See the McChrystal post on 30 May, 2010

I am surprised that some of you don't understand what is at stake in McChrystal's offense.  It is really quite simple.  The principle has always been in this country that the federal military is an instrument of state policy.  Our tradition is designed to prevent the emergence of "Caesarism" as a method of picking leaders or determining basic national policy.  To maintain that principle Macarthur was fired on the advice of George Marshall.  What McChrystal has done is to challenge President Obama. Everyone in the armed forces knows that.  The notion has emerged in the COIN community that Obama is weak and can  be bullied into removing the time restriction that he has placed on the Afghanistan COIN campaign plan that he adopted at their urging last year.  Macarthur implicitly threatened both Roosevelt and Truman with the possibility that he would mobilize Republican politicos against them.  The COIN crowd think that the same method can be used against this president.  They have been willing to bet that he is no Truman and that Gates and Clinton do not have Marshall's strength.  The effrontery of the deed in feeding this reporter all this material without placing it off the record is clearly a challenge to civilian control of policy.

McChrystal must be fired.  Then he should be put on the retired list in his permanent grade with no end of career award.  Then some thought should be given to the clear violation here of Article 88 of UCMJ.

Active duty military people are free to express their opinions to their superiors. They are not and should not be free to use the press against the civilian government.

Admiral Byng comes to mind.  pl 

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/page/5/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_toward_officials

Comments

[PirateLaddie]

Ol' Stanley McChrystal
Was hot as a pistol,
Dissin' & jivin' The Boss.
If this were the old days,
Before all the FOX haze,
His ass would be thrown for a loss.

[Sean Paul Kelley]

Col. Lang, I read the article in Rolling Stone--it's been posted at Politico--and I can't really see where McChrystal was being insubordinate. Was he being a jacka**? Sure. I may be wrong. And I know very little of the UCMJ, and so I'm curious if you might point out what I missed? And if he indeed was insubordinate?

[fanto]

Colonel, you understand the past better than others and so you have the ability to see what may be in the future; that is a rare gift and the society needs people like you (I am not a sycophant though... :)

[Chopperdoc]

Could it be he has a hidden agenda with this sort of gaff? Certainly someone who has had stars on his shoulders for this long, couldn't be that monumentally stupid without some sort of plan behind it.

[anon]

Pat,

Are you too pissed to even write a complete post? :)

[The Twisted Genius]

I see McCrystal has been summoned to the White House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813.html

His chain of command should address this before it reaches the President. If there is any honor, discipline and love for our country left in our general officers; relief of command, immediate resignation and/or courts martial should be announced before McChrystal sets foot in the White House. To leave this matter only for the President to resolve is cowardice.

[FB Ali]

McChrystal is either crazy or crazy like a fox: he may be trying to get himself fired. Realizing that it's 'cover your behind' time in Afghanistan, he believes that this is the best way to do it.

And, Pat, re your comment on the other thread: Yes, in spite of all that, I'd be glad to help!

[Fred]

Either McChrystal resigns, Obama fires him or Obama can be guaranteed to be a one term failure as President. Not only will this embolden President Obama's political opponents who see him as weak, it will undermine the lawful civilian authority over the military. God knows what foreigners will think.

[Stormcrow]

That was succinct. LOL

Now we find out whether Obama has a backbone, or wet spaghetti noodles.

I'm not betting on the former. But I'll be extremely pleased to be proven wrong.

[Mad Dogs]

Here’s a link over at the Washington Note to the McChrystal Rolling Stone article and if that’s not up, here’s one at Time.

[Andy]

You certainly called it. No question he has to go, but it's really unfortunately it had to come to this.

[Sean Paul Kelley]

I stand corrected. Thank you Col. Lang.

[ked]

Is it possible McChrystal & Petraeus are on the same meds, but have different reactions?

[ServingPatriot]

Anything less than being fired indicates a terminal weakness on the behalf of the Commander-in-Chief. This kind of activity cannot be laughed off or apologized for in order to retain his position.

