Read between the lines of the Rolling Stone article that resulted in the resignation of 4 star General McChrystal, and you will see that even the military has reservations about the inexperience of its Commander-in-Chief. Consider this 4th of July that the first Commander-In-Chief was George Washington, a proven leader of men in the field, not on paper, and you may understand that loyalty to the office of the President and respect for the individual who holds that position are two different issues– even for the military.
The spin doctors would like to compare the removal of this senior officer in the midst of a major military campaign to Lincoln’s removal of McClellan or Truman’s removal of MacArthur; however, the only similarity lies in the fact that all three generals ’surnames were borne from scottish ancestry. Lincoln and Truman’s removal of their generals was a result of either not pressing the military campaign or initiating one of their own. This is not the case in the removal of McChrystal. If anything the Rolling Stone’s article reveals is a continuation of nation building that was started in Iraq as a counter terrorism tactic. This approach has had limited success in the more urbane Iraq and almost none in Afghanistan; in fact, among the troops the policies to accomplish the goal has hampered the engagement of the enemy. Nine years later the U.S. no longer speaks of “winning” this fight, but speaks in terms of succeeding–a semantic change that leaves open the definition of what “success” would mean by the Obama Administration.
If the removal of McChrystal is not one for insubordination, then why? Surely, it can’t be based solely on an article that disses Obama and his administration however ill advised that might be. Without having the luxury of being a fly on the wall, one can only conjecture that this faux pas by McChrystal and his team provided an opportunity to portray the President as a decisive, strong leader in full command of his troops. One can conjecture that Obama is pursuing a military policy that he doesn’t believe in, is doubtful of success, but due to inexperience has relied upon and approved its’ implementation hoping that this last hail Mary will achieve some definition of success. It is Obama’s inexperience that has given the Pentagon a go ahead to invest more troops and national resources with an indeterminate outcome. We can conjecture that the attitude portrayed by the military in the article is one based upon a lack of confidence in the leadership of the Obama Administration, and respect. Therein lies the rub! The military may owe fidelity to the Office of the President; however, respect is a quality not automatically given with the Oath of Office, it is one that is earned. Respect is borne from experience, on and off the battlefield; it is the subtle strength that lets the soldier in harms way know that his commander has his back, and it doesn’t waffle or waver, but has a clear moral compass that let’s all those who follow know that their sacrifice will not be in vain.
Perhaps McChrystal put it best:
“How’s the company doing? You guys feeling sorry for yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you’re losing?” McChrystal says.
“Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we’re losing, sir,” says Hicks.
McChrystal nods. “Strength is leading when you just don’t want to lead,” he tells the men. “You’re leading by example. That’s what we do. Particularly when it’s really, really hard, and it hurts inside.”
Tagged as:
Afghanistant,
Counterinsurgency,
McChrystal Resignation,
Obama,
Obama Administation,
Reformed Liberal,
War on Terror
News from the web:
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
by admin on July 5, 2010 · 0 comments
in 9/11, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Commentary, Obama, Obama's Campaign Promises, Pentagon, Reformed Liberal, Terrorism
Read between the lines of the Rolling Stone article that resulted in the resignation of 4 star General McChrystal, and you will see that even the military has reservations about the inexperience of its Commander-in-Chief. Consider this 4th of July that the first Commander-In-Chief was George Washington, a proven leader of men in the field, not on paper, and you may understand that loyalty to the office of the President and respect for the individual who holds that position are two different issues– even for the military.
The spin doctors would like to compare the removal of this senior officer in the midst of a major military campaign to Lincoln’s removal of McClellan or Truman’s removal of MacArthur; however, the only similarity lies in the fact that all three generals ’surnames were borne from scottish ancestry. Lincoln and Truman’s removal of their generals was a result of either not pressing the military campaign or initiating one of their own. This is not the case in the removal of McChrystal. If anything the Rolling Stone’s article reveals is a continuation of nation building that was started in Iraq as a counter terrorism tactic. This approach has had limited success in the more urbane Iraq and almost none in Afghanistan; in fact, among the troops the policies to accomplish the goal has hampered the engagement of the enemy. Nine years later the U.S. no longer speaks of “winning” this fight, but speaks in terms of succeeding–a semantic change that leaves open the definition of what “success” would mean by the Obama Administration.
If the removal of McChrystal is not one for insubordination, then why? Surely, it can’t be based solely on an article that disses Obama and his administration however ill advised that might be. Without having the luxury of being a fly on the wall, one can only conjecture that this faux pas by McChrystal and his team provided an opportunity to portray the President as a decisive, strong leader in full command of his troops. One can conjecture that Obama is pursuing a military policy that he doesn’t believe in, is doubtful of success, but due to inexperience has relied upon and approved its’ implementation hoping that this last hail Mary will achieve some definition of success. It is Obama’s inexperience that has given the Pentagon a go ahead to invest more troops and national resources with an indeterminate outcome. We can conjecture that the attitude portrayed by the military in the article is one based upon a lack of confidence in the leadership of the Obama Administration, and respect. Therein lies the rub! The military may owe fidelity to the Office of the President; however, respect is a quality not automatically given with the Oath of Office, it is one that is earned. Respect is borne from experience, on and off the battlefield; it is the subtle strength that lets the soldier in harms way know that his commander has his back, and it doesn’t waffle or waver, but has a clear moral compass that let’s all those who follow know that their sacrifice will not be in vain.
Perhaps McChrystal put it best:
“How’s the company doing? You guys feeling sorry for yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you’re losing?” McChrystal says.
“Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we’re losing, sir,” says Hicks.
McChrystal nods. “Strength is leading when you just don’t want to lead,” he tells the men. “You’re leading by example. That’s what we do. Particularly when it’s really, really hard, and it hurts inside.”
Tagged as: Afghanistant, Counterinsurgency, McChrystal Resignation, Obama, Obama Administation, Reformed Liberal, War on Terror