Within hours after today’s Rolling Stone story broke, McChrystal was called by the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were not happy. – Marc Ambinder
Gen. McChrystal has now been recalled to Washington to explain himself. It’s all very Harry Truman – Douglas MacArthur.
Via Marc Ambinder, who has written a terrific piece, comes an absolutely jaw dropping story about Gen. Stanley McChrystal (and his staff) unleashing a torrent of criticism aimed at his civilian leadership, starting with Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. That it is being printed in Rolling Stone and entitled “Runaway General,” especially after Tim Dickinson’s piece leveling devastating criticism on the Administration on the BP blowout, equals a one, two political punch from a stalwart liberal publication on a Democratic administration, this time leveled by a decorated military man.
A band of McChrystal’s profane, irreverent aides are quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden and Richard Holbrooke, the special U.S. representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
McChrystal himself is described by an aide as “disappointed” in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start.
It includes a list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts Biden at the top of a list of those who don’t.
The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war “by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”
I’m just stunned.
Evidently so was Gen. McChrystal, because he’s already issued an apology even before the profile hits the stands. Via Danger Room:
“I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”
Regardless of the unintended consequences of the profile, if this apology saves him it will be a miracle.
As for the grim tidings –and I do mean grim– they come from a report called Warlord, Inc.: Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan, released by Rep. John F. Tierney, Chair Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Second paragraph of the intro letter:
The findings of this report range from sobering to shocking. In short, the Department of Defense designed a contract that put responsibility for the security of vital U.S. supplies on contractors and their unaccountable security providers. This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by a shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials, and perhaps others. Not only does the system run afoul of the Department’s own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in Afghanistan.
Sect. Clinton is quoted in bold saying, “And one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money,” which comes from her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on December 3, 2009. Tierney’s report paints those words in bold.
A few of the findings of Rep. Tierney’s report are below. “HNT” stands for Host Nation Trucking, which is “the principal contract supporting the U.S. supply chain in Afghanistan.”
- The principal private security subcontractors on the HNT contract are warlords, strongmen, commanders, and militia leaders who compete with the Afghan central government for power and authority.
- The Highway Warlords Run a Protection Racket.
- Protection Payments for Safe Passage Are a Significant Potential Source of Funding for the Taliban.
- Unaccountable Supply Chain Security Contractors Fuel Corruption.
- Unaccountable Supply Chain Security Contractors Undermine U.S. Counterinsurgency Strategy.
- The Department of Defense Lacks Effective Oversight of Its Supply Chain and Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan.
- HNT Contractors Warned the Department of Defense About Protection Payments for Safe Passage to No Avail.
The more you read the worse it gets.
Security for the U.S. Supply Chain Is Principally Provided by Warlords
Finding: The principal private security subcontractors on the HNT contract are warlords, strongmen, commanders, and militia leaders who compete with the Afghan central government for power and authority. Providing “protection” services for the U.S. supply chain empowers these warlords with money, legitimacy, and a raison d’etre for their private armies. Although many of these warlords nominally operate under private security companies licensed by the Afghan Ministry of Interior, the warlords thrive in a vacuum of government authority and their interests are in fundamental conflict with U.S. aims to build a strong Afghan government.
There is no definition of “success” to be found from reviewing the report. Maybe someone else can offer some light, but as someone who has been for Obama’s Afghanistan policy, I just don’t see this ending well at all, if ever ending.
However, the only thing likely to get any attention is Gen. McChrystal giving a possible career ending interview.
Afghanistan is killing us in so many different ways. It makes my realist vein throb.
This post has been updated.
Holy Crap Taylor, that is one shocking article I have to say. General McChrystal of all people saying these things along with his staff. When I read that General McChrystal never took his eyes off the real enemy ” The wimps in the white house” I am stunned to say the least !!
General McChrystal of all people. You know its true because he offered apology for the profile. My jaw dropped reading this article !!
The Afganistan situation is not looking good. This is one good article to read. Its a shocker I have to say !! I am wondering what other shoe is going to drop !!!
And strangely, the story really doesn’t have anything to do with Obama or the White House.
Sure, they were the targets. But McChrystal is responsible for the lives of our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan. How does undermining your mission and your superiors help their safety? It doesn’t. The chain of command is in place to protect soldiers. McChrystal has doen nothing but indirectly jeopardize the well being of Americans.
