Tweet
posted by: Jessica Pieklo 16 hours ago
Does it really come as any surprise that the man in formerly in charge of running black-ops for the Pentagon would openly bash the President and his cabinet to reporters? And now that he's done so, does that show that he's exactly the right person for a seemingly endless war in Afghanistan or exactly the wrong person? Like the war itself, Gen. McChrystal's profile offers a murkey answer to that basic question.
As the profile in Rolling Stone illustrates, Gen. Stanley McChrystal is a man who evokes strong opinions and controversy with each assignment. He was involved, deeply, in the military coverup of Pat Tillman's death and seems to have a legacy, perhaps refined in black ops, of creating shady trails of (mis)information as part of a generalized military strategy. And his attacks on the administration via Rolling Stone? Not at all substantive. And why should they be. Gen. McChrystal, after all, got the administration to buy into his counter-insurgency strategy for dealing with Afghanistan leading many to wonder if this country continues to have a civilian led military.
Instead, the complaints sound like the day-to-day swipes you or I might make at our boss--provided of course that we were not making them to a reporter and our boss was not the Commander in Chief and President of the United States. And provided of course that those statements were not possibly in violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which provides that "[a]ny commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct".
There's good reason why that kind of sniping is not allowed in our democracy. The military specifically does not have a political voice and is constitutionally required to answer to the President as Commander in Chief. This balance is one already in precarious balance with Gen. McChrystal, who made it clear publicly that he wanted an increase in troops before the administration had decided on an Afghan war strategy. That of course put the President in the difficult political position of either caving to the Pentagon or publicly opposing his chosen war leader, and it showed tremendous hutspa by the General.
It would appear that the General and the Commander in Chief find themselves in another unenviable political position. According to reports, Gen. McChrystal has submitted his resignation and it is now up to the President to accept it. If McChrystal stays then what does that say about our democracy--one that is supposed to distinguish itself by specifically NOT allowing the military to set foreign policy directives? Should this kind of public insubordination be tolerated and just why should military brass show respect and defence to this administration moving forward if they know there's no consequence if they dont?
And if Gen. McChrystal leaves, with the July 2011 Afghan draw down date approaching, what impact does that have on the strategy lobbied for by McChrystal and adopted by the President? Does it change? Should it change? These are just the beginning of a list of serious, and perhaps overdue, questions that this administration must face when dealing with the Pentagon. To that end, Rolling Stone and a flippant General may have done this country a favor.
Read more: military, politics, afghanistan, mcchrystal, rolling stone
Gen. McChrystal Sounds Off. Should It Be Tolerated?
Does it really come as any surprise that the man in formerly in charge of running black-ops for the Pentagon would openly bash the President and his cabinet to reporters? And now that he's done so, does that show that he's exactly the right person for a seemingly endless war in Afghanistan or exactly the wrong person? Like the war itself, Gen. McChrystal's profile offers a murkey answer to that basic question.
As the profile in Rolling Stone illustrates, Gen. Stanley McChrystal is a man who evokes strong opinions and controversy with each assignment. He was involved, deeply, in the military coverup of Pat Tillman's death and seems to have a legacy, perhaps refined in black ops, of creating shady trails of (mis)information as part of a generalized military strategy. And his attacks on the administration via Rolling Stone? Not at all substantive. And why should they be. Gen. McChrystal, after all, got the administration to buy into his counter-insurgency strategy for dealing with Afghanistan leading many to wonder if this country continues to have a civilian led military.
Instead, the complaints sound like the day-to-day swipes you or I might make at our boss--provided of course that we were not making them to a reporter and our boss was not the Commander in Chief and President of the United States. And provided of course that those statements were not possibly in violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which provides that "[a]ny commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct".
There's good reason why that kind of sniping is not allowed in our democracy. The military specifically does not have a political voice and is constitutionally required to answer to the President as Commander in Chief. This balance is one already in precarious balance with Gen. McChrystal, who made it clear publicly that he wanted an increase in troops before the administration had decided on an Afghan war strategy. That of course put the President in the difficult political position of either caving to the Pentagon or publicly opposing his chosen war leader, and it showed tremendous hutspa by the General.
It would appear that the General and the Commander in Chief find themselves in another unenviable political position. According to reports, Gen. McChrystal has submitted his resignation and it is now up to the President to accept it. If McChrystal stays then what does that say about our democracy--one that is supposed to distinguish itself by specifically NOT allowing the military to set foreign policy directives? Should this kind of public insubordination be tolerated and just why should military brass show respect and defence to this administration moving forward if they know there's no consequence if they dont?
And if Gen. McChrystal leaves, with the July 2011 Afghan draw down date approaching, what impact does that have on the strategy lobbied for by McChrystal and adopted by the President? Does it change? Should it change? These are just the beginning of a list of serious, and perhaps overdue, questions that this administration must face when dealing with the Pentagon. To that end, Rolling Stone and a flippant General may have done this country a favor.
Read more: military, politics, afghanistan, mcchrystal, rolling stone
Gen. McChrystal Sounds Off. Should It Be Tolerated?
NBA is a joke
Comment