Various news outlets are reporting that President Obama has relieved General Stanley McChrystal of his command in Afghanistan, replacing him with General David Petraeus.
Clearly the right move. After the shocking comments by McChrystal and his subordinates, there was no way Obama could allow him to continue in that position. And replacing him with Petraeus is smart – that should insulate Obama to some degree from right-wing carping.
In this country, the military works for the elected civilian leadership. That is a core constitutional principle, and Obama is doing exactly the right thing by making sure that everyone knows that.
Please share widely!
Or will he just fade away?
I was more worried about the incompetence of this guy blabbing on in front of a reporter, judgment impaired by Bud Light Lime. Really, are we going to win a war if the commander drinks Bud Light Lime??
<
p>Not to mention that Afghanistan hasn’t worked out that well, the guy lied his way through the Pat Tillman episode, and seems okay with torture. I won’t miss him.
Unlike President Lincoln in 1862, President Obama had a very capable general, Gen. Petraeus, willing to take over. Given that fact, this was clearly the right decision for the reasons David gives. Things would have been more complicated if, as Lincoln believed about McClellan in 1862, there was no real alternative.
<
p>TedF
Obama could appoint Robert E. Lee, and it would not “insulate him from right-wing carping.” That’s going to go on unabated so long as he’s in office, no matter what he does. Which raises the question of why the President keeps appearing to appease the Yahoos on the Right. Is he still having fantasies of bipartisan support, does he agree with them, or is he working hard at appearing to be reasonable, so the undeclared will support his programs?
if their criticisms were geniune criticisms — ie they were really angry with something and wanted the course to change — that would be one thing. But when Obama takes Republican proposals and incorporates them into the major cornerstones of the bills he’s pushing… and the very same Republicans who proposed those reforms then call it socialism, as if they weren’t the ones who gave the President the idea, then you know, conclusively, that these criticisms aren’t genuine. They will find any reason at all to criticize him mercilessly, up to and including just making shit up.
<
p>That said, while I agree this won’t do anything to insulate Obama from the right, I don’t disagree with Obama’s appointment of Patreaus. He does seem reasonably competent and certainly won’t pull the kind of crap McChystal did.
is that he might have a lot more to fear from apathy among some of the more progressive/”sure thing” elements of his coalition, in particular, African-Americans. What happens if a lot of African-Americans go lukewarm on him before 2012? Does he still win? Better, perhaps, to ensure that these voters remain in his corner than pursue the unobtainable right wing.
for reelection in 2012 is to spend his time and energy focusing on the most reliable democratic votes?
<
p>…Just looking to clarify.
to “none of the above”. Meaning low democratic turnout, and President Scott Brown.
Though they can spend money, corporations can’t vote (yet)- appearing to either defer to corporate interests or be defeated by those interests is a losing strategy for Obama. I think many people expected a populist hero, rightly or wrongly. I’d be curious to see how/if Obama’s favorability ratings have fluctuated among African-Americans over the course of hid presidency, just out of curiosity.
Probably I’m wrong. Personally, if we’re still in Iraq and Afghanistan and the oil is still leaking by election time, I’ll consider writing in Kucinich.
It depends on how the question is asked I’d bet.
<
p>Give me 100 random blacks in a voting booth, and I’ll give you 90 Democratic votes. Give me 100 random whites, and I’ll give you what, 45?
<
p>But, give me 100 random blacks, and I’ll give you about 30 votes. Eliminate those who are ineligible due to felonies, etc. Now eliminate those who don’t show up for elections. Now eliminate those who fall prey to voter suppression tricks. Now eliminate those who see the lines in their voting location and move on. Now eliminate those who aren’t in the books or who get challenged by a GOP attorney.
<
p>Black Americans vote very reliably Democratic, but they don’t reliably vote. Given that African American populations are nowhere near uniform,
if Blacks voted like seniors voted, they’d have far more political power than they do now.
<
p>
<
p>It should be obvious that these claims are generalities, and are all relative to other populations.