I know a few people who are officers, and they refrain from any discussion of politics even off the record and amongst friends.
The salient point is about Obama’s unpreparedness. (Doesn’t that give you confidence about what’s happening in the gulf)?
WOW…now I will be the first to insert a disclaimer, “I am not a water carrier for President Obama”, but for General McChrystal to offer this type of “Job Performance Critique”, while in the company of Subordinates, when we have warlords controlling the supply chain seems that General McChrystal has an improper focus…the best thing he can do is resign at this point…but I see a reassignment for him on the horizon. That’s just something you don’t get to do in the Military. There is no freedom of speech when you are in the Uniform, In fact, speaking ill of the Commander in Chief, if I’m not mistaken, is a disciplinary occurrence. If President Barack Obama wasn’t “on his job”, then the first step he can do to is Relieve General McChrystal of his command at the very least. To be honest with you, I believe that President Obama is way too lenient with his Commanding Generals. A good firing is what he needs to reinforce the discipline obviously lacking if General McChrystal felt so comfortable speaking about his Commander in Chief, in a time of war no less, while with subordinates.
For the record, there was an occurence, if i’m not mistaken, in which a member of the military was given a bad conduct discharge for referring to then President Clinton as slick willy.
“According to a July 8, 1993, Associated Press article, Campbell “retired after he was reprimanded and fined about $7,000 … for his comments about Clinton.” The Air Force investigation’s report, according to the AP, also concluded that Campbell had “planned the remarks.”
So in a word NO. He was NOT given a “Bad Conduct Discharge” but a reprimand and letter in his file. He was allowed to retire at two star rank and reap all the goodies.
There WERE however military personnel SEVERLY punished for daring to raise any questions or voice any opinions other then slavish adoration for the war criminal Bush.
Found by googling in about 10 seconds.
not him, I’m speaking of and non-commissioned officer…..
time for the gen to resign. immediately. he must think he has a bit of macarthur in him. diss the president etc so publically is disgusting. i just hope he goes without a long drawn out debate here. these days u never know.
i saw a great report on abc news last night that was really disturbing showing a fiasco which just happened when holbrooke came in to visit. gunfire went off alongside the road he was to travel down. a gun fight ensued and holbrooke got through ok. i also read in wapo about how afghans- many- feel this american intevrnetion is about done. alliances are already being crafted between different factions. and uh not real positive ones either.
with so many things going wrong at home i just dont see how americans will support any of this. note- the house still cant figure out how to pass the funding bill for this war. liberals dont support the bill even with money for teachers etc.. this are so damned complicated and it feels like there is no way out
oh the gop will loove mchrystal’s bashing of potus feeding their narrative of the “weak dems.” im also sure america’s lack of support for this conflict is going to get even worse with this new controversy. how many crises per week do we accumulate these days? im losing track
EXACTLY…I was on the Fox site…going crazy readintg these soo called conservatives cheer on McChrystal until they find out that he voted for President Obama as well….
To say Pres. Obama doesn’t need this is a frickin’ understatement.
It’s the Carter-ization of Obama. He cannot allow it to happen.
This was a jaw dropper. Reminds me of when Truman fired MacArthur. Let’s see if Obama has the guts to fire McChrystal. Both these generals failed to realize that our military is run by a civilian government and that the POTUS is Commander in Chief. You just don’t come out publicly and criticize the President like this. McChrystal may have apologized but the damage is already done. He really can’t take back his words.
With that said I think this is going to be great fodder for the GOP and they are going to portray Obama as a weak Commander in Chief using McChrystal’s quotes – “an unprepared Obama” and “the wimps in the White House.” I don’t see this one going away any time soon.
I’m wondering now if Obama can win in 2012. The Independents that I hang around with and who voted for him in 2008 have already said that they will not vote for him in 12. Obama doesn’t quite look like “the one” when he ran for President.
McChrystal has been summoned to the White House to explain.
It’s all very Truman – MacArthur.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813.html
You can read the Rolling Stone article here:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_r1109mcchrystal.html
You know, I saw a brief mention of this on one of the morning news shows and I didn’t really want to believe it. Army officers usually have a such a “politically correct” mindset that I didn’t see how one of them(much the whole office cadre) could go so far. But since Gen. McChrystal is already apologizing….