He'd make a ton of money as a retired 3-star (since he has not served honorably as a 4-star). That's on top of his very generous pension (on the order of 85% of basic pay).

We'll know soon enough.

SP

[batondor]

Pat,

I was dumbstruck by the blatant disrespect shown by McChrystal et al. and agree with 100% on the implications as expressed here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/obama-has-to-fire-mcchrystal/58509/

On the other hand, I frankly wonder whether McChrystal and his anonymous "aides" are not looking for reassignment anyway, especially after I saw David Kilcullen literally talking out of the side of his mouth here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#37838703

Am I naive to hate the ad hominem? Well, sometimes it's unavoidable, I guess...

[William R. Cumming]

Well the flag ranks do have their personal beliefs and interesting when they share them! Is it stupid yes! Insubordinate--The VP last I heard is not in the Chain of Command from the Commander in Chief.

What is becoming more and more obvious is that the decorations and awards for EGO and HUBRIS seem to come with Flag Rank. Can we count those in last two decades that stood up for what they believed to be the truth as opposed to saying "I can do, sir" when they know they cannot. Paraphrasing the Admiral in the Bridges of Toko Ri by James Michner the question --Where do we get such men--can definitely be answered by looking at the careers of most of the flag ranks. But hey warfare is an extension of diplomacy and politics by other means so perhaps this is only what can be expected.

[Adam L. Silverman]

Sir,

Here's the actual Rolling Stone link:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

[PirateLaddie]

Never dealt much with flags on the military side of the fence. At State, yes, and I presume they ain't THAT different, just less resourced.
The Romans had it right -- keep a slave at the side of the triumphant one, constantly whispering "This too shall pass." Instead, our deities du jour are surrounded by sycophants and ass kissers whose only issue is "tongue or no tongue?"
I fear this administration will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[Patrick Lang]

WRC

You know better than that. This a very specific violation on Article 88 of the UCMJ. pl

[jonst]

You are 100% correct Col. This a crucial moment and test. However, I don't there is a chance in hell Obama will stand up to this. Sadly. Do you note Kerry (John) is already cautioning all to avoid "overreacting" on this?

[J]

Colonel,

Right off the top, 3 need to be given their pink slips by the President -- OSD Gates, Petraeus , McChrystal.

Things are looking like Obama may voluntarily be a 1 term President.

[JohnH]

McCrystal must be forced to fall on his own sword--made to resign. The only other alternative is a transfer to a place with no telephones.

Firing will only turn him into a cult hero and the odds are pretty high that this crazy electorate would elect him President.

[Vanasek]

Col Lang,

it seems to me the Stan knew exactly where this would end up: either (a) Obama doesn't have the balls to fire him, thus allowing him to do what he wants with the war; or (b) he gets canned and thus hit the rubber chicken circuit blaming the civilans for why his great Khandahar offensive and COIN plans failed. "If only I had been allowed to do what I wanted..." will be the well worn refrain.

As they say, silence speaks louder than words and notice how Stan's bosses, Petreus and the Joint Chiefs have been awfully silent about this. My guess is that they secretly support Stan but in typical fashion, don't want their heads to be chopped off too. As long as they are around, they will continually look to undermine any shift in strategy (like what you have recommended numerous times in your blog) that reduces our footprint in Afganistan.

I unfortunately don't think there will be enough of a purge that will aloow us to hang Karzai out to dry, cut some deals with whatever groups we can to stop the Taliband, and get out before we lose another decade and a few thousand more American lives.

[Bart]

Unlike our beloved Constitution, Article 88 could not be more specific.

[rjj]

"McChrystal is either crazy or crazy like a fox: he may be trying to get himself fired. "

this fits.

First thought: was the reporter so intoxicatingly attractive they abandoned all sense and discretion in an attempt to ingratiate? Second thought: something more than a tad over the top about this - particularly as it was not followed with any of the usual weaseling about being taken out of context.

This seems more like calculation than lapse.