Home > education, leadership, politics > Who is the political novice?

Who is the political novice?

It is funny to me to see leaks from the administration trying to undercut GEN McChrystal as being naive about how the Washington game is played.  Seriously, is this the mark of an administration that is in charge of itself?  Is it good policy to be undercutting your own field commander?

This administration ahs no clue about what to do. Obama said 6 months ago that he had carefully studied the situation and had a plan. Now, not so much.

There is public support by the CJCS, GEN Petraeus and GEN McChrystal for the McChrystal plan. It is fully in line with current thinking about the conduct of COIN.

There is no political will in the admninistration to face reality, so instead they blather and treat foreign policy as if it were Chicago ward politics.

We just saw how sueful Chicago style politics is on the world stage where no one cares about your life story. So, who are the naive ones?

GEN McChrystal is a very savvy general: as a commander, as a warrior, as a professional.  His experience in Washington is on par or superior to any of the clowns in the current administration and he has been our most lethal general for years as commander of global SOF forces.

He made the speech he made in London as a way to force the administration to act in public on his plan. He is too savvy to be their fall guy. Whatever the decision is made, it will be the administration’s, and it will be pinned firmly to Obama: once he gets done wasting time on trivial issues.

  1. October 5, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    “He made the speech he made in London as a way to force the administration to act in public on his plan.”

    Many consider that to be an insubordinate act. A general’s job is to implement policy decided by the commander-in-chief — not to go out and make speeches about what he thinks the policy should be. McChrystal should be fired. He was involved in the Pat Tillman lies and men under his command were found guilty of mistreating prisoners.

    • October 6, 2009 at 10:57 am

      The President could fire him, but that would require a decision; I’d be surprised to see him fired anytime soon, especially when his recommendations have already been supported by the CJCS and GEN Petraeus, and are consistent with the administration’s stated positions from months ago. All thats been lacking tio implement has been political leadership.

      His speech is only an act of insubordination if he was ordered not to make the speech. Generals are inherently part of the political process, and their job is more than just following orders.

      McChrystal’s roles and actions in the Tilman case are a matter of record and his “involvement”, after much scrutiny by both sides of the aisle in Congress and by prosecutors, have been been judged by competent and independent authority. He was confirmed for a 3d and 4th star after such scrutiny. Your claims are simple “guilt by innuendo” and do not have merit.

      You can disagree with his decision to speak, or his choice of words, but try to remain calm.

      My guess is that he spoke because his command responsibility to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines under his command took precedence over remaining silent in the face of political hesitancy. As a student of military history he is fully aware of the roles and functions of officers and civilian chain of command, and he is not a guy to take actions lightly.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: