The General and The President
“I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.” And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Good Bye.” ~ General Douglas MacArthur ~Dixie asked me what I thought about the General and the President. Initially, I set out to write a simple and concise answer, but have found as the paragraphs mounted that was not possible. General Stanley McChrystal allowed a Rolling Stone writer, Michael Hastings, to be embedded with him and his team, to write a profile of the General – a bad idea, as it turns out. Europe was then overcome with volcanic ash, from Iceland, and two days worth of face time, turned into much more, including a bus ride to Germany, on which the staff drank a bit too much, while the writer recorded their observations and comments.
The article was released, and the problems for the General began. He was accused of criticizing the President and his team, which the General did not deny, but did apologize for, repeatedly. Within hours, the General was dismissed, and his boss, General Petraeus, was demoted, to fill the empty post.
Context is everything:
“Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. “I never know what’s going to pop out until I’m up there, that’s the problem,” he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal says with a laugh. “Who’s that?”
“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. ‘Did you say: Bite Me?’” This is obviously a jocular exchange, and the comment is not made by the General.
“Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his expletive war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”” Again, the comment is attributed to the General, but not made by the General.
“In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk expletive about many of Obama’s top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a ‘clown’ who remains ‘stuck in 1985.’ Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, ‘turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it’s not very helpful.’ Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal’s inner circle. ‘Hillary had Stan’s back during the strategic review,’ says an adviser. ‘She said, ‘If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.’” The paragraph starts with In Private. Does that not say it all? A group of men, who face life and death together, are speaking in private.
“McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. ‘The Boss says he’s like a wounded animal,’ says a member of the general’s team. ‘Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He’s a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can’t just have someone yanking on expletive.’” The statement attributed to the General is made by a staff member.
“At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. ‘Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,’ he groans. ‘I don’t even want to open it.’ He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.” Is there anyone who has not made that comment regarding a letter or phone call?
Overall, I think it is an excellent article, and worth reading (I have included a link). The General has a history of mixing it up a bit, standing by his men, and of success. President Hamid Karzai, of Afghanistan is still standing with the General, and singing his praises. Most of the uproar was over comments made by others, which are attributed to the General. The more interesting elements of this story are actually about how the General feels about his team, policy and procedures, and the General’s belief in counter-insurgency. Sadly, most of what is worth reading will be overlooked.
Not quoted in the excerpts:
“Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It’s “insurgent math,” as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. “For a while,” says one U.S. official, “the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a ‘civ cas’ incident.” The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win an award for: There’s talk of creating a new medal for “courageous restraint,” a buzzword that’s unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-ho culture of the U.S. military.”
“In March, McChrystal traveled to Combat Outpost JFM – a small encampment on the outskirts of Kandahar – to confront such accusations from the troops directly. It was a typically bold move by the general. Only two days earlier, he had received an e-mail from Israel Arroyo, a 25-year-old staff sergeant who asked McChrystal to go on a mission with his unit. “I am writing because it was said you don’t care about the troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves,” Arroyo wrote.
Within hours, McChrystal responded personally: “I’m saddened by the accusation that I don’t care about soldiers, as it is something I suspect any soldier takes both personally and professionally – at least I do. But I know perceptions depend upon your perspective at the time, and I respect that every soldier’s view is his own.” Then he showed up at Arroyo’s outpost and went on a foot patrol with the troops – not some expletive t photo-op stroll through a market, but a real live operation in a dangerous war zone.”
“The general’s staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There’s a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority.”
“McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. ‘All these men,’ he tells me. ‘I’d die for them. And they’d die for me.’”
The question which comes to mind is why? Why were the statements made? Where do these feelings of frustration come from? Why do these men in uniform feel such a disconnect and lack of respect from those in Washington?
Recently, we watched the PBS program, “American Experience” Victory in the Pacific. The documentary was about the end of World War II, in the Pacific.
One of the first statements made in the show, was that there was no word for surrender in the Japanese military. The narrator then went on to state the following statistics. I am not a numbers person, but these were quite telling: During the campaigns for the Gilbert Islands, the Americans encountered 3000 Japanese soldiers, of the 3000, all but eight fought to the death. On the Marshall Islands, only seventy-nine soldiers, out of 5000 survived, and on the Mariana Islands, 1000, out of 30,000 chose life over death.
Perhaps even more amazing was the fact that not only did the soldiers fight to the death, but civilians chose to commit suicide rather than surrender. The film showed a colorful, beautiful, majestic, ocean side cliff, that looked down onto a rocky beach that was being battered by white waves then our view was transitioned to black and white film, which showed people jumping from the cliff. One older man said that when he was five years old his father told him that the Americans were going to eventually kill him, so he might as well die, and then the father threw the child over the cliff. Miraculously, the child became caught in a tree, and survived to tell his tale; but he was one of the lucky ones. The Marines said the water was so full of bodies, that they were impossible to avoid.
It is hard to imagine, a father throwing his three children over a cliff, and then jumping himself, yet that is what was witnessed, and filmed. Why? Where is such behavior birthed? From a historical perspective, and as a form of entertainment and enlightenment, I highly recommend this documentary, as well as most of the programming which is available from PBS.org. However, it is not the war, the battles, or the bloodshed, which I walked away wondering about, rather it was the people.
While perhaps it is a stretch, I would say that both Germany and Japan lost World War II on December 7, 1941, before a single American round was fired. The moment the United States was attacked, the world’s enemies saw victory snatched from their hands. Perhaps, especially in the Pacific, it became a war of attrition, while in both theaters the loss of life was unconscionable, but once the United States entered the war, we were not going to lose. The United States had the natural resources, the industry, the man power, and with the attack on Pearl Harbor, the will to win the war. Most military historians of course say that it was the battle at Midway, fought between June 4 -7, 1942, where the Japanese were defeated, and the Japanese military in 1942 may well have understood this fact, but they had no word for surrender. They were not going to sue for peace, they would fight to the death – even after the destruction in Tokyo and a nuclear bomb in Hiroshima, they were still willing to go forward. Why?
During the war, the prevailing belief in Japan was that their sovereign was sovereign – they believed that their emperor was a god, and thus they were willing to die for him. Both the military and civilian population followed their leaders with unflinching loyalty, many to their death, at their own hands. The emperor was not to be questioned or mocked.
Why did the President relieve the General of his duties? Was the General suddenly unfit, or had he simply questioned and his men mocked the President? The General did not disobey any command, he was not disloyal to the United States, nor did he commit treason? He did show poor judgment, by letting down his guard with a reporter; and letting the world see that he was disappointed in a Commander in Chief who had never served.
Anyone who has ever been around a group of men well knows that they very much enjoy mercilessly criticizing and joking with each other, about almost everything. There are things about this General which bring me pause, such as his role in the cover-up, after Pat Tillman was killed; but I take no issue with the statements he made concerning what is happening in Washington.
Our President has decided that he is cool and casual, swearing during interviews, not bothering to lay wreaths at Arlington, during Memorial Day, taking months to decide whether or not to commit to a surge which he campaigned for – somehow, it seems to me if that is the image you want to put forth, you cannot expect to be blindly praised.
American men and women are daily being asked to put their lives on the line. The General was actually going out on patrols, with his men and women. Were some of the comments made in the article inappropriate, perhaps? But the president is not the emperor, he is not infallible and the members of the armed services should not have to think of the president as an emperor. The President, who has been less than gentle, should be able to take a little criticism. That is all for now.
To read the entire article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37847841/ns/us_news-military/
“American Experience” Victory in the Pacific
