Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Firing McChrystal was Necessary, Unfortunately

McChrystal does not seem to have much respect for the Commander in Chief. Not only must he be fired, but there is a requirement for court martial too, in the military code of conduct. I don't know if this will happen though.

Here is a comment from Jay on the CTV website:

"Everyone knows the war in Afghanistan is a new and unique challenge, that no politician is going to know anything about. How would like you it if some politician showed up and told you how to do your job, especially when they know absolutely nothing about it?"

Let me explain here to Jay and others why the Commander in Chief is at the top of the military chain of command.

The goal of the US military is not only a victory in Afghanistan. Winning in Afghanistan is a fairly low priority. This higher priority is a broader, long term international peace and security.

President of the USA is the person that must understand the bigger picture. Right now, I am going to let you in on a top level military secret, just so you can understand that Obama is the one who is in charge, and McChrystal is the smaller fish who messed up big time.

Afghanistan is not a major threat to the USA any more, as Al Quaeda has left for Pakistan. Iran is a big threat, and is trying to get nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has them, but has a major internal problem with religious fanatics and Al Quaeda. There is a real war going on under cover in Pakistan. US Drones are being used, mostly on the quiet, and the Pakistani Army is trying to hunt down Al Quaeda fighters, and they need the support of the USA to keep them from crossing the border into Afghanistan. In the mean time, the Russians and Chinese need to be kept on board, which Obama has managed to do, also pretty much on the quiet through diplomacy.

You will not hear a discussion of top level strategy like this from Obama, because it would be counter productive to advertise it. But he has the right to expect his top generals will follow orders and act respectfully towards him, and assume he has a bigger world strategy that they are small part of. McChrystal was not smart enough, or did not have enough respect for Barak Obama to believe that the Commander in Chief had good reasons for doing what he did.

The only reason I can get away with writing this is because I have no credibility on the world stage. But if you give it some thought, you will at least see that Afghanistan is not the be-all and end-all. General McChrystal apparently thought he was the one deciding the entire US foreign policy.

And even better, if all the know-nothings in the USA, including Fox News could stop their constant disrespectful criticism on Obama, and let him get on with the very important job of making the world a safer place in the wake of the last fool in the white house who let it all fall apart. Unfortunately, we seem to have two Americas living in one country - the Conservative south wanting a holy war and the end of the world, and the liberal north wanting world peace. I am thankful the decent people are in charge for a while, but McChrystal definitely needs to go away, he and all his advisors are apparently on the conservative (anti-Obama) side, and his understanding of Afghanistan is weak at best. Obama needs a General that will trust the judgment of the Commander in Chief, or at least take orders and keep his mouth shut, as required by the military code of conduct.

And for those of you who say McChrystal was fired for telling the truth, what part of "Joe Bite Me" is the truth? He was being disrespectful, and that is all. And that is not permitted in the military.

Picture: CENTCOM Map. You can clearly see that Afghanistan is not the only country in this area of the world. Hopefully Petraeus has a bigger world view than McChrystal.

1 comment:

  1. The 'bottom line' on this issue is that, under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the chief executive is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

    And that is exactly how it should be.

    It is the sworn duty of the military to respect and execute to their ability the wishes of the civilian president - regardless of the military members' opinions about the decisions of those civilians. Failure to do so could be construed as sedition or mutiny under the Universal Code of Military Justice.

    But McChrystal, of course, is certainly not the first U.S. military leader to fall into the trap of bad mouthing the Chief Executive.