The breath of people subjected to the general’s disdain suggests that the NYT’s piece on a growing military-civilian divide is right on the mark:
<
p>
<
p>The civilian side bears as much responsibility for this gap, if one accepts that it exists, as the military. There is no draft. Recruiters prowl low income areas for soldiers — high-income areas not so much, because people are less attracted by the salaries on offer. Non-citizens (illegal immigrants, if they had the temerity to cross the border without proper permission), about as far removed from the domestic population as a person can get, serve as a way to gain citizenship. ROTC, and thus a large fraction of the officer corps, is banned from many college campuses.
<
p>Not a promising direction, considering that another famous Republic, Rome’s, met its end when this gap grew to an intolerable degree.
As far as I’m concerned, the part of the article of most interest was the weird melange of buddy-buddy chestthumping, college humor (“Team America“…?? fer real? )and barely concealed testosterone-fueled rage. Gen McChrystal is heavily over-compensating for something…
<
p>The article was at pains to mention that McChrystal (and Gen Odierno, the guy who shaved Colberts head in Iraq) were both members of the last all-male class at West Point. It doesn’t mention the gender makeup of McChrystals ‘Team America’ but one has a very difficult time imagining even a single female on the staff.
<
p>Just as Obama is the first African-American POTUS, he’s also the first post-Vietnam POTUS and this has brought about all sorts of culture clashes. The same can be seen in the military where, within the next decade or so, we’ll be seeing women who were part of the first co-ed class at West Point coming into leadership positions…
<
p>A significant difference, if you ask me, from that situation Rome found itself in…
My only qualm is that the Afghan leaders liked him, and I hope the SUBSTANCE of his misgivings are addressed by Gen. Petreus.
part of me thinks these comments were so over-the-top that McChrystal wanted out for political reasons. Let someone else take the blame in Afghanistan, so his next career isn’t marred by its failures. Any person with half a brain will realize we can’t “win” in Afghanistan, whatever winning means. The current leader in that country has all but joined the Taliban (and there’s even some speculation he’s already done just that). The Taliban is in parts of that country which it hasn’t been in since before we made war on them, and this time some of the areas where they faced resistance, they’re now finding leaders who are friendlier to their cause.
<
p>As shocking and ugly as it would seem to us, we have to face the fact that the Taliban is actually popular with many of the people in that country and, so long as we’re in Afghanistan, is seen as the ‘liberators’ to our occupation. There is no winning here — not when we’re going with a counter-insurgency strategy and the political leader we helped put in place there not only couldn’t care a lick about us, but is threatening to go in league with the Taliban (and quite possibly is already). The reason for us being there is also gone, given that the military has already recognized that Al Qaeda isn’t there anymore.
<
p>It’s sad, but unless the President does a complete 180, he’s probably going to be the one remembered for bogging us down in that country and not getting out when it was blindingly clear we needed to remove ourselves from there. We’re making ourselves less safe, costing ourselves hundreds of billions every year that we can’t afford (especially in this economic recession), and we’re wasting lives on both sides. It’s time for the military process to end and the diplomatic one to begin.
… Yglesias:
<
p>
I saw Petraeus mentioned as a choice elsewhere – frankly, he’s kind of an obvious go-to guy.
and given you permission to do same?
<
p>2. Kudos to Rolling Stone, whose political reporting has been largely ignored despite its stellar quality. I love that RS, without any fanfare or bravado, simply published the story–without online advance–and let it hit like the atomic bomb it was. Bravo!
<
p>2. Obama did the right thing. I was, however, worried that he would do the wrong thing. Such is the state of my trust in this administration lately.
<
p>3. The right will never be satisfied. They are an insatiable parasite draining the democratic (small d) lifeblood of this nation until the corpse is dry. They won’t be satisfy until they replicate Germany of the 1920s–with a little religious fanaticism thrown in for some sexy time.
I’m satisfied with what Obama did. He was decisive and acted — things that I was not particularly expecting. Selecting Petraus shouldn’t be talked about because it’s going to politically insulate him, because frankly, who cares? It should be talked about because the right man is at the helm. I don’t think he’s going to “win” Afghanistan, but discipline, integrity, and honor can surely make a situation go from worse to bad.
