If he didn't resign, President Obama should have definitely fired him. Whatever I think of the President, you DO NOT ever, EVER do this if you are on active duty.
And you most certainly do not EVER EVER EVER do this if you are the General of the Generals in Afghanistan.
You enraged about something? Get your ass out and bitch from the sidelines. That's how it's done and that's how it needs to be.
HOWEVER: I certainly hope that the President has some staff somewhere with the foresight to appoint as the next dude in charge someone balls-to-the-wall, because we need to win and we need someone who will get us there even under the ridiculous restrictions and silly side focuses that have been placed there politically.
And no matter the meritocracy (for the most part) in the military, in the end there is a bit of cult of personality in the main leader.
People are willing to die for the main man. He better be able to freakin' inspire them. AT LEAST.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall tomorrow morning when he meets with The One.
Obama hasn't got the guts to fire McChrystal. The troops would scream bloody murder, and unless Petraeus is yanked from USCENTCOM, who's gonna run the damn war?
Who indeed, lady red. McChrystal submitted his resignation and Obama needs to take it. This is not behavior that a CinC can stand for - no matter the cost.
And the reason for that is that the cost of letting behavior like this slide under the rug is worse than all else on balance.
The military does not get the same speech freedoms the rest of America does. The higher the rank, the more strict the rules.
I can't begin to fathom why McChrystal or his staff did this - they're all of enough rank to understand the ramifications. I don't know WHAT was going on in their heads. But it's a hanging offense, and it's a line you do not cross. Period.
There are some very awesome generals out there to replace McChrystal, though. There are, they just don't run around giving Rolling Stones interviews. :P
AFW, Obama should have fired McChrystal on the spot. He didn't. He's more worried about his plans in Afghanistan than he is about blatant insubordination. He'd rather call McChrystal to the WH to dance the two-step. It's pathetic, and weak.
(I couldn't help but laugh at some of the quotes in the article too. Hee hee!)
This is the first I'd read the actual comments from McChrystal and staff, and can only say that they are all true, BUT as AFW said, this is not what you do as a general, most especially not for f'ing Rolling Stone, which is as certain to spin any remarks as bad as possible.
"Duncan Boothby, a civilian adviser to McChrystal who was responsible for arranging the Rolling Stone interview". What the Hell kind of advice was this? on the order of 'Oh, no, Stan, aim for your other foot, it is so much more easily hit!'
In any case, I personally hope McChrystal resigns, and then goes public with the absurd, soldier-killing ROE that the BarryO team has put in place, as well as the fact that Barry, given his massive military experience as a community organizer, and Biden, with his even greater military experience as nothing, have over-ruled and essentially micro-managed (anyone remember VietNam, where the idiots in Washington were actually giving real-time orers to the field troops?) from Washington by a crew with no actual skills or abilities that they have shown.
If McChrystal should resign, and proceed to poke holes in the tissue paper that is Obama's handling of this war, then for my money, he will move to the top of the possible-opponents list for Barry in 2012.
AFW, LOL! Gibbs is a smarmy bastid, isn't he? I think my mom could take him AND Obama without breaking a sweat, and she's in her seventies. Tough guys? Not so much.
DWT, I think if McChrystal resigns, we'll get an earful. If he writes a book, I'll sure read it!
I detest Robert Gibbs. He's oily and unctuous. He reminds me of those Southern TV Preachers who want your money and hire hookers with it.
McChrystal already submitted his resignation. I'm pretty sure the President will accept it (with some stupid snide comment, I'm sure, that makes him look like a petulant teenager).
And by the way, didn't you know it's all George Bush's fault? Because it totally is.
Oh, there's no doubt whatsoever that it's Bush's fault. Obama INHERITED the military from Bush, and McChrystal is probably an evil, obstructionist conservative who voted for Bush.
If McChrystal goes, then I'd think I'd like to see USMC General James Mattis given the job. the Marines seem to have a better handle on things that the rest of US Forces do not, among other things.
One problem is that: "Protocol dictates the next commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) should be a general from another country." That is one reason I think Obama will keep him, to avoid that issue....much like Bush & Gates avoided a confirmation issue over re-appointing USMC General Peter Pace as Chairman, JCS....similar weasel strategy IMO.
We'll soon see today. Obama will have a wee spat either way, keeping McChrystal or appointing Mattis and getting the IASF to go along. Mattis isn't known for his soft spoken way either.
Another concern I have, and it goes back a long ways now, is the tendancy of civilian leadership to rotate high level Commanders, like Gen. Patraeus, in and out (and up from) of top jobs in less than 3+ year intervals. Normally a major command "tour" is 3+ years and we seem to have drifted from that....possibly to facilitate ticket punching (??) by our over laden flag rank officer ranks...it's an "institutional" thing.
Short "tours" in sensitive senior positions assures one thing...that one year or so "tours" provide 50% lost time every time as Commanders get up to speed after a CoC. If we wonder why it often appears we are running up hill in sand, consider this phenomena. No one can make serious sustainable headway in 12 to 14 months.
It took Bush fully 7 years of his 8 to sort through Generals who didn't "get it" about Iraq. Keep the same merry-go-round going in Afghanistan, fold the tent now and cut losses.
This opinion brought to you by a old Sergeant sitting fat dumb and happy several thousand miles away :-))
Aridog, the concerns you voice above are what I was getting at in my first comment when I said "who will run the damn war?"
