The Runaway General - Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone
How 'Rolling Stone' Got Into McChrystal's Inner Circle - Newsweek
What Happened in Paris... - Foreign Policy
Update 4:
McChrystal's Fate in Limbo as Obama Cites Poor Judgment - New York Times
President Obama's top commander in Afghanistan flew to Washington on Tuesday to find out whether he would be fired for remarks he and members of his staff made that were contemptuous of senior administration officials, laying bare the disarray and enmity in a foreign-policy team that is struggling with the war. In an article in Rolling Stone magazine, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and his aides spoke critically of nearly every member of the president's national security team, saying President Obama appeared "uncomfortable and intimidated" during his first White House meeting with the general, and dismissing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as "Bite Me." The firestorm was fueled by increasing doubts - even in the military - that Afghanistan can be won and by crumbling public support for the nine-year war as American casualties rise. The criticism of General McChrystal's statements was swift, and the general had apologized and prepared a letter of resignation, though President Obama had not made up his mind whether to accept it when they meet on Wednesday morning.
General Stanley McChrystal Tenders his Resignation - Daily Telegraph
A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate. The source said that among the names being touted as possible successors are General James Mattis, the outgoing head of the U.S. Joint Forces Command and due to retire after being passed over as U.S. Marine Corps commander, and Lieutenant General William Caldwell, commander of Nato's Training Mission in Afghanistan.
"General McChrystal has a right to his personal political views. They are his, and his alone. When they disagree with the orders and policy he is instructed to carry out, his choices are clear. Instead, he chose to let those personal views, and disdain for those elected and appointed officials who disagreed with him, shape the tenor of his discourse with his seniors, and most inexcusably, his juniors. He has failed at the very basics of leadership that Captain Miller explains so frankly to his young soldier."
"So, the Commander in Chief has little choice but to accept General McChrystal's resignation, should that late story be confirmed. If the President were not to do so, he risks the skewing of the civilian-military relationship that is a cornerstone of our personal and collective liberties, much as Truman would have done in failing to discipline General MacArthur in Korea six decades ago. The situation with General McChrystal leaves President Obama with another, very dicey problem. Who will be putting hands in the air to command in a theater where the strategy and policy have been so publicly discredited by a senior General Officer? And whomever is chosen, what will be the effect of a new commander dropping onto the scene just before a key offensive that may determine the long-term success of the US effort in Afghanistan?"
-- USNI Blog
McChrystal Denies Offering to Resign - MSNBC
President to Decide McChrystal's Future After Critical Comments - VOA
Obama Holds off Making Decision on McChrystal - Washington Post
Obama Calls McChrystal on Carpet over Interview - Washington Times
Gen. McChrystal's Job Hangs in the Balance - Los Angeles Times
Obama to Confront General McChrystal - Reuters
General Faces Unease Among His Own Troops, Too - New York Times
Afghan Leaders Voice Strong Support for McChrystal - Associated Press
Can Obama Afford a Dismissal? - Washington Post
Fire McChrystal? A New Test for Obama - USA Today
McChrystal Woven into Obama's Afghanistan Strategy - Los Angeles Times
In Afghanistan a New Breed of Commander Stepped In - New York Times
A Hard-driving, Unyielding Commander - Los Angeles Times
Spec Ops Officers Shocked by McChrystal Comments - Army Times
McChrystal Comments Mirror 'Attitudes About Best Approach' - VOA
The President and His General - New York Times
Gen. McChrystal's Fate - Washington Post
Judging McChrystal's War - New York Times
The Other Truman Doctrine - New York Times
An Increasingly Politicized Military - Los Angeles Times
What Would Lincoln Do? - New York Times
Should the 'Runaway General' Be Fired? - New York Times multiple opinion piece with Kori Schake, Hoover Institution; Julian E. Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs; James Morin, Truman National Security Project; Robert Haddick, Small Wars Journal; and Nathaniel Fick, Center for a New American Security.