Then you should be responding to the emergence of the rabidly xenophobic, homophobic, reductively anti-government Christianist tea partiers who are gaining traction among your party’s leadership. I’m not sure what your singular support for Obama’s decision is supposed to indicate vis a vis #3.
<
p>You have to be a pretty hard-core ideologue to defend McChrystal’s behavior, yet some of your party are having at it. Petraeus is a competent general who, despite his depraved support of the Bush doctrine during that administration, would never behave, I don’t believe, the way McChrystal has regarding his CIC.
<
p>McChrystal has been telegraphing this stuff for a long time. Finally someone outside the MSM had the balls to quote him.
You have to be a pretty hard-core ideologue to make that accusation.
and you’ve read anything about the Petraeus years.
<
p>Disagreement does not equal ideology. You may have found his peddling of the Bush doctrine entirely to your liking, but I personally did not. That does not, however, rule out Petraeous as a capable and informed military leader. Indeed, every indication suggests that Petraeus knows much more than the Bush administration about what might be effective, so I’m hoping he will do the right thing with Obama. Petraeus, in some respects, reminds me of Colin Powell. Only Petraeus gets a second chance.
in order to adopt the Obama doctine should he start bowing and apologizing to everyone while throwing our long time allies under the bus? Somehow, i don’t see it.
<
p>Generaly Betray-us indeed!
I think the lesson of this whole controversy is that the ultimate leader of the military is the elected President of the United States-NOT the generals on the ground. I think it is hypocritical for you to praise Obama for asserting his control over the military and then attack Petraeus for following orders during the Bush years. Of course he did some things the left didn’t like since he was following the orders of a duly elected right wing President. What else did you want him to do? Resign? Mouth off against Bush to Rolling Stone? In my view he salvaged the complete wreck of Iraq from five years of mismanagement under Rumsfeld and Bush and we might actually end up seeing a stable, nominally democratic country there. That was something unthinkable of several years ago and we owe it to David Petraeus. I think that was a much more productive and meaningful way to honor the sacrifice of the troops than to have him resign and join Cindy Sheehan in a meaningless protest. He made the decision to fix the war from within rather than protest it from without and I respect him for that. Hopefully he can do the same in Afghanistan.
His comments above were largely supportive of the President, and I don’t think it’s fair to hold him personally responsible for the extremes of his party.
You can’t have subordinates mouthing off to the press about the POTUS. I would hope this same guideline will be used no matter what party the POTUS is in the future when a sitting General critiques the President. Did any active Generals make comments about then President George Bush and if so how did BMGers react to those remarks?
Then they criticized him.
Usually
After a hiatus JohnD comes back to insinuate that we’re not being consistent – love it!
I agree with your assessment of his tactics, but why do you think he reappeared now?
Although he did post that nice Father’s Day diary a few days ago I’m just not the least bit surprised that his first comment on the issues of the day was of this nature.
I posted a nice Father’s Day post becuase I was filled with joy (it happens).
<
p>I posted about the above issue becuase I believe the POTUS cannot have his generals… publically criticize him. However my memory was that when GW was POTUS the left was quite happy to have Generals criticize the POTUS (“Truth talkers”)
<
p>Do you remeber this wonderful flurry from the left?
<
p>
Civilian criticism by MoveOn or anyone would be an entirely separate issue. Now you’re being orthogonal in your ‘concern’.
My overall point was that I agree with Obama AND I hope my BMGers will act similarly if an active General criticizes a Republican POTUS vs. calling htem “Truth Talkers”. My parting remark concerning the disparaging remarks by the left about General Patraeus were off topic concerning Obama and more about the hope of consistancy.
To have exactly the same discussion about the Move On campaign we had last time.
<
p>Perhaps JohnD is high priest for some heavily ritualized religion.
Wasn’t General Petraeous the bad guy just a little while ago? A few short years ago the Democrats looked at General Petraeous as the lapdog of the Bush administration. Now it looks like the present administration wants a lapdog.
<
p>Certainly it looks like the administration was looking for a way to get rid of McCrystal.
