The Myth of the Runaway General

[Warph]

The Myth of the Runaway General
By Larry Johnson


Although I hoped that McChrystal would survive (for the sake of our country) the media frenzy was too great and the perception of a rebellious General was set in stone. He had to go. But if you read the Rolling Stone piece that did McChrystal in you will notice that the journalist had a mission–trash McChrystal and the counter insurgency program he was trying to implement.

You need to understand a couple of things to appreciate what is really going on. Point one–the majority of the military, particularly those considered "special" forces despise Obama and his team. The dislike is growing not shrinking. I fear that firing McChrystal will only exacerbate the tensions.

McChrystal's main error was twofold–first, he allowed this reporter inside the tent and second, his staff spoke freely and said things that should not be voiced around an uncleared civilian. Guys blowing off steam in private does not mean they turn around and try to sabotage Obama. To the contrary–they serve the Commander-in-Chief regardless of their feelings about him or her.

Point two, the real lie in the Rolling Stone article started in the title, referring to McChrystal as a "Runaway" General. This suggest that Stan was following his own policy and ignoring the instructions or orders of Barack Obama or Bob Gates. Well, that is just complete horseshit. This was not "McChrystal's plan" per se. He presented the President with a concept of operations aka CONOPS and the President signed off on it. McChrystal was executing Obama's plan even though he was denied the full number of troops he needed.

The claim of critics that the plan is "not working" is a bit disingenuous. If the plan depends upon having a certain number of troops in place and you delay the deployment of those troops by six months then why are you surprised when the "plan is not working."

The right is not happy with McChrystal because he recognized, correctly, that we can't kill our way to victory in Afghanistan. Ultimately we will only win if the Afghans themselves take control of the situation and govern the country without subjecting Afghans to an extremist religious government. Many (especially the troops) are unhappy with the restrictive rules of engagement. The Rolling Stone piece hints at the problem, suggesting that McChrystal's orders are getting gummed up and mistranslated as they work their way down the food chain. Clearly the troops on the frontlines are not happy with the orders and McChrystal was working to try to bridge the gulf and get the ROEs fixed.

This is now the problem of General David Petraeus. I enjoy the irony of listening to the Obama supporters who vilified Petraeus as Betrayus now looking to Petraeus to save Obama's bacon in Afghanistan. There is one big potential problem–David Petraeus's health. Rumors in military circles are that Petraeus is battling prostate cancer. When he passed out last week during a Congressional hearing it was something more than just being "dehydrated." Whether or not he is physically up to the task of taking over McChrystal's job remains to be seen.

The real problem identified in the Rolling Stone piece is that President Obama is not leading the Afghan policy and is not forcing coordination. Instead you have the US Ambassador doing one thing, the US Special Envoy doing something different and the General fighting as many political battles behind the lines with folks who are supposed to be his allies as he is fighting Islamic extremists. This is the failure of Barack Obama and his White House team, this is not a "runaway" General.

I have no doubt Stan McChrystal will recover from this debacle. I wish I could say the same for our nation.

About: Larry Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism.

[Leonardcrl]

Warph:  I normally lurk in the shadows as you and the other active participants of this forum carry on your discussions.  
In the interests of stirring the pot I've decided to post a couple of links that should kick this garbage can full of rocks down the road  

• The original Rolling Stone Article
• The Gates/Mullen press conference. Watch the video.  It's lengthy but worth it.

My take away from the Rolling Stone story was focused late in the story (Web Page 8 ) where the description of the General's attempt to
convince some of his troops that the strategy was right. They weren't buying it.

Now I'll go back into the shade and watch the words fly.

[Warph]

McChrystal Aides Hit Back At Rolling Stone
Published : Saturday, 26 Jun 2010, 7:19 AM PDT

(NewsCore) - Aides of Gen. Stanley McChrystal hit back Saturday at the Rolling Stone article that triggered his downfall, saying the magazine had reported off-the-record comments and taken statements out of context, according to a report in the Washington Post.

Described in the newspaper as "heartbroken," aides came to the defense of the fired former Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan and slammed the article for quoting from a celebration at a Paris bar that was "clearly off the record."

"This is private time. These are guys who don't get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record," aides say they told Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings before allowing him to accompany them. Hastings went on to describe the men as "completely s**tfaced."

But magazine editor Eric Bates maintains his employee did nothing wrong and strictly abided by the rules laid before him regarding what was and was not on the record.

"We got a lot of stuff off the record and didn't use it. We respected all of those boundaries," he told CNN last week. "These weren't off-the-cuff remarks by his staff he didn't know about."

In the article, aides are quoted calling National Security Advisor Jim Jones "a clown," and describing Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke as "like a wounded animal."

McChrystal's aides provided the Washington Post with emails exchanged between a Rolling Stone fact-checker and now-fired press officer Duncan Boothby that seem to contradict Bates.

The published article reveals that McChrystal voted for U.S. President Barack Obama, something Boothby warned the magazine not to print.

"IMPORTANT -- PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS -- THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNRELATED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE," he wrote, before elaborating on military rules regarding privacy of political views.

Hastings also included a snide line about the military men, reporting they called themselves Team America after a satirical -- and unflattering to the U.S. -- animated movie.

Bootby's email to the Rolling Stone fact-checker corrects the assertion that the team refers to itself with the title. "We joke that we are sometimes perceived that way by many of the NATO forces" under McChrystal's command.

Saturday's article describes the morning McChrystal was told about the "very, very bad" article and tells of his staff's regret at the fallout from it.

"I've seen incredibly brave men cry this week," said a source.

After the article went viral, McChrystal offered his resignation to Obama on Wednesday. He was called to the White House for a meeting the same day and relieved of his duties.

(This article is provided by NewsCore, which aggregates news from around News Corporation.)

[Warph]

Source: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/soros-front-group-white-washes.html

Soros Front Group White Washes Criticism of General Petraeus

MoveOn.org, a George Soros front group, has removed all criticisim of General Patreus, now that Petraeus is in command of the Afghanistan war effort.

The criticism was pretty severe. New EPJ contributor Rick Newbold posts the anti-Petraeus ad that MoveOn.org placed in NYT:
http://newbold.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/prior-war-criticism-fades-away-with.html


But here's what happens when you go to the MoveOn.org pages that originally carried the Petraeus criticism. Check it out for yourself:

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus_ad.html

Soros has been a heavy supporter of the Afghanistan war. Negative comments about Petraeus, given that he is now commander in charge of the war, would only further weaken American support for the war. People might even want to Move On, and you can't have that.

Also, check out "General Betray Us Ad Removed By MoveOn.org" at:
http://www.newsopi.com/us/general-betray-us-ad-removed-by-moveon-org/2647/

....Warph