Military Blogs Ask: Should He Stay or Go? - New York Times
Gates Has a Long, Loooong Record of Firing Generals - Danger Room
General Stanley McChrystal - USNI Blog
The Seduction of Powerful Men - USNI Blog
The Replacements: 5 McChrystal Successors - The Daily Beast
Should McChrystal be Fired? Pundits Weigh In - CBS News
Kerry on McChrystal Flap: Stop the 'Feeding Frenzy' - State Politics
MacArthur Territory - Bernard Finel
Michael Yon's Criticism of McChrystal Deemed Prophetic - Michael Yon
McChrystal will Get a Red Card - Robert Haddick, Small Wars Journal
The Rolling Stone Article: Why Should I Care? - Schmedlap
Rolling Stone - Andrew Exum, Abu Muqaqwama
General McChrystal on the Rocks - Bill Roggio, Long War Journal
Too Rolling Stoned - Mudville Gazette
Stan the Man - Blackfive
McChrystal Aides Shocked, 'Heartbroken' After Mag Profile - Danger Room
The No-No Line - Blackfive
Journalist Surprised By Reaction To His Profile Of Gen. Stanley McChrystal - NPR
Stanley, Homework! - Kings of War
How Not to Handle the Press... - Wings Over Iraq
"Insular backgrounds, whether in special operations or conventional forces, encourage tone-deafness. Applause lines in the testosterone driven subculture of combat units are not likely to play well on CNN. Senior commanders have to move easily between these two worlds, delivering a consistent message to very different audiences."
"When I encourage young officers to go to grad school, I tell them to stay away from military people. Have lunch with the lesbian anarchists, attend the environmentalists' weekly emergency teach-ins, and try to see the world through different eyes. That skill will come in handy later on in life."
"It's a bit premature to pass judgment on General McCrystal's situation. However, it's important to distinguish between our long-term interests and goals and those currently entrusted to carry out those goals. While we have long term interests in stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, everybody in uniform is replaceable."
-- Paul Yingling via e-mail
"Having escalated the import of injudicious offhand remarks, Obama may feel obliged to relieve the general. His replacement then would be either the respected Corps Commander in Afghanistan, LtGen David Rodriquez, or the Joint Forces Commander, General James Mattis, who is a legend among the troops. LtGen John Allen, deputy to General Petraeus, also has a fine track record. While these are qualified replacements and it does look grim for McChrystal, he should not be relieved. Our enemies would gloat about such headlines, while Afghan President Karzai, who has leapt to McChrystal's defense, would feel rebuffed. After all, Obama has chosen to ignore Karzai's erratic remarks. Although I believe the current counterinsurgency strategy is too ambitious for our budget and too restrictive for our troops in the long term, McChrystal is confident he can stop the momentum of Afghan insurgents in the short term. That is the first order of business in this war. Our field commander should be judged on what happens in the field. We only have one commander at a time; Obama chose McChrystal, so let him do his best."
-- Bing West via e-mail
Update 3:
"I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of 'Rolling Stone' magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person."
Even some of McChrystal's staunchest backers in Afghanistan said the derisive comments the general and his staff made about the Obama administration to a Rolling Stone reporter leave him open to dismissal.
"I say this as someone who admired and respects Stan McChrystal enormously. The country doesn't know how much good he's done. But this is a firing offense," said Eliot A. Cohen, who served as a counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the latter days of the Bush administration.
This is clearly a firing offense," said Peter Feaver, a former official in the Bush White House and strong backer of a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.
But relieving McChrystal of his command on the eve of a major offensive in Kandahar, which White House and Pentagon officials have said is the most critical of the war, would be a major blow to the war effort, said military experts.
"My advice is to call him back to Washington, publicly chastise him and then make it clear that there is something greater at stake here," said Nathaniel Fick, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now chief executive of the Center for a New American Security.
"We'll have to wait for Wednesday to see if McChrystal keeps his command. My guess is he'll stay, because now the White House knows that a chastened McChrystal isn't going to say anything else outside of his lane to any reporter. McChrystal's apology, emailed to me and other reporters well before the Rolling Stone story dropped, suggests that he wasn't trying to walk away from his command in a blaze of arrogance. But it's on him to repair his relationship with his colleagues and his bosses."
"You know, all that said — Yesterday, Gates passed over Gen. James Mattis for Marine Corps commandant. If Obama wants to cashier McChrystal but not overhaul the entire strategy, Mattis is an option. Whether he'd do it is another thing, since he's the outgoing commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, so taking over ISAF will technically be a step down. But Mattis will otherwise retire from the Marines, so maybe he wouldn't see it that way."
