-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Pat Buchanan’s views on this dust-up are pretty much my own. Though on the subject of whether our strategy will lead to a “no-win war,” I think instead of a MacArthur we have two Trumans.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/24/mcchrystalized
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Nation on the Edge
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Hannah and Her Friends
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Siegfried X| 6.24.10 @ 3:07PM
Sorry, but I can't agree at all. I think the incident shows that McChrystal had too many stars on his shoulders, that he was too immature for the highest levels of command. He would have been better off staying a fighting one-star general who never spoke with the media.
Media management is part of being a four-star, and McChrystal just didn't have what it takes.
Ken S.| 6.24.10 @ 5:14PM
You miss one thing Siegfried. Why does media management apply if the general cannot speak the truth? Why does congress call him up to "testify" if in doing so, he can only repeat what the president has deemed appropriate answers?
Don't get me wrong -- McChrystal had to go, because he was unethical and didn't follow the military code of conduct. You cannot openly defy the orders of your superiors. (Yes, I said openly. I refuse to be so naive as to believe that none of our soldiers defy orders at times, albeit even if only "bending the rules" rather than breaking them.)
But given that situation -- the president IS the commander-in-chief -- then it should be the president who answers to ALL military questions, from congress, the press, or the American people. And I specifically said "the president" -- it should be true of our current as well as future presidents, and should have been true of our past presidents.
I don't care how many stars a person earns -- don't tell him to answer questions, then require him to be just a "yes-man" for whatever current policy stinks up Washington at the time.
One final thought, that neither you nor I will likely ever know the answer to. If a career military man sees his troops dying for a pointless effort, he might very well have spoken to the media on purpose, to achieve exactly what is likely to now come of his statements. I think that would speak volumes to the man having EXACTLY what it takes to manage the media in the role of a four-star. In other words, he may very well have spoken to Rolling Stone in order to get fired and change the entire direction of the war. Or he may have seen that the model of combat he was pursuing would fail, and didn't want to be known as the general who lost the war. Or he may have simply wanted out. His reasons why could be any number of things. The one thing I believe is that McChrystal knew EXACTLY what he was doing and what would be the consequences -- and that is media management of the highest caliber. He played Rolling Stone exactly the way he wanted, and we'll never know why.
Siegfried X| 6.24.10 @ 5:42PM
If McChrystal wanted to dissent, he should have and would have done so professional and forcefully, like by going to Congress. But instead he and his staff acted like a bunch of egotistical children spilling their guts to a left-wing, anti-war newspaper.
So I don't buy the theory that McChrystal did this deliberately. Someone who spent his whole life planning Special Forces operations wouldn't have bungled this badly if he were trying.
Siegfried X| 6.24.10 @ 5:51PM
"Why does congress call him up to "testify" if in doing so, he can only repeat what the president has deemed appropriate answers? "
He has the right to answer questions asked to him by Congress under oath. It is true that the President could then relieve McChrystal of command, but that happened anyway, and we depend on our generals to speak the truth to Congress.
The professional way to dissent is to resign first, then retire from the Army. It's a sacrifice but it happened anyway.
Imagine what would have happened if McChrystal had resigned under protest. The Republicans would have had him testifying under oath for weeks.
or he wanted out| 6.24.10 @ 7:21PM
he didn't want the blame for losing obamas war and this was his way out. now he's not a quitter.
its simply hilarious that the democrats had to appoint betray-us in his place.
maybe setting him up to fail keeps him off the ballot in 2012...
Michael Gersh| 6.24.10 @ 3:15PM
Like Patton and Guderian, great war fighters have a problem with weakness from above. Unlike Eisenhower and FDR, Obama is SO weak and thin skinned he fired his best General for a lack of media savvy, and perhaps discipline. Foolish move, but he must have given up on 2012 already.
matthew s harrison| 6.24.10 @ 3:49PM
While McChrystal's lack of demeanor in even accepting the interview request-and then allowing the article to go out, laden with the statements of his aides, that were certainly inflammatory, I have to say this: To serve under a man who is so definitively and meticulously bent on destroying all that was built before him, it must be difficult to bite one's tongue every minute of every day. To serve under a CIC who is such a blithering idiot, who has no idea what it means to lead, when you are in fact a great leader, must be deafeningly irritating.
Lastly, I find it satisfying beyond my wildest dreams to think of the absolute hand-wringing going on in every location occupied by OFA schmucks, moveon schmucks, and other Marxists around the country who have to be squirming like the invertebrates they are! I am enjoying this more than I can impart!
John - TMF| 6.24.10 @ 4:14PM
1. I don't like Pat Buchanan and don't trust his opinions. Any agreement is completely accidental and always results in a serious gut check.
