|
It has been fairly amazing about how suddenly informed about military matters and Afghanistan the media elite were within minutes of McChrystal getting the gate. This is a bit shocking, considering that the Rolling Stone article that kicked off the mess revealed that big shot Washington, DC, media know next to nothing about what is happening there (or anywhere?) Well, you gotta sound like you know what you are talking about, even when you don’t.
The headlines at mid-week were all about the intemperate remarks he and his top aides made about the Vice-President, the President and their aides. Is that really why McChrystal was fired? Probably, no. If you read the Rolling Stone article carefully, you could reach a far different conclusion than the one being blatted about on every television channel and in newspaper columns from coast to coast. (Of course, who has time to read the article when you have to be on the air in ten minutes?)
The article was posted online not long after the New York Times got a copy of it and blared the headlines. It reveals not just casual putdowns or even more vulgar putdowns of Biden and others. Reading between the lines, it paints of picture of a group of people around McChystal, obviously reflecting his style and sense of command entitlement, who were completely out of control. They seemed, in every way, to be intent on doing things the way they thought they should be done, period. If we have to deal with those nitwits back in DC, well we will deal with them as best we can and ignore them as best we can, too.
While it might have not been enough to prove a case in court, insubordination was written all over the Rolling Stone article and not merely by the tone of the remarks. With the crass level of comments offered up, tone doesn’t really figure in to it. Instead of presenting the picture of a top level general who was dealing with and responding the orders from the civilian leaders, it seemed to be a group of men, cowboys, who had decided they were in this own their own and they wanted to keep it that way.
If you are the president, and if you want to keep control of the military (or maybe try to get it in the first place), firing McChrystal wasn’t even a close call. The case could hardly have been more plain if McChrystal had issued a directly challenge to the Commander-in-Chief by posting a series of messages on Twitter. (Or is that “twitters”? ) (side note: why are presidents expected to know about every new dumb trend that comes along on the Internet?)
Keep in mind, too, that McChrystal had been involved in two very high level transgressions before. First, he participated, from all available evidence, in the cover-up of the “friendly fire” death of Pat Tilman, something that resulted in the nation having a hero to mourn for months before the truth came out (Tilman is still a hero, of course, but his legacy was tainted by the military and the cover-up.)
Next, McChrystal attempted to tie the president’s hands by telling a Congressional committee that he needed more troops in Afghanistan. This is the kind of thing that is supposed to be communicated in private, not broadcast so as to create pressure on a president, particularly one who had not been in office very long. Rule breaking seems to be his strong suit, going all the way back to West Point days.
McChrystal could have been, and probably should have been, dismissed from the military after his Congressional testimony, but somehow or another, he stayed on. In truth, it seemed like the new president at that time didn’t really know he was supposed to be in charge of the Pentagon and its generals.
This is not merely a case of three strikes and you’re out. McChrystal was involved, at minimum, in three separate events which would have resulted in the firing of a lesser man before the end of the day. His sharp intelligence, apparent to all around him, his dedication, his popularity with the soldiers under his command and his ability to work around the clock probably saved him previously. Not this time.
McChrystal also gave president Obama a gift: the ability not just to be in command, but to show he is in command. This is something that all presidents, if they are paying attention, love. Ronald Reagan made his presidency, in large measure, by standing up to the striking air traffic controllers and firing them, something no one thought he would, or could, do. Reagan also made it stick, since they weren’t hired back.
The one thing that American public can’t stand is a president who is weak. Jimmy Carter looked weak, even pathetic, in his presidency before Reagan. The American hostage situation in Iran dragged on for months with no strong response and the public, at least a sizable portion, never forgave him. A weak president, to many, equaled a weak America. No sale. (Reagan also showed weakness by sending troops in Lebanon without a clear mission and then abruptly pulling them out after more than 200 were killed by a suicide truck bomber, but, for some reason, the public didn’t blame Reagan, although budding terrorists drew conclusions from the quick withdrawal. The conclusions, however false, were one thread that led to the 9-11 attacks, as detailed by the investigating commission. )
It remains to be seen how much benefit Obama will get from his decisive actions this week, but there is no doubt that the military brass will be listening a bit closer when he speaks in the future. The right, which would have applauded a Republican president in a similar situation, will no doubt find a way to portray Obama’s firing of McChrystal as something caused by the president’s own weak leadership in the first place. You can twist a pretzel in either direction.
As for the military and presidential leadership, most military people want to keep their jobs and would sincerely like to finish their careers on a high note. Now they know that insubordination, if they are caught, could stand in the way. How can that be a bad thing?
Doug Terry, 6.25.10
|
|