I'm sure there are some very good generals out there who would do a fine job, but getting "up to speed" is a real issue. I'll put my money with yours; McChrystal stays.
Obama displayed weakness when he didn't fire McChrystal immediately. If he ultimately keeps the general (with a limp slap on the wrist), he will be a laughingstock. And that is NOT funny when we have troops in the field.
Lady Red...realize I am saying McChrystal stays because Obama and the administration will be hesitant, just as Bush/Gates were, for political reasons.
There seems something odd about the McChrystal affair to me. Quite honestly, he's saying many of the things I've said in similar veins about my superiors' acolytes...who, by the freakin' way, never understand "Chain of Command"...e.g., McChrystal's boss is the President, not all the staffers and Secretariat types he has to deal with. In "chain of command" scenarios, there is always a general order (signed and sometimes edited by each and every successive commander) covering specifically which instances a staff officer, other department head, is speaking for and with the "voice" of the President or Commander. Lacking this, yes, it is tempting to crack wise about the boss too....because it demonstrates an interest in plausible deniability as well as lets acolytes cover their ass at your expense.
Believe it or not, I have told a Colonel from the West Wing to go back and do his homework when given directions that weren't proper. Hilarity ensued. I won. It was during a hurricane response in Florida, where the brother of the President happened to be Governor at the time...and staffers were falling all over themselves giving "directions." I had nothing saying Colonel X spoke explicitly for George W...and he had zilch from FEMA in funding terms.
All too often staff and various acolytes get to thinking their appointments means they speak for the President or Commander, when in fact, under the law, they do not. They're very good at handing you enough rope to hang yourself, however, if something goes bad they can claim you were supposed to know all that, yada yada...e.g., their CYA dodge, citing the old adage "if in doubt, you shouldn't have....etc."
McChrystal's error apparently was to talk about it outside the circle instead of telling whomever to have the President call him, or give clear direction explicitly, as was his right...and obligation for sensitive issues. That was a mistake.
A mistake that is understandable, albeit not acceptable, considering the number of "visiting firemen" he must endure in that job and communications from staffers giving him directions on how to do his job. It can be maddening.
I think USMC Gen Mattis might be better at handling the issues, and even more blunt within the command structure....plus he's been in country a while with a track record of success....thus little wasted effort in getting up to speed.
But...I don't think Obama will pull the trigger...I think he'll try to finesse it.
Let me draw an example that AFW will understand and I hope others will.
In a military command there are always staff elements of at least G2/S2 (Intelligence), G3/S3 (Operations), and G4/S4 (Logistics). "G" is for Brigade or Divisional or above, and "S" is for Group and Battalion levels. Usually there are many more, but this will suffice.
Conventional wisdom and explicit general orders will usually say G3/S3 speaks for the Commander, with the Commander's voice." G2/S2 provides information to G3/S3, on request as well as de rigueur, and G4/S4 takes directions from G3/S3.
Absolutely no way in hell a G4/S4 officer "directs" operational troops this way or that, "demanding" anything...they are a service provider, and their customer is G3/S3. Same thing for G2/S2. You must know your place in the legitimate pecking order.
Visiting firemen and various civilian acolyte "dignitaries" are just that...not in the chain of command and usually in the way. Any "suggestions" they might have should be routed back up the food chain to the Commander and thence down to you. Usually you will get your direction from G3/S3, or the Commander directly,....ignore everything else.
This is very confusing...Petraeus is already Commander, Central Command, overseeing both Afghanistan and Iraq, plus other locales. In short, is McChrystal out and nobody "in?"
I gotta find more information. I was wrong, but for now, it seems only partially so. Is Obama is dodging the ISAF protocol of rotating Commanders between members? Rather than confronting it straight up? How does a theater Commander also assume Command of a particular war command?
Patraeus has one year in Command in Iraq and now a year & one half as CIC Central Command, and fainted while giving testimony before Congress. Is this more musical chairs of what are essentially short timers?
Obama sidesteps the rotating command issue by designating Petraeus...it is in essence the same command....but more or less from "Staff" (to the President)to "Line" directly under the President. Same command, new face(s).
Now if Obama is prescient, he'll shit can Eikenberry and Holbrook as well...both are part of the problem, not the solution...both grew way out of their pant size, so to speak. From a military standpoint, they are eminently mockable assholes....they need to go.
I'm told that a new Commander for US Central Command will be named subsequent to the transfer of the Afghan AOR to Petraeus.
Basically, Petraeus was rewarded for his job in Iraq by getting a promotion (job wise) and now a demotion?
Seriously? Yes, he can do it without a DOUBT. And he is loved and he can inspire. But sheesh...
Let's let the President try the same thing himself. After all, his seat in the Senate really needs him. He can go back to the Senate and leave the Presidency. I mean, it's okay for Petraeus, right? Take one for the team, and all that...
The thing is, I'll bet that Petraeus is such a patriot that he doesn't see it that way himself. He just wants America to win, and he'll go where it takes to do this. Which is why we all love him.
And we do need him there, so I suppose I'm just being bitchy. Except that Mattis could have stepped in... And there ARE others.
So, I was watching the body language segment on O'Reilly. Because I really like studying body language - I REALLY do.
Anyway, if you get a chance, check out the part where the President mentions that he replaced McCrystal without any thought about the personal feelings of what he said (or something to that effect, the words aren't as important in this case).