And then to also have a major report out about the contracting fiasco funding warlords and/or the Taliban….
What’s that old saying about history…those who can’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it? Yeah, maybe someone in the military or the administration need to find some old Russian soldiers or read some history from the British Empire’s days in Afghanistan?
Well, as I’ve said many times, Obama inherited Bush-Cheney’s negligence, so his policy in Afghanistan, I believe, was a must. I also think the muscular diplomacy and aid to civilians, especially women, has been justified and necessary.
However, McChrystal’s insubordination and humiliation of the civilian command proves Afghanistan is eating us up from the inside out, top down.
Whether Pres. Obama accepts it is one thing, but Gen. McChyrstal needs to offer his resignation.
I’m still catching up to this, so forgive me if I’ve missed the obvious…
McChrystal has always struck me as a bit of a law unto himself. He certainly has been, for a general, outspoken about how things have been going. He went too far this time, as did his staff, but I think he had to have known how this would go. Either he’s seriously angry about what the White House and Congress have been doing, or he’s come to believe that whole chain of command thing doesn’t apply to him.
Either way, it’s a bad sign.
Either General McChrystal is insane or he believes that some very powerful people in the government have his back. I don’t think that he’s insane. So who are these powerful people? The short answer is Hillary, Gates and Gen. Petraeus. Let’s call them the Afghanistan war escalators. McChrystal should be fired for insubordination. The powerful people should tender their resignations for being stupid. Peace
I think you have this exactly wrong on the politics of it. It’s much simpler than your conspiracy knotting.
The military tasked with carrying out policy in Afghanistan does not trust their civilian bosses. It’s not uncommon and it doesn’t matter how you draw the lines.
Obama’s Afghanistan policy has torn the high command, including the Pres.’s foreign policy team, apart. It’s separating allies into camps, which further imperils Obama’s mission.
If there is a good reason to disembark it’s because of the tattered command. It’s also a reason why Obama will likely dig in and dig deeper.
I did not present a conspiracy. I simply pointed out the fault lines. On the one side of this ridiculous policy of escalation was Hillary, Gates and the generals. On the other side was Obama and Biden. That’s public knowledge. Obama’s decision to escalate was purely political and was forced on him by the neocons in and outside of the military. That the military and those who supported their approach, like Hillary and Gates, couldn’t see the foolishness inherent in their thinking is what makes these people stupid and dangerous to America. They all need to be replaced by people who actually understand the real stakes in this fools errand. The solution to Afghanistan, and Pakistan for that matter, is not now nor has it ever been brute force. Peace
Editor of Rolling Stone says McChrystal did not push back on the story:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38842.html
Interesting article on Rolling Stone in TPM: “How Rolling Stone Won The News Cycle And Lost The Story”
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/how-rolling-stone-won-the-news-cycle-and-lost-the-story.php
Imagine what more Rolling Stone could accomplish in this world if they weren’t blindingly incompetent.
Talk about feeding into the rethug narrative! It gives me some comfort to know that McCrystal voted for the President. I wonder somethimes about a cabol wihin the military like the “oathkeepers”.
This report that the President was not prepared for a meeting with McCrystal and an earlier remark that he had not talked to him in months,when you add it to the fact that it took Obama weeks to talk to the top people in BP??? What gives here??
Those in charge of the country always double down on wars, but pussyfoot around on issues directly affecting Americans (unemployment, healthcare, environment, bank reform).
I think most Americans have more to fear from a bad economy, lack of affordable health care, etc. than a terrorist attack. When will we have a government that actually cares about its citizens and not just making the world a safe place for Corporations?
I just read my own words and I sound like a far left liberal, which I am not. I am just frustrated to no end with politicians who dont seem to want to help the people of this country.
There has been a mischaracterization for decades that taking care of issues at home makes someone “a far left liberal.” The defensiveness you illustrate is nothing new, but it’s ironic this position was once held as a conservative viewpoint.
Beyond Afghanistan, I’ve become more of a realist on interventionism. I was against the Iraq war before it was popular to be so. Morally, I have always felt we owe more to Afghanistan than we’ve illustrated, though Obama has evened the score significantly.