"Obviously the war's not going well, nor is it apparently where General McChrystal himself thought it would be at this stage of things," says Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired Army colonel. "But what stands out is the egregious lapse in professional conduct -- not only on the part of McChrystal, but on the part of his subordinates."
"What this reveals," he adds, "is a command climate where expressions of contempt for senior civilian officials are permissible."
'While "frustrations" in such a difficult and deteriorating environment may be "understandable," Mr. Bacevich says, the comments nevertheless represent "unprofessional behavior that is completely intolerable."
"If that is so, is it time to sack McChrystal? The Afghanistan commander, who has apologized for his comments and his own "poor judgment," has been summoned to the White House to explain himself to President Obama Wednesday."
"Yet while some Afghanistan analysts quickly concluded that Mr. Obama must fire McChrystal over his "insubordination," just as President Truman did to Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951 over Korean war policy, Bacevich says now is not the time."
Update 2:
McChrystal Scandal May Complicate U.S.-Afghan Strategy - Washington Post
Defense Secretary's Statement on McChrystal - Wall Street Journal
U.S. General in Afghan War at Tisk of Losing Job - Associated Press
Gates: General McChrystal Made Big Mistake - Reuters
McChrystal's PR Man Resigns - MSNBC
NATO Confident in McChrystal Despite U.S. Article - Reuters
Factbox: Reaction to Gen. McChrystal Controversy - Reuters
-----
U.S. General McChrystal Recalled Amid Rolling Stone Gaffe - BBC News.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been summoned to Washington, US media report, in the wake of a magazine article that mocked senior Obama administration officials and diplomats. Gen Stanley McChrystal has apologised for the article in Rolling Stone. In the article, Gen McChrystal said he felt betrayed by U.S. ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry. The general's aides mock Vice-President Joe Biden and say Gen McChrystal was "disappointed" in President Obama...
More at BBC News.
Also See (Update 1):
Gen. Stanley McChrystal Summoned to Washington - Washington Post
Top Afghan Commander Summoned to Washington - Associated Press
NATO Setbacks as U.S. Summons Commander - Agence France-Presse
McChrystal on Defensive for Remarks - Wall Street Journal
ISAF: Magazine Profile Captures Unguarded Moments - Los Angeles Times
Aides to U.S. General In Afghanistan Slam Obama - Reuters
McChrystal Apologizes for Insulting Obama Team - Washington Independent
Latest McChrystal Developments - CNN News
Rolling Stone Story a Sign of Frustration? - Christian Science Monitor
Gen. McChrystal Recalled to Washington - Foreign Policy
McChrystal Issues Mea Culpa - Foreign Policy
Don't Blame McChrystal, Blame Obama - Washington Post
The McChrystal I Know - Time
General McChrystal Clearly in Four-Star Trouble - CBS News
A Couple of Points about McChrystal - National Review
Should He Go? - National Review
Military Dissent Should Be Private - National Review
McChrystal's Media Woes - Contentions
Re: McChrystal's Media Woes - Contentions
Top Afghanistan General Questions Civilian Leaders - Politico
Firing McChrystal: Weighing the Risks - Abu Muqawama
McChrystal and the Afghan Drawdown - World Politics Review
What the Heck Was McChrystal Thinking? - The Atlantic
Rolling Stone McChrystal Article Understates Backbiting - Washington Post
McChrystal Finds Few Defenders Among Senators - Washington Post
Gen. McCrystal Must Go - Washington Post
Runaway General - ABC News
Fire Gen. Stanley McChrystal? Not Yet - New York Daily News
Obama and McChrystal Haven't Spoken - The Atlantic
'Everybody in Uniform is Replaceable' - Danger Room
Why Obama Won't Fire McChrystal - FOX News
Good-Bye McChrystal, Hello Mattis? - Foreign Policy
Advanced Petard Hoistmanship - Forward Movement
Is McChrystal Going to Fallon his Sword? - Zenpundit
What's Important About This? - Captain's Journal
Four Reasons Why Obama HAS to Fire Stan McChrystal - Democracy Arsenal
Afghan Follies: Obama versus McChrystal - Huffington Post
Comments
Less acronyms please but as how withdrawals go, I had an interesting chat with two Vietnam vets the other day, the first who was in country as Australia was building up its forces and was there during the Battle of Long Tan but not in the company involved. The other chap had been a scout/radio operator on the last tour by an infantry battalion.