Total disgust micro-expression. It was awesome in its obviousness. I caught it prior to the slo-mo it was so awesome.
I'd be disgusted if someone basically called me a weenie, too (especially if it was true). So, no pointing fingers there. It was just awesome to catch it.
Another misunderstanding, evidenced by referring to McChrystal as Patraeus's "subordinate." As of early this week Gen Patraeus was CIC CENTCOM (U.S. Forces Central Command), which is essentially a strategic planning staff command, unifying multiple US Forces commands (Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines, etc.) without direct responsibility, or command authority over, for fighting units in an AOR (Area of Operations).
There is ample precedent for Patraeus's re-assignment to CIC of ISAF and the US combat forces and support forces in Afgahnistan. For example: Gen. Schwarzkopf became the CIC of Desert Storm in Iraq directly from his position as CIC CENTCOM. It is NOT a "demotion" when a reassignment among equivalent ranks occurs, from staff to line positions. In some career eyes, the line position is more prestigious.
It's not a big deal to most people, but I think it helps to understand things if you have some knowledge of the actual chain of command between a POTUS and a major AOR Commander. Theater Commanders have not had combat responsibility since WWII IIRC....when we had 5 Star "Generals of the Army" and/or "Fleet Admirals" in the direct line chain of command. The current direct link is what made Gen Patraeus's remarks on record insubordinate.
Re #30 Aridog - Petraeus was in Iraq for 2 tours before he was in command there... he seems to have been in command from 2/07 to 9/08, or about a year and a half.
Lewy14...2 prior tours means interval disconnection. A year & a half, barely adequate....just enough time to take credit for unfinished business, short enough to get gone before something goes wrong. There is a reason why normal major command tours are 3 years plus. (For example, McChrystal served 5 years as CIC SOCOM)
Ambitious generals like to get their tickets punched and move on or up. That might be understandable, and short tours rationalized because there are simply way too many flag rank officers to begin with for the overall size of US forces.
It is causing us to have weaker and weaker force effectiveness.
I am beginning to suspect McChrystal saw how the civil interlocutors, like Eikenberry and Holcomb, were setting up their CYA strategies...and decided to do a grand one for himself.
Whatever, no one is saying McChrystal was not qualified, nor an ineffective soldier and leader. So what has been gained? One less qualifed man with a house full of Pentagon Rangers itching for their turn at the game?
McChrystal made Afghanistan Obama's private property, and Obama promptly made it Patraeus's private property.
USMC General Mattis? If they couldn't handle McChrystal, they definitely couldn't have managed Mattis. This administration had already politically passed him over for the USMC Commandant slot. The prior administration had dumped USMC General Pace as Chairman, JCS, to avoid a re-appointment (position is normally 2 tours) fight and instead appointed a Navy Admiral, with zero combat commands on his resume', to lead the JCS during two land wars.
The highest ranks are horribly politicized and the short tours will demean our effectiveness until we are ineffective. The whole world knows it and is watching, both ally and enemy.
This administration had already politically passed him [Mattis] over for the USMC Commandant slot.
You should have heard some of the reactions THAT caused! Made me want to take a step back and hide out for awhile myself, and I had nothing to do with it!
Ari - you're right, except that for any other person the slot Petraeus has been moved into/from the slot he was in before *IS* a demotion. Real warfighters would prefer the line slot - yes. But on paper the slot is not a lateral move. As stands now, it is a demotion (although this term does not apply to Petraeus).
Whether Eikenberry (or Douchenberry as some call him) is removed or not, he's also fairly well stymied, I think. He might TRY to go up against Petraeus, but it is most certainly not going to work. Petraeus is in charge now. Of everyone. Even if he's not really in charge. IYKWIM.
That is excellent news. There is one person in charge in Afghanistan in reality now, rather than the multiple silly little departments headed up by various ambassadors in a dick swinging contest with the military previously. I mean, the ambassadors (FIVE! of them!!!11!!) are still there, but they don't have the, *ahem*, reach that Petraeus does.
AFW...I agree with you on everything except the "a demotion" part. Maybe it is perceived as one "politically" but in terms of chain of command, it definitely is not. McChrsytal did not report to Petraeus, nor will Petraeus report to the new CinC CENTCOM...which is essentially an extension of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I know it is a small point, perhaps, but one I think the public needs to grasp sooner than later. As it is now the perception is of an upside down management pyramid.
I've had to deal with it directly at times, and I've never "lost." A whole lot of people in these staff positions think because they report to the CinC, just like you do, that you also must "report" to them as staff...e.g., "higher ups."
Guess I need to add a bit of the "why" one must know their chain of command clearly and rely on it exclusively. When under pressure, as in a fire fight, you must automatically react in the manner prescribed by your commander, without concern for the opinions of a half dozen interlocutors. If you cannot do this, you WILL hesitate, even dither, and that is lethal to you or worse, to your fellow soldiers.
Now in less than lethal circumstances it still holds true...your effectiveness will be reduced by the amount of hesitation and dithering induced by trying to reconcile too many opinions and directives. Those who try to reconcile everything will perform like a disorganized herd, not a disciplined unit or organization, in business or military.
I said: "...your effectiveness will be reduced by the amount of hesitation and dithering induced by trying to reconcile too many opinions and directives. Those who try to reconcile everything will perform like a disorganized herd, not a disciplined unit or organization, in business or military."