This piece by Rolling Stone is as devastating as Tim Dickinson’s piece when it comes to a look inside the Obama presidency & administration. The totality is alarming in the extreme.
One thing I remember discussing here back in 2008 was whether Obama was ready for a government executive job. He just didn’t have the experience of running a government. That lack of experience appears to be showing up now, both in this and in his handling (scroll down about eight paragraphs) of the Gulf oil leak. He’s picked some lousy advisers, whose qualifications seem to have more to do with their connections in DC than with their abilities, and he’s made some really bad decisions.
so, if Obama listens to truman, McC will be gone. if he listens to Hillary, nothing will happen except a dressing down and an upbeat speech about “winning” in Afghanistan.
If he listens to Hillary about anything for any reason Obama should have his head examined. She is the worst not only because she’s a warmonger, but also because she’s a politician rather than statesman. Everything is optics to this woman. Peace
Insert warning about Clinton Derangement Syndrome here.
Pres. Obama made HIS OWN DECISION about Afghanistan based on many more people than Sect. Clinton. I disagree with Obama on many things and think he’s squandered a huge landscape of trust, but your disrespect for his thinking process defies common sense.
I would love a dollar every time Imhotep says Hillary.
If I had $10 for everytime imhotep said Hillary, I could have paid my student loans off!
just to clarify, I am not dissing either Obama or Hillary… didn’t mean to feed the trolls, but I think she is too aggressive re: Afghanistan and Iran
Imhotep, not *every* issue can be reduced to “It’s Hillary’s fault!” C’mon now. Obama took the time to study the issue (after McChrystal leaked his memo). He decided to escalate. I’m sure that Hillary and Gates made a strong case for escalation. Biden argued the other way. But Obama made the decision. And he has been quite clear that he considered Afghanistan the “good war,” even well before the election. The success or failure of the strategy rests on his shoulders, and his alone.
McChrystal should be fired. This has become a pattern with him, and his trangressions should no longer be indulged.
As to the larger policy question: Those who want to leave must explain clearly how they will handle the consequences of a re-Talibanization, now with nearly $1 trillion in funding from mineral deposits. Those who want to stay must explain clearly how they can hope to prevail against a determined Taliban, with a corrupt, puppet central government and warlords whose allegiance is for sale. And, lest we forget, $1 trillion in mineral deposits.
FWIW, I’m on the side of those who say we need to stay. But we need a clear honest airing of the issue. And we need to acknowledge the perils of either strategy. Queue Macbeth: “I am in blood / Stepp’d in so far, that, should I wade no more / Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
Modern English translation: We’re f*cked either way.
the mineral deposits are in Afghanistan, not in Illinois. those minerals belong to the Afghan people, not to us, and if we wage war to “own” the minerals that belong to the Afghans, we are quite simply wrong.
That’s not what I’m saying. At all. I’m saying that whether we leave or stay, we need to contend with the real possibility of a Taliban that is extremely well-funded. Any option — leave or double down — has to account for that. It’s not a question of who owns what.
Hey ogenec, good to see you.
I think this boils down to a policy difference between the General and President. I am assuming that the military is under great pressure to “succeed” within the President’s timeframe of withdrawal next year. My suspicion is that it is not possible and the General is reacting.
Hey Ogenec~
Well if we are F***ed either way isn’t it smarter to cut bait? Especially in light of the new information on the corruption of our supply chain?
kris, I caught the end of a Booknotes on C-span with an author who has supposedly written “The” book on counterinsurgency. He says that an insurgency ends when the invading army leaves. Period. Afganistan’s history would certainly support that.
Hey LL and kris!!
What’s interesting about this situation is that, if you’d asked me two weeks ago if I thought that we were paying off Afghan warlords, my answer would have been “Of course we are.” Afghanistan is organized politically more like Europe was in the Middle Ages – warlords are powerful and you need their cooperation to get just about anything done.
So why the surprise?
As for McChrystal, besides my remarks earlier, I think he should be fired. The line where civilian control starts has always been a clear one for the military. It has to stay that way, particularly if the military is feeling overburdened. The proper reaction to that situation is to either get out or give the military what it needs, not allowing insubordinate behavior.
Whether McChrystal keeps his job will tell us a lot about whether Obama can be an effective President.