As I noted earlier today, there are some reports that General Stanley McChrystal may resign if his recommendations about increased troop strength in Afghanistan are not accepted. Needless to say this has elicited much comment in the blogosphere.
Bill Roggio, for example, sees this as a sign that the military is getting frustrated that the political leadership is delaying a decision on what to do about Afghanistan:
Today, the military is perceiving that the administration is punting the question of a troop increase in Afghanistan, and the military is even questioning the administration’s commitment to succeed in Afghanistan. The leaking of the assessment and the report that McChrystal would resign if he is not given what is needed to succeed constitute some very public pushback against the administration’s waffling on Afghanistan.
What this underscores is the depth of feeling and commitment to their plan that McChrystal and his staff have. McChrystal is laying it all on the line and I’m not at all surprised to find out that if his minimums are not met and he’s not given the tools he thinks he needs to succeed, he’ll refuse to be a party to what he would consider a decision to fail and resign.
I’d expect nothing less from him. The politicans may be comfortable with putting more soldiers and Marines at risk, but he’ll refuse to be a party to it. Frankly, his soldiers would expect nothing less from him.
Politically this leak may be viewed as disloyalty. I’m not sure how, but it wouldn’t surprise me. If I were CINC I wouldn’t want a general in a major command who wasn’t willing to “bet his stars” in a situation. I would expect this to be his position. Gen. McChrystal’s professional assessment is his word and bond. He stakes his professional reputation in such a document, saying if given what he requests, he’ll succeed. He takes full ownership of the battle at that point.
But he also bluntly points out that if the request is denied, failure will result. In that case, he has no ethical requirement to simply salute and go down with the ship. In fact, his professional ethics require him to stand up and refuse to participate in something he thinks will not only fail but get his soldiers needlessly killed while doing so. That refusal will come via his resignation from command.
Of course, that sort of assumes that McChrystal is right, or that increased American involvement, with no endgame in sight is in America’s strategic or tactical interests, which is why it’s left to Andrew Sullivan to make what I think is the most important point of all:
It is McChrystal’s job to bend to political pressure. His job is to obey the orders of his commander-in-chief who is answerable to the American people. The way in which this man seems to be trying to bounce the administration into a deeper longer war, and threatening to resign to exact political damage if he doesn’t, is outrageous. It is one thing to recommend a new military strategy; it is another thing to enter politics.
If it does turn out that McChrystal or someone on his staff, with or without his knowledge, leaked this report then they were playing a political game that they have no business playing.
Can someone please remind me why are we in Afghanistan, and why we expect to succeed for some vague purpose unlike the other mid-Asia interloper who was defeated in the preceeding millenia? Didn’t find Bin Laden there and we’re not going to. Seems like a lot of hubris to keep on pressing.
LBF,
Search me.
I supported the war because we needed to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban.
I don’t support a long-term mission to create a democratic state in a country that no history of such a thing
[...] about Andrew Sullivan as of September 22, 2009 Different Perspectives On The McChrystal Resignation Threat – belowthebeltway.com 09/22/2009 As I noted earlier today, there are some reports that [...]
McChrystal needs to be fired immediately as an example to any active duty soldier who wants to enter domestic politics.
As a soldier, McChrystal took an oath to obey his commander in chief, not dictate political policy. This action is a violation of that oath.
Kevin,
To be fair, we do not know for sure that McChrystal had anything to do with this leak. Yes, the way this has played out makes it seem like it came from him or someone close to him, but it’s entirely possible that the leak was done to make us think exactly that.
When it comes to leaks, Washington is as devious as a Mafia conspiracy in The Godfather
I don’t find the fact that the report was leaked to be “admirable” in the least. What I find admirable is McChrystal is willing to go to the mat (to include resigning) for what he believes is right.
He was given the job of assessing the situation and telling the CINC what he needs to do the job that Obama said they were going to do 6 months ago. He’s done that. Now Obama is waffling and “General Clinton” has emerged telling McChrystal, much like she told Petreaus prior to the surge, that he’s full of it.
I don’t blame McChrystal for threatening to resign if the resources aren’t forthcoming. He has no ethical obligation, despite Sullivan’s nonsense, to preside over what his professional opinion tells him will be a defeat. He went there to succeed, not fiddle while it all goes south.
That assumes that the report that Bill Roggio blogged about is correct, of course, right ?
And if a military officer isn’t willing to accept a decision made by the politicians that are his superiors that’s more than a little disturbing to me.
how many commanders is on the chan of command at war and in usa? is it confusing for the soldiers at the first level? we must protect the moral of the troups and the top commander showed negative from the begining of his assignment,thank you.