At a Rose Garden speech today, President Obama announced that General McChrystal had submitted – and Obama had accepted – his resignation. He then announced that General David Petraeus, the current CENTCOM Commander, would be replacing him. This is confusing to me. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that this is a demotion since the shoes that he’s stepping into are those of his former subordinate. But, I do know better and know that if General Petraeus had been asked to lead a platoon into the mountains a Platoon Leader, he would do that too. He’s a patriotic American and a very capable leader. What concerns me, though, is this pick by the president.
In 2006, then-Senator Obama didn’t have very good things to say about Petraeus. At a hearing in which Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were grilled by Democrats vying for the party’s Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama gave the General low marks and even went so far as to say his actions had nothing to do with the success that was beginning to emerge in Iraq.
“I’m not sure that the success in Anbar has anything to do with the surge.”
Even then-Senator Joe Biden, now the Vice President, contradicted Petraeus’ claims that the surge was successful.
In his opening statement, he warned, “The American people will not support an indefinite war whose sole remaining purpose is to prevent the situation in Iraq from becoming even worse. It is time to turn the corner. … We should stop the surge and start bringing troops home.”
But today, during the Rose Garden speech, Obama had nothing but glowing words for Petraeus – as he should.
General Petraeus and I were able to spend some time this morning discussing the way forward. I’m extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity. It should be clear to everybody, he does so at great personal sacrifice to himself and to his family. And he is setting an extraordinary example of service and patriotism by assuming this difficult post.
Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. In his current post at Central Command, he has worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan. He has worked closely with Congress. He has worked closely with the Afghan and Pakistan governments and with all our partners in the region. He has my full confidence, and I am urging the Senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible.
As far as General McChrystal goes, I’ve read the article and I truly think the media is taking this way further than what I got out of the article.
For example, one of the quotes being hyped by the media is the whole Biden/”Bite Me” comment. In reality, the story makes it clear that McChrystal and his aides are making fun of the last time he made a speech and got in trouble for calling VP Biden’s Afghanistan strategy “shortsighted”. They were imagining what McChrystal would gaff on this time and began making up funny scenarios. One of them was quoted by the jackass Michael Hastings, who obviously hates the military and war anyway.
Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal says with a laugh.
“Who’s that?”
“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: Bite Me?”
All the media has been reporting is that McChrystal and his staff were making fun of Biden and not putting the comment into the context of the article.
Not that it mattered, because one didn’t need to go even three sentences into the eight-page article to find Hastings’ slant.
“He’s in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies.”
Emphasis is Hastings. General McChrystal is not a political gamer. He, like the Vice Gaffer himself, speaks his mind without filters. The media didn’t see to have a problem with members of the military speaking out against Bush. During his time in office, active duty generals that spoke out against administration policy were portrayed as courageous whistleblowers. Retired generals were treated as ever-wise sages of military policy.
I’m just really frustrated with the media’s double standard, but I should make something clear. General McChrystal, whom I have the utmost respect for, has a much more defined code in dealing with matters of presidential opinion than I do. There’s actually an article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that applies directly to General McChrystal that does not apply, for example, to the things I have said in the past about the President.
Article 88 of the UCMJ states: “Any 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 the Governor 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.”
Thankfully, President Obama’s skin isn’t so thin that he would pursue a court-martial against General McChrystal. BUT, after reading the article, McChrystal doesn’t ever really say anything about Obama. All the quotes attributed to him are from third parties and so-called advisors or aides. In my opinion, the worst comments were directed – rightly so, IMHO – towards Vice President Biden.
I support General McChrystal and wish him the very best. I really hope that when he is free from active duty and has officially retired that he tells the world what’s really been happening with regards to Afghanistan. I’m very interested in how this administration has been executing these wars from his viewpoint. THAT is book I can’t wait to buy!