It was intersting that the fellows on the last tour were restricted in numbers, the battalion did not go over in full strength, and the avoidance of casualties was paramount. By this stage the Australian Army was well equipped and had reduced the numbers of Viet Cong/NVA in their province sufficiently that the AVRN controlled many parts of it.
I will be looking at hargingers from the media and places like here to see if any parrallels exist.
What anonmyous says, sounds a lot like what was happening as the forces withdrew. Why would illumination rounds be barred from use unless the crops were ready to harvest, or was it an urban area and tehy didn't want a fire to start?
Instead of making half-hearted statements that will probably get him fired, he should have made full-hearted statements that would still probably get him fired. But let's not forget that he too went to Harvard for a year, and therefore at a minimum also lost at least one testicle. But, I guess a general with one ball is better than a general with no balls.
The bottomline here is that we are still in a "hearts & minds" mode of doing business over
there of which McC is a proponent of, and therefore are we still being stymied by a nation or two (Afg and Iraq) of uneducated goat
herders. Maybe if we sent some of these goat herders to Harvard to get an education, then we could have a level playing field assuming
they also go through the normal castration process.
The article claims success in Iraq? WTF? I mean we abandoned the cities and pulled into the countryside. US forces left the battlefield. It's an urban insurgency. Were they expecting the insurgents to follow us out to the countryside with their tanks. What a joke. What spin.
Don't believe me? Go back into the cities and see.
I am pleased that this was sent to me. I made a hardcopy of the Rolling Stone piece since I have heard this on the radio news several times.
It seems things are crumbling around the Commander-In-Chief, but he keeps tip-toeing through the tulips.
The Runaway General is linked to the following...
http://onwardjames.blogspot.com/2010/06/welcome-to-g20-president-barack…
What more needs to be said!
When you cannot patrol in areas where you think you might engage in kinetic operations because of the highly restrictive rules, you know that the campaign wont last much longer. Similarly, another NCO believes that the rules of engagement are too prohibitive to achieve sustained tactical success. He reports that villagers are quite literally laughing at U.S. troop casualties, and that they cannot even obtain approval for illumination rounds to assist in withdrawal during firefights.
When NCOs begin to give these kinds of reports, we know that there is something badly wrong with the campaign on a much deeper level than mere sniping between civilian and military authorities. We are losing the campaign in Afghanistan, and recalling General McChrystal wont change that. Much deeper changes need to be made, and a much deeper commitment should become evident by the administration, or men will die for a failing cause. The time to make these changes has almost run out.
Not even a Mattis can save both AFG and the NCA.
Mattis will have to spend a greater part of his efforts in convincing BCT (which are Army) Cmdrs of his plans---last time I checked the Marine Corp has always had fewer number of troops involved-both in Iraq and now AFG.
Would be interesting to see if the AFG Marine Cmdrs will continue to say no to a Mattis as they were doing with McC.
Hate to say it but now there is only one way out and that is the timeline of 2011. Both McC and National Command Authority has "lost" as I cannot image a Mattis telling the NCA he needs more time.
If general McCrystal goes, at the very least, who ever takes over from him will see the appointment as a poisoned chalice. It may be the top active command in town, but who would want it?
I hear from Marine Corps colleagues the 'Warrior Monk' General Mattis is held in awe so perhaps a charismatic warrior figure like him may suit the position. He has two advantages, the important one is that he doesn't have to worry about his next posting and the other is the respect he commands as a warrior not a 'chairborne commando'. This coimment is not to demean any one, least of all general McCrystal. It is just an observation.
These are of course the perspectives of an Australian naiive to the workings inside the Beltway.
Taken from Zenpundit:
Lex: If this is subtle move by the General, it might be to force something like:
1) President Obama has said in the past that the Afgan war is the necessary war and a priority
2) The General sees the administration not acting that way currently.
3) This could be just to shake things up and get attention/focus back on Afghanistan (even if it means his head).
or
1) The General knows the US strategy needs more time then the current US plan.
2) He knows a sudden change in the commanding general will delay things even more... while a new commander comes in and sets up...
3) During this interim, the fight continues...
4) ... the new commander would likely use a similar strategy
5) ... this would stretch out the time-line and give more chance for US success (even though the General goes off into retirement).
or
1) He knows hell get fired...