...and I give you British Petroleum/Trans-ocean/Haliburton and Minerals Management Service/Department of the Interior as a primary example in their precautions prior to the blow out and their response to the blow out.
One point of many in that disaster: It took a low ranking 23 year old girl positioning monitor to determine the shit had hit the fan, the ship had blown up and was adrift without thrusters, listing and potentially sinking...and then send out the "Mayday" call to the USCG. Meantime the "bosses" were still conferencing, on the same bridge the girl was one, seeing the same things she saw, and continued exploring alternatives...in fact, the Captain reprimanded the girl for her action.
This kind of performance paralysis is lethal and proof of that is the 11 dead....and the continuing threat to habitat for wildlife and humans.
From start to finish the drilling plan took short cuts to satisfy this or that faction. When the crisis came they were unprepared.
Aridog, thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. All the threads of the military hierarchy can be confusing.
I'm glad that Petraeus isn't taking a step down to run the war in Afghanistan. What do you think will happen with McChrystal? Will he get a good posting, or will he be put out to pasture?
Lady Red....My guess is that McChrystal will retire voluntarily, then write a book.
When a General isn't given a new posting it is almost automatic anyway.
I'm not trying to "Lecture" on this chain of command thing, it is just that it has impacted me directly more than I like when misinterpreted. It's driving my successor bat shit crazy at times with the new "centralized" organization structure she has to deal with...e.g., way to many quasi-chiefs, not near enough Indians....and no real supervisory chain....just a grossly inefficient hodge podge.
They're getting away with it for now by means of a mumbo jumbo self-evaluation performed by the highest ranks on themselves, with emphasis on Headquarters Department of the Army as the "customer" rather than providing services to the Operations folks in the field.
Also, need to add that AFW is "correct" that in the "political" world, even in the military, Petraeus appears to be taking a "step down".
In reality, if you view an organization chart of the military and the line and staff commands, you will quickly see there is "no down" for the position at CENTCOM....e.g., there is no subordinating link to the Command of an major AOR.
Have you noticed that the same people who labeled him "General Betrayus" now think it's awesomely brilliant with more awesome on top (with an extra sprinkle of brilliant) that Obama selected him to replace McChrystal?
x(
Speaking of blindingly partisan nincompoops, have I mentioned lately how Chuck Todd makes my skin crawl? Obsequious men are icky, like stepping on something slimy with your bare feet. Ew.
I'm not a fan of MSNBC...however, This Video is almost self explanatory to anyone who has ever been in a firefight.
Notice the low lying camp (who the fuck planned that?!), surrounded by high ground, ample concealment for attack, no women or children in the village, insufficient supplies and materials for building defenses (an NGO didn't deliver...fucking NGO's!), overhead surveillance drone called away, and no tactical air for almost an hour? Guess "Broken Arrow" call is no longer used, eh.
If this is typical of our operations in Afghanistan, pull the fuck out now, leave those backwards savages to kill them selves. Just periodically blow the shit out of them with Arc Lights.
PS: The information about the NGO's and the other shortfalls came from the Dateline NBC show this evening.
Here is the Apache Gun Camera footage from NBC ... the enemy was in the village with the 173rd platoon, right smack in the village. They'd always been there.
Wannat was abandoned 2 days after the firefight. Sound familiar?
What makes my blood boil is that as I watch reports of our troops I see soldiers tougher (by far) than I ever was, better equipped, better trained, with commo we could only dream of...and they still intentionally step in to an ambush? IN a fixed position? Jesus jumping on a lilly pad Christ!!
That is senior command malfeasance, no platoon leader or company commander would be that fucking stupid. Then or now.
Um... Ooops?
ReplyDeleteIf he didn't resign, President Obama should have definitely fired him. Whatever I think of the President, you DO NOT ever, EVER do this if you are on active duty.
And you most certainly do not EVER EVER EVER do this if you are the General of the Generals in Afghanistan.
You enraged about something? Get your ass out and bitch from the sidelines. That's how it's done and that's how it needs to be.
HOWEVER: I certainly hope that the President has some staff somewhere with the foresight to appoint as the next dude in charge someone balls-to-the-wall, because we need to win and we need someone who will get us there even under the ridiculous restrictions and silly side focuses that have been placed there politically.
And no matter the meritocracy (for the most part) in the military, in the end there is a bit of cult of personality in the main leader.
People are willing to die for the main man. He better be able to freakin' inspire them. AT LEAST.
//Please forgive the mercenary bluntness
I'd love to be a fly on the wall tomorrow morning when he meets with The One.
ReplyDeleteObama hasn't got the guts to fire McChrystal. The troops would scream bloody murder, and unless Petraeus is yanked from USCENTCOM, who's gonna run the damn war?
Who indeed, lady red. McChrystal submitted his resignation and Obama needs to take it. This is not behavior that a CinC can stand for - no matter the cost.
ReplyDeleteAnd the reason for that is that the cost of letting behavior like this slide under the rug is worse than all else on balance.
The military does not get the same speech freedoms the rest of America does. The higher the rank, the more strict the rules.
I can't begin to fathom why McChrystal or his staff did this - they're all of enough rank to understand the ramifications. I don't know WHAT was going on in their heads. But it's a hanging offense, and it's a line you do not cross. Period.
There are some very awesome generals out there to replace McChrystal, though. There are, they just don't run around giving Rolling Stones interviews. :P
Okay, this quote makes me want to die laughing.
