Economy & Law Topic: World grain market situation after Russia’s grain export ban Tajik president urges public to stock up on food more
Eurasia China to invest $1bln in petrochemical projects in Iran Iran-China connection more
Politics Opinion: Serbia cannot deny historical facts. By Agim Zogaj Triumph of the Will of Freedom more
Science Switzerland''s biggest solar energy park comes on Stream Soft Technologies more
Interview An interview with Parvez Asad Shaikh on Wikileaks, Afghanistan & a possible way ahead Afghanistan is shrouded in the rhetoric of the ‘war on terror’ more
You are here: Home >> Politics >> President Obama sacks General Stanley McChrystal for insubordination. By Shahid R. Siddiqi
24.06.2010 President Obama sacks General Stanley McChrystal for insubordination. By Shahid R. Siddiqi
"The Runaway General"
President Obama lost no time in removing General Stanley McChrystal from his command of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan on Wednesday, appointing General David Patraeus in his place. He moved quickly to restore the unity of his administration's war effort by reiterating the chain of command and reminding the military of the supremacy of civilian authority over it.
advertisement
President Obama came pretty close to a MacArthur moment and, following the footsteps of President Truman, swiftly dealt with it. General McChrystal and his top aides had disparaged civilian leaders, including President Obama, in their conversations with a freelance journalist, which are reported in an explosive article captioned “The Runaway General” by Rolling Stone magazine.
Taking shots at the president, according to the article, McChrystal described his first meeting with him as ‘disappointing’, saying the president came in unprepared. He had first come across President Obama shortly after he took office and came to meet with senior military officers at the Pentagon. A source familiar with the meeting says McChrystal’s assessment of Obama was that of a president who was “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the presence of military top brass. According to McChrystal’s staff officer, the magazine reports, their second encounter four month later did not make a mark on McChrystal either. This was when he briefly met the president in the Oval Office after being selected for the job in Afghanistan. McChrystal called this a photo-op and is quoted to have said he was disappointed that the commander-in-chief “didn’t seem very engaged”.
The article also contains a number of disparaging remarks by McChrystal and his aides aimed at Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, special envoy Richard Holbrooke and US ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.
The general’s aides were clearly dismissive of civilian oversight of the war and the general himself ridiculed Vice President Biden with a one-liner when he said: “Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” And then added “… Who's that?” McChrystal held a grudge against Biden because he opposed the surge that McChrystal had proposed in support of his new counter-insurgency strategy to rescue the failing war to which Obama had agreed over Biden’s objections.
The article quotes McChrystal as calling Richard Holbrooke a “wounded animal” because Holbrooke “keeps hearing about rumors that he’s going to be fired”. His aides derided Jim Jones by calling him a “clown”.
The White House was furious, and so was Obama. This unbecoming conduct amounted to insubordination by no less than a general officer holding a very important command. This called for a severe reprimand and dismissal. The general was summoned, heard by the president and commander-in-chief and, in a show of grace, asked to resign.
There were concerns in Washington that McChrystal’s departure in the middle of a war could cause major disruptions in its execution and back-phase the timelines that Obama had set for the military to follow in Afghanistan. Some argued that after a presidential scolding he should be allowed to return to his post and finish the job.
But Obama had other concerns. The general’s conduct had brought out in the open three fault lines that now needed to be addressed urgently.
Firstly, the frictions between the civil and military leaderships over the conduct of the war and the question as to who was in control were at the root of a failed war effort that is not going anywhere. This has happened despite Robert Gates being in-charge of the Pentagon, having been retained from the Bush administration for this very purpose – continuity of smooth operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Secondly, the Pentagon has been blaming the Obama administration of not understanding the war and the administration retorting that the Pentagon did not appreciate the political realities. Out of sync with each other, they have continued to operate within their own spheres. The military high command, having initially agreed to the timelines set by Obama when he gave them additional troops and the treasure to turn things around in Afghanistan last fall, did not truly accept them. They argued that counterinsurgency operations could not be realistically limited to a given length of time. The political leadership accuses Pentagon of indirect insubordination and the Pentagon responds by saying the administration is focused more on withdrawal and less on winning the war.
And thirdly, McChrystal was habitually crossing a venerated line in openly criticizing his civilian chain of command and manipulating the leadership, which sent a wrong signal down the line. Obama had to give him a dressing down during his visit to Copenhagen last year after McChrystal criticized vice president Biden in a speech in London for advocating a scaled down war effort, as opposed to McChrystal’s own strategy of increase in troop strength.
Earlier, last fall McChrystal was suspected of having leaked his Afghanistan strategy document to the media which argued for additional 40,000 troops, even before President Obama could evaluate it and make a judgment. This was done to virtually put the president in a box and make him concede to his demand. An angry White House had made muted accusations of insubordination.
Thus being emboldened and under the impression of being indispensible, enjoying the support of the Pentagon, including Robert Gates, he committed the grave indiscretion of publicly ridiculing the civilian authority to which he reported. But this time he forced the president’s hand to act decisively.
Fears that General McChrystal’s abrupt departure from the theater of war would cause serious disruption are, in fact, unfounded. It is not uncommon for commanders to be changed during the course of a war. Pending the Senate approval of General Patraeus for the new job, a British general who was next in seniority has already taken over to ensure there are no missed heartbeats in the chain of command. Then the entire military leadership, including General Rodriguez - the second in command of the US and NATO contingents, continues to oversee day-to-day operations as before. Subordinate commanders will also continue to follow the strategy and orders that are already in place.
General Patraeus was in fact the architect of the war strategy that was presented to President Obama by McChrystal and was approved for implementation in Afghanistan. This has been patterned after the strategy that Patraeus himself had put in place in Iraq where McChrystal also served. For Patraeus therefore, this war and the strategy is nothing new. Besides, high marks are being given to him for his performance in Iraq.
In taking this decision, President Obama ignored the plea made by President Karzai, who cautioned Obama against McChrystal’s removal, expressing fears that this would derail the war. For Karzai, McChrystal was also important because he got full backing from the general, who was also served his channel of communication with Washington. Karzai is not on speaking terms with Ambassador Eikenberry and Richard Holbrooke.
The fallout of the McChrystal scandal will affect Pakistan too, where the civilian and military leadership has chosen to quietly watch the drama unfold. McChrystal visited Pakistan often in an effort to win support for the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and did develop close ties with military commanders, starting with Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief, with whom he held frequent meetings. Effective cooperation and intelligence-sharing exists between the two sides.
There remains an uncertainty, however, about the extent to which this cordial relationship would be maintained by the new US and NATO commander - General Patraeus. Although he is no stranger to this war and to the region, has overseen the war and General McChrystal, is fully familiar with the realities on the ground and has remained in close contact with Pakistan’s military commanders, yet Gen. Patraeus remains an unknown entity as a person physically handling the operations. Pakistan would also be watching closely the nature of his relationships with other groups in Afghanistan, particularly those that work to destabilize Pakistan and the region.
A strong working relationship with Islamabad is and should decisively remain a central part of the US war strategy not only because of the sensitive common borders and the fact that Pashtuns straddle both sides of the border, but also because the events in Afghanistan directly impact Pakistan. That Pakistan is in a position to play an important role in promoting peace goes without saying.
Globalia 8th Edition
Online Subscription
more background articles, analysis and interviews
full access to the archive
>> order now!
Downloads
Click here in order to download the latest edition of GlobaliaMagazine in pdf-format.
Hardly anything new
KAIRO. Only a selected few were allowed to attend US-President Obamas' speech in the university in Cairo.