2) ... but he figures the odds are good hell take out (or at least weaken big time) General Jones and the Ambassador with him.
"I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of 'Rolling Stone magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person."
-- SECDEF Robert Gates
Is not this the same SECDEF that has never reputed the civilian leadership mistakes that lead to the Iraq war? If he was a true civilian leader he would have tendered his position and allowed for a new SECDEF---that is if he is being honest with himself---BUT hey the last time I checked SECDEF's make alot of money and then drift into the lobbying world.
So much for the concerns for the military and their families-cannot get even a small amount of honesty out of a civilian leader these days.
VJ:
You are stating the wrong facts---why is it the role of the military to bail out the civilian decision makers.
The last time I checked it was the civilian leadership that pushed the Iraq war onto the military with fake information/disinformation and it was the civilian leadership that restricted both money, troops, and equipment to the Afghanistan war.
I personally have not seen a single member of Congress or in fact the President of the United States do repeated tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan or die for a few feet of a outpost in some remote valley or village.
Do you not think that these repeated tours and long periods away from families and actually getting killed for the civilian leadership has "earned" the military leadership the "right" to at least voice their opinions? If in fact the civilian leadership cannot take a dose of reality at times from the military leadership and vice versa THEN this democracy is really in trouble.
It is though in trouble as it was the civilian leadship that misrepresented both wars to the military leadership and asked them to die for that misrepresentation---have not seen a single member of Congress die in Iraq or Afghanistan---have you?
VJ get real.
This is the second time some General has come out and publicly criticized the President. He cannot effectively lead after making comments like that. Hamid Karzai said that McChrystal has been the best commander in the theatre thus far. If you can recall, Karzai made some very bazaar comments with regard to how the administration was handling the situation in Afghanistan. Karzai stated that if things did not change, he may join the Taliban? This type of crazy behavior makes me question the kind of relationship McChrystal has with Karzai, and whose interest is he protecting? He failed to recognize who his boss is, and he is about to find out real soon that you don't publicly criticize the President of the U.S unless you're a civilian. The military is exempt from democracy!!!!!!!!!!
Joe:
Equally surprised that CNAS has not figured out that the Taliban campaign plan for this fighting season is nickel and diming us to death.
One or two killed here one or two wounded there---just enough to keep the war front and center in the press and to keep the Taliban out of range of our firepower. The drive by Gen. MC to keep down Afghan population losses is in fact creating more US losses---also something that was deep in the article.
Example: recent press video coverage of a Taliban attack on a US outpost---20 attackers- three wounded US all caught on tape---no losses for the Taliban---just how in the heck did they make it to approx 100 meters from the defense positions undetected?
Look at the current methodolgies of the CTC rotations---do you see any OPFOR aggressive ambushing and or short range attacks on outposts or FOBs or COPs---NO, you do see countless tribal engagements planned into the scenariors though. Or constant foot patrolling by BCTs during their FSO phases coupled with IED/ambushes-almost never happens?
IF you really read the Rolling Stone article you would detect the "common foot soldier's" opinion of what is going on---and based on the VN example that is what we should be really watching very closely---we are on the verge of losing the mindset of the foot soldier as he is starting to sense it is not worth getting killed for---deja vu VN all over again.
Joe:
I am not convinced that this administration really does have the will---2012 is around the corner and people will hold up the date of 2011 and ask why are we still there in 2012.
Watched that drill go down during Nixon's days in VN---it is not good to ask the last personnel on the ground to turn out the lights---but hey SOF did it in 75 so I quess they can do it again in 2011.
Surprised the administration has not figured out that the current Afghan government has approx 200K under arms, and that they could hold a press conference-declare the war won and bring everyone home under a victory banner.
Who cares who gets the mineral rights as the Afghan government has already verbally announced Japan as the "winner" so let the Japanese and Chinese figure out how to handle the Taliban--let them finally get some skin in the game.
Forgot to mention---the 30,000 plus troops that Gen Mac needed---just how many have arrived in country?
If Obama wanted to give his vision a fighting chance you think he would have pushed as many troops as fast as he could to achieve a quick turnaround prior to the date of July 2011 that he set for himself by offical announcements---since when do you do COIN with a clearly defined end date that your opposition knows they just have to make it too knowing you are leaving!