ReplyDelete“I’d rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner,” McChrystal says. He pauses a beat.
“Unfortunately,” he adds, “no one in this room could do it.”
With that, he’s out the door.
“Who’s he going to dinner with?” I ask one of his aides.
“Some French minister,” the aide tells me. “It’s fucking gay.”
AFW, Obama should have fired McChrystal on the spot. He didn't. He's more worried about his plans in Afghanistan than he is about blatant insubordination. He'd rather call McChrystal to the WH to dance the two-step. It's pathetic, and weak.
ReplyDelete(I couldn't help but laugh at some of the quotes in the article too. Hee hee!)
lady red - I was less than impressed with Robert Gibb's characterization of the President's anger, I must say.
ReplyDeleteOoooh, I'm so scared. He might kick my ass!
This is the first I'd read the actual comments from McChrystal and staff, and can only say that they are all true, BUT as AFW said, this is not what you do as a general, most especially not for f'ing Rolling Stone, which is as certain to spin any remarks as bad as possible.
ReplyDelete"Duncan Boothby, a civilian adviser to McChrystal who was responsible for arranging the Rolling Stone interview". What the Hell kind of advice was this? on the order of 'Oh, no, Stan, aim for your other foot, it is so much more easily hit!'
In any case, I personally hope McChrystal resigns, and then goes public with the absurd, soldier-killing ROE that the BarryO team has put in place, as well as the fact that Barry, given his massive military experience as a community organizer, and Biden, with his even greater military experience as nothing, have over-ruled and essentially micro-managed (anyone remember VietNam, where the idiots in Washington were actually giving real-time orers to the field troops?) from Washington by a crew with no actual skills or abilities that they have shown.
If McChrystal should resign, and proceed to poke holes in the tissue paper that is Obama's handling of this war, then for my money, he will move to the top of the possible-opponents list for Barry in 2012.
AFW, LOL! Gibbs is a smarmy bastid, isn't he? I think my mom could take him AND Obama without breaking a sweat, and she's in her seventies. Tough guys? Not so much.
ReplyDeleteDWT, I think if McChrystal resigns, we'll get an earful. If he writes a book, I'll sure read it!
I detest Robert Gibbs. He's oily and unctuous. He reminds me of those Southern TV Preachers who want your money and hire hookers with it.
ReplyDeleteMcChrystal already submitted his resignation. I'm pretty sure the President will accept it (with some stupid snide comment, I'm sure, that makes him look like a petulant teenager).
And by the way, didn't you know it's all George Bush's fault? Because it totally is.
Oh - that's the same description (like Gibbs) that I use for Mike Huckabee. Ick. Makes my skin crawl.
ReplyDeleteAnyone whose son does the things that Huckabee's son did and continues to be all "I love Jesus!" is missing something inside.
Oh, there's no doubt whatsoever that it's Bush's fault. Obama INHERITED the military from Bush, and McChrystal is probably an evil, obstructionist conservative who voted for Bush.
ReplyDeleteThere you go. In a nutshell. Bush's fault. ;;)
My bet? McChrystal stays.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what to think.
ReplyDeleteThis is extremely rare.
(I'm often wrong, just seldom confused. I'm sure it will pass.)
If McChrystal goes, then I'd think I'd like to see USMC General James Mattis given the job. the Marines seem to have a better handle on things that the rest of US Forces do not, among other things.
ReplyDeleteOne problem is that: "Protocol dictates the next commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) should be a general from another country." That is one reason I think Obama will keep him, to avoid that issue....much like Bush & Gates avoided a confirmation issue over re-appointing USMC General Peter Pace as Chairman, JCS....similar weasel strategy IMO.
We'll soon see today. Obama will have a wee spat either way, keeping McChrystal or appointing Mattis and getting the IASF to go along. Mattis isn't known for his soft spoken way either.
Another concern I have, and it goes back a long ways now, is the tendancy of civilian leadership to rotate high level Commanders, like Gen. Patraeus, in and out (and up from) of top jobs in less than 3+ year intervals. Normally a major command "tour" is 3+ years and we seem to have drifted from that....possibly to facilitate ticket punching (??) by our over laden flag rank officer ranks...it's an "institutional" thing.
ReplyDeleteShort "tours" in sensitive senior positions assures one thing...that one year or so "tours" provide 50% lost time every time as Commanders get up to speed after a CoC. If we wonder why it often appears we are running up hill in sand, consider this phenomena. No one can make serious sustainable headway in 12 to 14 months.
It took Bush fully 7 years of his 8 to sort through Generals who didn't "get it" about Iraq. Keep the same merry-go-round going in Afghanistan, fold the tent now and cut losses.
This opinion brought to you by a old Sergeant sitting fat dumb and happy several thousand miles away :-))
Aridog, the concerns you voice above are what I was getting at in my first comment when I said "who will run the damn war?"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there are some very good generals out there who would do a fine job, but getting "up to speed" is a real issue. I'll put my money with yours; McChrystal stays.
Obama displayed weakness when he didn't fire McChrystal immediately. If he ultimately keeps the general (with a limp slap on the wrist), he will be a laughingstock. And that is NOT funny when we have troops in the field.
I got to see GEN Mattis speak in May. He's pretty damn awesome.
ReplyDeleteBlackfive has some good analysis, I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more come out.