<
p>Was this all a little playlet? General McChystal certainly knows the score in Afghanistan. We are the invaders, like so many before us. The indigenous people there have no cities or other assets to destroy. The only way to “solve” this problem is to eradicate these people. Nowadays it is called “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide”. We’ve done it before and others that consider themselves “civilized” are doing it to other peoples. Maybe General McChrystal wants out before having his name tied to “war criminal”. Generals can’t resign during the battles (very bad form), so this melodrama was concocted. General Petraeus, on the other hand, will do anything for any boss (except listen to Senator McCain).
<
p>“”Only the winners decide what were war crimes.” –Gary Wills
This was not a controversial decision by the President and I am glad he took it and gave decisive remarks afterward defending his decision. What is not being reported by the MSM or by commentators on this site is the substance of McChrystal’s comments. He and his aides conceded that this mission is failing, that the troops are now openly asking ‘what are we doing here?’, that our diplomatic strategy is contradicting our military strategy and there is no coordination between Holbrooke, Eikenbery, and the military leadership, that the timetables for withdrawal are unrealistic and that we might need more troops to succeed. McChrystal and his aides also mentioned that they do not believe the American people would support the mission, which is essentially a strategy of containment and continual engagement, not a blueprint for a traditional victory.
<
p>I hope that overtime these questions will be asked and Congress can take a fresh assessment of what we are doing there and whether or not it is worth it. Also it appears obvious that in spite his lack of military training, Vice President Biden and not McChrystal was right, this surge has failed, it will not succeed even with a competent commander like Petraeus, and it is time to focus on limiting the mission to hunting OBL and his Lts. and stop fighting a civil war for Afghanistan. The Vietnam parallels are a lot more valid here than in Iraq. Karzai is like Diem, the Taliban are the VC, and it is quite clear which side the people are on in that war.
I agree that there are parallels with Vietnam, but I’m not sure that the Taliban insurgency is nationalist and anti-colonial in character, as was the case in SE Asia.
<
p>Secondly, and much more importantly, a big problem in Vietnam was that a communist Vietnam never posed any threat whatsoever to the US, and, had anyone who knew anything about Asia not been run out of the State Department on a rail after 1949, we would have realized this.
<
p>A Taliban-governed Afghanistan has already amply demonstrated itself to be a significant and actual threat to US security. Why do you suppose that things would be different if they returned to power?
<
p>One of the biggest problems with the 2003 decision to invade Iraq was that it proved to be a major distraction from Afghanistan, where resided (and resides) an actual threat to Americans on US soil.
Today Leon Panetta admitted there may be only 50 or so AQ left in Afghanistan. I frankly do not think the current Taliban is any threat to the US, they have morphed from a religious fanatical Islamist group supporting global jihad to a catch-all rebellion against the corrupt and illegitimate Karzai government. A power sharing arrangement between those forces could integrate the Taliban into the government and into the West’s influence in exchange for disarmament and a renunciation of violence. We need a Good Friday Agreement for Afghanistan that could produce such an equation. The Muslim Brotherhood when allowed to compete in elections is actually a lot similar to the Islamist party that is running Turkey than it is to jihadists in AQ. Giving these groups political legitimacy and forcing them to govern is a method of de-radicalizing them and integrating them into politics and leading them to renounce violence. If the US pushes democratization in our Middle Eastern client states, pursues an equitable peace process in Israel/Palestine, and gradually allows Islamist parties to govern then it can forge a meaningful relationship.
<
p>A knee jerk approach against Islamists has led to the quagmire in Afghanistan, led to the US completely destabilizing the Horn of Africa, is allowing us to get involved in several overseas civil wars in Indonesia, Pakistan, India and the Philippines, and is quite similar to the domino theory in terms of its generalized ignorance towards a real strategy. Obviously we can’t negotiate with AQ so I support the Biden plan of a small force to hunt down those guys and wipe them out. But the Taliban can be integrated into the government and eventually the western order, much like communist China went from being an enemy to a partner, which required us to have the foreign policy vision to recognize that not all communists were our enemies. The same is true for Islamists, and supporting the ones that favor a peaceful agenda is the way to go.