And now you ask a Flag Officer to defend the estblished date of 2011 as the end goal before the effects of the surge are felt on the ground-Gen. P just had a hard time with that one last week.
AND what about the US Amb. E's leaked Secret Cable just before the administrations decision to surge---did not see him being called to Washington?
And Holbrooke---did he in the last few days get a welcoming committee of the Taliban during his visit to the administrations example of "a government in a box"?
I am surprised to see Gen MC not explode sooner---maybe he has come to the realization that it is in fact over and does not want to be around for the end?
CNAS is having a hard time as the whole assumption of COIN-whatever the flavor is-is simply not working as the Afghan COIN is a true example of guerrilla warfare nothing more nothing less and the military is not geared for a true guerrilla war-SOF can handle it yes-but not the Army or not at least the Army that has been basically trained for the Iraq style of warfare.
Hey Anonymous, I've enjoyed your many writings these past years, you've been quite prolific. However, we all need to take a huge, gigantic collective breath. The ideas that animate our strategy in Afghanistan are sound and proven through the many years of war. Now, are there problems with implementation at times, yes, do we have enough resources to do it, not exactly but it's getting there, and do we have the will to prevail. The military does and the White House is suspect. The real question is whether the administration will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Obama Administration said they would close Gitmo in a year, that slipped, then they said they would have healthcare in August of 2009, then September, then October, etc...Why should we think they know what they are doing when it comes to July 2011? We are finally confronted with the central problem of the administration, the difference between soaring rhetoric and the reality of governing.
Didn't the Awakening begin in Ramadi (MacFarland's Brigade of the 1st Armored)?
Look, I'm all for mythology, esprit, and all that, but saying a Marine should be in charge because the Army has failed is a little too much inter-service silliness and one-upsmanship and a bit too little serious thinking.
The bigger problem here is that this pathetic backbiting sideshow is becoming "a MacArthur moment" (utterly ridiculous - MacArthur's issue was substantitive, this one is personality-driven suspicion) and will perpetuate mistrust and poor relations between a White House already suspicious of the military and (elements of, anyway) a military officer corps that for some reason remains insistent that it holds all the moral authority.
A sad state of affairs. Oh, by the way, there's a war on, guys.
The war is over---who is now willing to stepup and call a spade a spade in the current group of Flag Officers.
1. First the current administration did in fact drag it's feet in the search for a new way forward.
2. You had a vice President going his own way.
3. You had a nine year war that never did have any focus or manpower.
4. COIN in Afghanistan is not COIN in Iraq.
It is over.
Did I say perfect record? Nope. The whole point in giving the job to General McChrystal was to infuse Afghanistan with some different thinking. Instead we got more of the same.
Remember the Iraq Awakening began in Al Anbar. The Marine Corps doesn't have a perfect or shining record in the past decade. But we've had success where it counts, it should be taken into account. A General shouldn't be disqualified from an important position because he doesn't wear the right uniform.
On another note, there seems to be a LOT of insecurity here when someone says something positive about the Marine Corps.
As I recall, the relief of Gen. McKiernan was a result that new thinking and a new approach was need in Afghanistan. It would seem if General McChrystal is relieved, it will because he wasnt thinking?
Obviously this discord has been noted by the Taliban and only reinforces their resolve that time is on their side, while further reinforcing the Pakistani ISIs view that further supporting selected elements of the Afghan Taliban continue to be in their interest.
If there was ever a case to be made for staying the course after 2011, I believe that has evaporated.
Actually, I think they need to sh*t-can a whole group of these generals, most of who never even saw combat until they entered these wars as two-stars. What kind of combat does a two-star see as his first "combat?" An aerial view from a helicopter, or sitting in some computer room in Qatar? They probably sought to apply all those principles that they acquired with their Ivy League neutering degrees in international relations and such. Now wonder we've been in both theaters so long.
Instead, put in some of these fighting colonels in charge that were actually on the ground where bullets were flying pass them. Some are even generals now. I'm talking about the likes of Dave Perkins, Tony Thomas, etc. Time to get some warriors in there instead of intellectuals.
If he is replaced, I would recommend LTG David Rodriguez who is head of ISAF Joint Command. Shame on them if they sack McCrystal, he is a breath of fresh air to our operations in Afghanistan. From a purely political standpoint, do you want him on the political hustings campaigning against the administration?