« Yes, Gen. Stanley McChrystal Should be Fired | Main | Yes We Can... Win in Afghanistan »
June 23, 2010
Afghanistan: McChrystal Out, Petraeus In
We've got a new top dog in Afghanistan:
President Obama said Wednesday he feels no "personal insult" from Gen. Stanley McChrystal but accepted his resignation as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan because he couldn't abide scathing comments by McChrystal and his aides that appeared in an article out this week in Rolling Stone magazine."The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan," Obama said.
In Rose Garden remarks, Obama nominated Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and the former commanding general in Iraq, to replace McChrystal. Petraeus' confirmation hearing in the Senate could come as early as Thursday.
The president said he had no disagreements with McChrystal's policy or conduct in the war in Afghanistan, and the change in personnel does not mean a change in policy. He said the two were on the same page in terms of war strategy, but no "diversion" to the mission was acceptable.
President Obama absolutely did the right thing. We simply cannot have the military publicly criticizing their civilian bosses.
Yesterday, in Yes, Gen. Stanley McChrystal Should be Fired, I wrote that Obama should fire him but probably wouldn't. This is one instance in which I am glad I was wrong.
The most famous incident in which a president fired a general was, of course, when Truman dismissed Douglas MacArthur. The general had criticized the president's limited war strategy, particularly his desire to avoid involving China.
Forty years ago, in another incident that caused much controversy at the time, President Carter fired General john Singlaub over comments the latter publicly criticized the President's decision to withdraw troops from Korea.
More recently, in 2008 President Bush essentially fired Admiral William Fallon, commander of CENTCOM. Fallon had made comments to a reporter from Esquire in which he indicated that if it wasn't for him Bush would be at war with Iran. The story that came out was that Fallon retired, but there is no doubt that it was a case of "retire or be fired."
In all three cases the president did the right thing. Whether the general or admiral was right in some existential sense is irrelevant.
In the case of Afghanistan, the war effort will be in good hands with Petraeus. If anyone can put us on the path to victory, it is him.
To be sure, most liberals and liberal media outlets are being completely hypocritical about generals who criticize their president. But of course.
All in all, I'm in agreement with Rich Lowry that Obama hit a home run:
I'm not sure how Obama could have handled this any better. He was genuinely graceful about McChrystal and his explanation of why he had to go made perfect sense. He called for unity within his adminstration in pursuing the war and sounded quite stalwart about both the war and about the strategy. More importantly, his choice of Petraeus as a replacement for McChrystal is a brilliant move: He gets a heavy-weight, an unassailable expert in this kind of warfare, and someone who presumably can step in pretty seamlessly. He also picked someone who has expressed (very diplomatic) misgivings about the July 2011 deadline and who will have the clout and credibility to tell the president that he can't afford to go down in troops when July comes, should circumstances warrant. (It should also be noted that this is a step down for Petraeus and he can't relish directly managing another war -- that he will do so speaks to his selfless patriotism.) In short, Obama has made the most of a rotten situation.
There, can't say I never said anything good about our president.
Posted by Tom at June 23, 2010 9:30 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1593
Comments
Tom... your "president" is destroying your country.
As for me, I have sympathy for neither. The mere fact that McChrystal voted for Obama is proof of his terrible judgment, because no sane person in the know should ever cast a vote for Obama. And if you are a top general, you are supposed to be "in the know".
The fact that McChrystal gave an interview to RS is yet another example of horrible judgment.
So, no tears from me for the general.
Second, no credit either to Obama. It's not because you put a dog with a hat on in the White House that that dog all of a sudden becomes presidential material. Hence, that dog deserves no recognition normally due for a President.
As we speak and write, Obama is hellbent on appointing Hurtt and Kagan, yet two other America haters.
Tom, it's not that, well, everyone's entitled to his or her opinion, but seriously, this dangerous crook in the White House, this creature of smoke and mirrors, man, he simply does not deserve respect just because he managed to sneak into the Oval Office.
Mark my words, we're 1 1/2 year into his "presidency". I shudder at the thought of what America will look like after 4 years.
There is something else Tom. By giving the 2011 timeframe for a US pullout, Obama has basically said out loud he doesn't want to win. You will recall he also only gave one quarter of what McChrystal in one of his brighter moments asked. So basically he's giving petraeus a poisoned apple. He's getting rid of a potentially dangerous presidential opponent AND he's got a scapegoat if AF goes to the dogs.
This creep deserves no respect Tom. Never. N-E-V-E-R.
Posted by: Outlaw Mike at June 26, 2010 8:28 AM