Lady Red...realize I am saying McChrystal stays because Obama and the administration will be hesitant, just as Bush/Gates were, for political reasons.
ReplyDeleteThere seems something odd about the McChrystal affair to me. Quite honestly, he's saying many of the things I've said in similar veins about my superiors' acolytes...who, by the freakin' way, never understand "Chain of Command"...e.g., McChrystal's boss is the President, not all the staffers and Secretariat types he has to deal with. In "chain of command" scenarios, there is always a general order (signed and sometimes edited by each and every successive commander) covering specifically which instances a staff officer, other department head, is speaking for and with the "voice" of the President or Commander. Lacking this, yes, it is tempting to crack wise about the boss too....because it demonstrates an interest in plausible deniability as well as lets acolytes cover their ass at your expense.
Believe it or not, I have told a Colonel from the West Wing to go back and do his homework when given directions that weren't proper. Hilarity ensued. I won. It was during a hurricane response in Florida, where the brother of the President happened to be Governor at the time...and staffers were falling all over themselves giving "directions." I had nothing saying Colonel X spoke explicitly for George W...and he had zilch from FEMA in funding terms.
All too often staff and various acolytes get to thinking their appointments means they speak for the President or Commander, when in fact, under the law, they do not. They're very good at handing you enough rope to hang yourself, however, if something goes bad they can claim you were supposed to know all that, yada yada...e.g., their CYA dodge, citing the old adage "if in doubt, you shouldn't have....etc."
McChrystal's error apparently was to talk about it outside the circle instead of telling whomever to have the President call him, or give clear direction explicitly, as was his right...and obligation for sensitive issues. That was a mistake.
A mistake that is understandable, albeit not acceptable, considering the number of "visiting firemen" he must endure in that job and communications from staffers giving him directions on how to do his job. It can be maddening.
I think USMC Gen Mattis might be better at handling the issues, and even more blunt within the command structure....plus he's been in country a while with a track record of success....thus little wasted effort in getting up to speed.
But...I don't think Obama will pull the trigger...I think he'll try to finesse it.
I could be wrong.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet me draw an example that AFW will understand and I hope others will.
ReplyDeleteIn a military command there are always staff elements of at least G2/S2 (Intelligence), G3/S3 (Operations), and G4/S4 (Logistics). "G" is for Brigade or Divisional or above, and "S" is for Group and Battalion levels. Usually there are many more, but this will suffice.
Conventional wisdom and explicit general orders will usually say G3/S3 speaks for the Commander, with the Commander's voice." G2/S2 provides information to G3/S3, on request as well as de rigueur, and G4/S4 takes directions from G3/S3.
Absolutely no way in hell a G4/S4 officer "directs" operational troops this way or that, "demanding" anything...they are a service provider, and their customer is G3/S3.
Same thing for G2/S2. You must know your place in the legitimate pecking order.
Visiting firemen and various civilian acolyte "dignitaries" are just that...not in the chain of command and usually in the way. Any "suggestions" they might have should be routed back up the food chain to the Commander and thence down to you. Usually you will get your direction from G3/S3, or the Commander directly,....ignore everything else.
It's Petraus. I hope his health can take it, that was a little scary when he passed out during the congressional hearings.
ReplyDeleteThis is very confusing...Petraeus is already Commander, Central Command, overseeing both Afghanistan and Iraq, plus other locales. In short, is McChrystal out and nobody "in?"
ReplyDeleteI gotta find more information. I was wrong, but for now, it seems only partially so. Is Obama is dodging the ISAF protocol of rotating Commanders between members? Rather than confronting it straight up? How does a theater Commander also assume Command of a particular war command?
Patraeus has one year in Command in Iraq and now a year & one half as CIC Central Command, and fainted while giving testimony before Congress. Is this more musical chairs of what are essentially short timers?
Wow.
ReplyDeleteI think the President is asking a lot of Petraeus, but he did the right thing to accept McChrystal's resignation.
I have no earthly idea how Petraeus can be in two places at the same time, or how Obama can side-step the whole "rotating command" issue. :-/
Obama sidesteps the rotating command issue by designating Petraeus...it is in essence the same command....but more or less from "Staff" (to the President)to "Line" directly under the President. Same command, new face(s).
ReplyDeleteNow if Obama is prescient, he'll shit can Eikenberry and Holbrook as well...both are part of the problem, not the solution...both grew way out of their pant size, so to speak. From a military standpoint, they are eminently mockable assholes....they need to go.
I'm told that a new Commander for US Central Command will be named subsequent to the transfer of the Afghan AOR to Petraeus.
The Rolling Stone article: The Runaway General ... for those who missed it otherwise.
ReplyDeleteBasically, Petraeus was rewarded for his job in Iraq by getting a promotion (job wise) and now a demotion?
ReplyDeleteSeriously? Yes, he can do it without a DOUBT. And he is loved and he can inspire. But sheesh...
Let's let the President try the same thing himself. After all, his seat in the Senate really needs him. He can go back to the Senate and leave the Presidency. I mean, it's okay for Petraeus, right? Take one for the team, and all that...
The thing is, I'll bet that Petraeus is such a patriot that he doesn't see it that way himself. He just wants America to win, and he'll go where it takes to do this. Which is why we all love him.
