job description.

McChrystal deserved what he got, he should have been court-martialed; and were it my decision, he would have. This was not the first time that McChrystal has drawn attention to himself! Twice before he was called on the carpet for running off at the mouth!

constant weeder| 6.29.10 @ 12:53AM

Dixie Pixie - I don't disagree with you on a single aspect of your analysis. My only observation is that in this era of saturation communication, our civilians cannot deal with the horrors of war.

I am impressed by your source material and the books you cite. My own area of expertise (until I run into a real expert) is the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 - forward to WWII. I am struck by the fact that every war we win, we wind up rehabilitating and paying off the loser. Now we are paying them, even as we fight in their country. At least we waited for the end of WWII for the Marshall Plan. How many people are aware of what the US paid Mexico for disputed land after the Mexican-American War?

Rod Davis hit the nail on the head in describing the most un-level playing field in the universe. Generals may not run off at the mouth - while on the other hand, that is all the Drone-ologist- in- Chef has to do.

Obama might just has well have said what he meant that day in the Rose Garden. "I don't be takin' no dissin' from no honky general with a few stars."

Well, you're runnin' out of generals, O-boy, so tread lightly.

This entire administration is like a really bad play that refuses to close. Obama entertaining the Russian midget, Medeved a few days before we find the county is crawling with Russian spies?

Par for the course!

c. weeder| 6.29.10 @ 1:26AM

Dixie Pixie - You omitted "echo chamber" along with your reference to delusions and illusions, but your description is apt.

Come November if we don't see some evidence of a dawning of reality reflected at the polls, we are in the soup. These weakening poll numbers of Obana's sagging approval can have a lulling effect on the electorate. The "Oh, he can't win" syndrome.

If the Democrat defeat is not devastating in 2010, it will not have the carry-over needed for 2112.

If General Petraeus is able to pull off some kind of victory of in Aghanistan, Obama hits the jackpot on his Petraeus's nickel in July 2011 or thereabouts - close enough to give him an edge in his bid for re-election. Still, no one can pray for failure in a war in order for Obama to lose a second term.

Meanwhile, it helps to pay a little attention to mundane details of the small messes he makes. That first-time home buyer "giveaway" of his is as riddled with fraud as the Stimulus was - remember $250 checks being sent to dead folks? Well, now inmates in prison have successfully applied for and gotten first time home buyer $$$. And this is the bunch that wants to manage Health Care for the entire nation!

And the ships that could be skimming the oil in the gulf still sit idle because Obama will not waive the Jones Act - because he is too beholden to the unions. And Hurricane Alex may be roiling the waters. and Obama cannot miss his tee-time.

CareerTroop| 6.29.10 @ 7:58AM

About the only thing I agreed with in Hastings Rolling Stone piece was that McChrystal's firing was long overdue.

An embeded reporter from Rolling Stone in a military headquarters? What an amazing display of bad judgement. The arrogance of this guy is worse than the POTUS, and that is nearly impossible.

Professional soldiers do not openly demean or criticize "the old man" nor allow members of their staff to do so. Contempt at the leadership level breeds contempt in the ranks, and it's never tolerated by real leaders. McChrystal knows this with every ounce of his being, yet he broke the first rule of leadership: Be the soldier you want your soldiers to be.

He wrote out his own pink slip and I'm just sad that we have to keep giving him those huge retirement checks for the rest of his life.

SSgt Red| 7.9.10 @ 1:11AM

John, thank you for your insight. I've read all the other entries and I agree with some, and some I do not. I do however agree with your view point on Gen Mattis, he was a fine member of the USMC Officer Corps while I was attached, and I can not think he is less than that today. Good-luck sir and Semper Fi.

SSgt GMA

Latest Headlines

Heritage, Levin Call for Immigration Debate

Jeffrey Lord|5 comments

NSA’s Disclosures Cast Confusing Shadows

Luca Gattoni-Celli|3 comments

Exit the IRS Stage Left

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|11 comments

Oregon Uncovered

David Hogberg|2 comments

Lincoln on the Defensive

Christopher Orlet|5 comments

Another IRS Outrage

Kevin Mooney|1 comment

‘That De Gaulle, He Is Somebody’

Mark Tooley|1 comment

The Tea Party Returns to Washington

Kaylin Bugos|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 6.19.13

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6.19.13

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.19.13

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 6.19.13

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 6.19.13

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 6.19.13

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?