2. It is pretty important to note that McChrystal is reputedly a liberal Democrat (I used the lower case 'l' - at least until he proves otherwise in the future.) somewhat akin to a Bob Kerrey type figure. Warfighters trusted him because he was a Democrat who was willing to be a warrior and not a staff, logistics, or other support MOS.
The warrior problem cuts in where Peter meets Principle. I have seen fine Company Commanders who were wretched Battalion CO's. I have seen guys whose Platoons looked like a three ring circus shine in staff positions. Don't be fooled by rows upon rows of ribbons... some are well earned and with hard difficult service, and some are because you successfully changed the name of a branch. They seem to multiply exponentially as officers rise in rank.
My surmise is that McChrystal had risen above his level of comfort and competence. Regardless of political/social leanings, he could not have been pleased with the half-hearted, muddled, often contradictory policy and orders coming out of the Obambi Regime.
At some point, instead of doing the militarily correct thing, quietly meeting with his superior officer (Patraeus) and resigning his position, along with submitting his retirement papers. He chose to make a show of it.
The spinners are all out with the "O shows Command Authority" talking points aping them virtually word for word from whatever the source (email, or fax).
What it showed is that The One is a weak. He was made to look bad by a general that he should have dismissed via Central Command.
His choice of Petreaus as a replacement is a step down for the Dutchman. Petraeus was McChrystal's boss. How many bosses want to go back to their old job level?
This is an atrocious mess and no one else is to blame but The One. His Regime is pathetic, and dangerously incompetent.
R/The Mighty Fahvaag
(btw - McChrystal being a liberal Democrat and a general is sort of like having a de-scented skunk as a pet... you just never know.)
JP| 6.24.10 @ 5:04PM
You made excellent points. History is full of men with impececcable credentials who fail miserably when promoted to high command (here I'm thinking of the ill fated German Commander, General Paulus of Stalingrad fame). And there are still others who are complete under achievers as junior officers but go on to win wars (General Grant).
General Eisenhower was an excellent example of the studious staff officer who may have made a poor mid-level commander, but was an outstanding politician. His main job was to get everyone to work together in order to defeat the Germans. I can think of no other person at the time who could have pulled off such a difficult and complex job as Eisenhower. He was able to take it from both below (Montgomery, Patton) and above (Churchill and Marshall).
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.10 @ 4:50PM
OKOK!
I shall now make my final (unarguable)pronouncement on this situation. (smile)
I do NOT expect Afghani warlords to march on DC.
Why?
...Because DC has already been sacked and raped by the barbarians....in slow motion to be sure.
I thank God daily for the few "Centurians" who have stood and fought over there....DeMint, Culberson, Cornyn, ...et al.
I pray for them to get some reinforcements in November, and I pray that is not too late.
.....I got a call from a dear friend a few minutes ago. He lives in Indiana. He has 6 under-aged kids. His question: "Ken, where do I take my family when everything comes apart"
I must tell you, folks, there was silence on the line from my end for too long.
Finally, I told him ..."east Texas in the forested part."
Where else he asked.
I had to tell him..."I don't know anywhere else."
I'm sure there are other places. I just don't know where they are, but I know Texans.
I told him to call a real estate agent in Madisonville Texas and to inquire about 50 to 100 acre "hideaways" in a fifty mile radius.
Ladies and gentlemen,
McChrystal is only a symptom. He has been sickened by the rules of engagement that get his troops killed for no reason except for "wimps in the whitehouse".
Many of those troops actually blame McChrystal for the rules of engagement... duh.
I personally have a solution for Afghanistan. Burn every single poppy field in the hell-hole, and make them grow food....or starve. Napalm is cheap.
The Russians were too stupid to figure it out.
We have wheat rotting in silos. We can feed them without missing a beat.
NO POPPIES! (heroin base for you dummies).
But finally, Afghanistan is the smallest of our problems. Burn their poppies and the "warlords" lose all their power.
Ladies and gentlemen, our major problem is the sack of DC.
Worse, the barbarians there don't even know that their basic survival depends upon us.
Truckers, please prove it to them.
Farmers, please prove it to them.
Pipeliners, please prove it to them.
Doctors, (MDs), please prove it to them.
Oil/gas producers, please prove it to them.
Coal miners, please prove it to them.
Slaughter houses, please prove it to them.
Ranchers, please prove it to them.
Soldiers and Marines, please prove it to them.
It will bite you, but you will survive.
The barbarians cannot....without you.
God bless America.
paul nelson| 6.24.10 @ 6:02PM
I would suggest a mountain top in northeastern Mindanao. the government there has a tenuous hold on the land and people, private armies are common, and a mountain top is relatively easily defended