And we do need him there, so I suppose I'm just being bitchy. Except that Mattis could have stepped in... And there ARE others.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,216608,00.html
ReplyDeleteIn my capacity as Master of the Obvious, let me just observe... Obama is out of his depth. I doubt he really has any idea what to do.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, it's a tough problem, but I doubt there is much of a process right now except to throw darts, flip coins, etc...
So, I was watching the body language segment on O'Reilly. Because I really like studying body language - I REALLY do.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if you get a chance, check out the part where the President mentions that he replaced McCrystal without any thought about the personal feelings of what he said (or something to that effect, the words aren't as important in this case).
Total disgust micro-expression. It was awesome in its obviousness. I caught it prior to the slo-mo it was so awesome.
I'd be disgusted if someone basically called me a weenie, too (especially if it was true). So, no pointing fingers there. It was just awesome to catch it.
AFW said: "Petraeus was rewarded for his job in Iraq by getting a promotion (job wise) ..."
ReplyDeleteWhich was total bullshit...he was in Iraq barely a year...no job was done, or even half done, he just got started.
This practice will be the end of our effective military if not changed, soon.
Another misunderstanding, evidenced by referring to McChrystal as Patraeus's "subordinate." As of early this week Gen Patraeus was CIC CENTCOM (U.S. Forces Central Command), which is essentially a strategic planning staff command, unifying multiple US Forces commands (Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines, etc.) without direct responsibility, or command authority over, for fighting units in an AOR (Area of Operations).
ReplyDeleteThere is ample precedent for Patraeus's re-assignment to CIC of ISAF and the US combat forces and support forces in Afgahnistan. For example: Gen. Schwarzkopf became the CIC of Desert Storm in Iraq directly from his position as CIC CENTCOM. It is NOT a "demotion" when a reassignment among equivalent ranks occurs, from staff to line positions. In some career eyes, the line position is more prestigious.
It's not a big deal to most people, but I think it helps to understand things if you have some knowledge of the actual chain of command between a POTUS and a major AOR Commander. Theater Commanders have not had combat responsibility since WWII IIRC....when we had 5 Star "Generals of the Army" and/or "Fleet Admirals" in the direct line chain of command. The current direct link is what made Gen Patraeus's remarks on record insubordinate.
Re #30 Aridog - Petraeus was in Iraq for 2 tours before he was in command there... he seems to have been in command from 2/07 to 9/08, or about a year and a half.
ReplyDeleteLewy14...2 prior tours means interval disconnection. A year & a half, barely adequate....just enough time to take credit for unfinished business, short enough to get gone before something goes wrong. There is a reason why normal major command tours are 3 years plus. (For example, McChrystal served 5 years as CIC SOCOM)
ReplyDeleteAmbitious generals like to get their tickets punched and move on or up. That might be understandable, and short tours rationalized because there are simply way too many flag rank officers to begin with for the overall size of US forces.
It is causing us to have weaker and weaker force effectiveness.
I am beginning to suspect McChrystal saw how the civil interlocutors, like Eikenberry and Holcomb, were setting up their CYA strategies...and decided to do a grand one for himself.
Whatever, no one is saying McChrystal was not qualified, nor an ineffective soldier and leader. So what has been gained? One less qualifed man with a house full of Pentagon Rangers itching for their turn at the game?
McChrystal made Afghanistan Obama's private property, and Obama promptly made it Patraeus's private property.
USMC General Mattis? If they couldn't handle McChrystal, they definitely couldn't have managed Mattis. This administration had already politically passed him over for the USMC Commandant slot. The prior administration had dumped USMC General Pace as Chairman, JCS, to avoid a re-appointment (position is normally 2 tours) fight and instead appointed a Navy Admiral, with zero combat commands on his resume', to lead the JCS during two land wars.
The highest ranks are horribly politicized and the short tours will demean our effectiveness until we are ineffective. The whole world knows it and is watching, both ally and enemy.
Re: My # 31 error: "The current direct link is what made Gen McChrystal's remarks on record insubordinate."
ReplyDeleteThis administration had already politically passed him [Mattis] over for the USMC Commandant slot.
ReplyDeleteYou should have heard some of the reactions THAT caused! Made me want to take a step back and hide out for awhile myself, and I had nothing to do with it!
Ari - you're right, except that for any other person the slot Petraeus has been moved into/from the slot he was in before *IS* a demotion. Real warfighters would prefer the line slot - yes. But on paper the slot is not a lateral move. As stands now, it is a demotion (although this term does not apply to Petraeus).
Whether Eikenberry (or Douchenberry as some call him) is removed or not, he's also fairly well stymied, I think. He might TRY to go up against Petraeus, but it is most certainly not going to work. Petraeus is in charge now. Of everyone. Even if he's not really in charge. IYKWIM.
That is excellent news. There is one person in charge in Afghanistan in reality now, rather than the multiple silly little departments headed up by various ambassadors in a dick swinging contest with the military previously. I mean, the ambassadors (FIVE! of them!!!11!!) are still there, but they don't have the, *ahem*, reach that Petraeus does.
So their swinging is gonna have to stop.
And THAT is excellent news.
AFW...I agree with you on everything except the "a demotion" part. Maybe it is perceived as one "politically" but in terms of chain of command, it definitely is not. McChrsytal did not report to Petraeus, nor will Petraeus report to the new CinC CENTCOM...which is essentially an extension of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
ReplyDeleteI know it is a small point, perhaps, but one I think the public needs to grasp sooner than later. As it is now the perception is of an upside down management pyramid.
I've had to deal with it directly at times, and I've never "lost." A whole lot of people in these staff positions think because they report to the CinC, just like you do, that you also must "report" to them as staff...e.g., "higher ups."
Nonsense.
Guess I need to add a bit of the "why" one must know their chain of command clearly and rely on it exclusively. When under pressure, as in a fire fight, you must automatically react in the manner prescribed by your commander, without concern for the opinions of a half dozen interlocutors. If you cannot do this, you WILL hesitate, even dither, and that is lethal to you or worse, to your fellow soldiers.
ReplyDeleteNow in less than lethal circumstances it still holds true...your effectiveness will be reduced by the amount of hesitation and dithering induced by trying to reconcile too many opinions and directives. Those who try to reconcile everything will perform like a disorganized herd, not a disciplined unit or organization, in business or military.
I said: "...your effectiveness will be reduced by the amount of hesitation and dithering induced by trying to reconcile too many opinions and directives. Those who try to reconcile everything will perform like a disorganized herd, not a disciplined unit or organization, in business or military."
ReplyDelete...and I give you British Petroleum/Trans-ocean/Haliburton and Minerals Management Service/Department of the Interior as a primary example in their precautions prior to the blow out and their response to the blow out.
One point of many in that disaster: It took a low ranking 23 year old girl positioning monitor to determine the shit had hit the fan, the ship had blown up and was adrift without thrusters, listing and potentially sinking...and then send out the "Mayday" call to the USCG. Meantime the "bosses" were still conferencing, on the same bridge the girl was one, seeing the same things she saw, and continued exploring alternatives...in fact, the Captain reprimanded the girl for her action.
This kind of performance paralysis is lethal and proof of that is the 11 dead....and the continuing threat to habitat for wildlife and humans.
From start to finish the drilling plan took short cuts to satisfy this or that faction. When the crisis came they were unprepared.
Aridog, thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. All the threads of the military hierarchy can be confusing.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that Petraeus isn't taking a step down to run the war in Afghanistan. What do you think will happen with McChrystal? Will he get a good posting, or will he be put out to pasture?
Lady Red....My guess is that McChrystal will retire voluntarily, then write a book.
ReplyDeleteWhen a General isn't given a new posting it is almost automatic anyway.
I'm not trying to "Lecture" on this chain of command thing, it is just that it has impacted me directly more than I like when misinterpreted. It's driving my successor bat shit crazy at times with the new "centralized" organization structure she has to deal with...e.g., way to many quasi-chiefs, not near enough Indians....and no real supervisory chain....just a grossly inefficient hodge podge.
They're getting away with it for now by means of a mumbo jumbo self-evaluation performed by the highest ranks on themselves, with emphasis on Headquarters Department of the Army as the "customer" rather than providing services to the Operations folks in the field.
It is mind bending.
Also, need to add that AFW is "correct" that in the "political" world, even in the military, Petraeus appears to be taking a "step down".
ReplyDeleteIn reality, if you view an organization chart of the military and the line and staff commands, you
will quickly see there is "no down" for the position at CENTCOM....e.g., there is no subordinating link to the Command of an major AOR.
It doesn't matter, though, because it's Petraeus. If that makes sense. For anyone else it would matter. But Petraeus isn't "anyone else."
ReplyDeleteI don't know about you all, but I'm anxiously awaiting the first showdown between Petraeus and Eikenberry. I'll have popcorn waiting.
I would pay to watch that at the movie theater, it's so exciting to me.
Have you noticed that the same people who labeled him "General Betrayus" now think it's awesomely brilliant with more awesome on top (with an extra sprinkle of brilliant) that Obama selected him to replace McChrystal?
ReplyDeletex(
Speaking of blindingly partisan nincompoops, have I mentioned lately how Chuck Todd makes my skin crawl? Obsequious men are icky, like stepping on something slimy with your bare feet. Ew.
lady red - I think it's his hair. His hair is awful, just horrible awful.
ReplyDeleteEspecially when combined with that pudding ring.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of MSNBC...however, This Video is almost self explanatory to anyone who has ever been in a firefight.
ReplyDeleteNotice the low lying camp (who the fuck planned that?!), surrounded by high ground, ample concealment for attack, no women or children in the village, insufficient supplies and materials for building defenses (an NGO didn't deliver...fucking NGO's!), overhead surveillance drone called away, and no tactical air for almost an hour? Guess "Broken Arrow" call is no longer used, eh.
If this is typical of our operations in Afghanistan, pull the fuck out now, leave those backwards savages to kill them selves. Just periodically blow the shit out of them with Arc Lights.
PS: The information about the NGO's and the other shortfalls came from the Dateline NBC show this evening.
Here is the Apache Gun Camera footage from NBC ... the enemy was in the village with the 173rd platoon, right smack in the village. They'd always been there.
Wannat was abandoned 2 days after the firefight. Sound familiar?
AFW...if Bam Bam doesn't pull Eikenberry and Holbrook, the whole thing is for show...running up hill in sand so to speak.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes my blood boil is that as I watch reports of our troops I see soldiers tougher (by far) than I ever was, better equipped, better trained, with commo we could only dream of...and they still intentionally step in to an ambush? IN a fixed position? Jesus jumping on a lilly pad Christ!!
ReplyDeleteThat is senior command malfeasance, no platoon leader or company commander would be that fucking stupid. Then or now.