Getting McChrystal All Wrong

The media, both Liberal and Conservative, have taken the position that General McChrystal made a big mistake in letting Rolling Stone interview him and his staff, resulting in a series of criticisms of the Obama administration and its chief oversight personnel regarding the Afghan war that were particularly embarassing to the administration. The published comments, few of which are directly attributable to McChrystal himself, have caused an uproar in political circles. Almost the entire media establishment has charged McChrystal with bad judgment to even agree to the series of "in country" inteviews, or to make - or allow his staff to make - unguarded comments about the civilian oversight.

I believe the whole interview affair, intended by Rolling Stone as a sly hit job against McChrystal and the entire war effort (which they carried off to perfection) was in fact planned by McChrystal and his aids as a very powerful criticism of the Obama administration and its subversion of the US war effort.

If my premise is correct, instead of the General being rolled by the Stone,  the Liberal Rolling Stone was used as a tool by the General to stir a debate about the deliberate losing of the war effort by the Obama administration. In its glee at an opportunity to hurt the military, Rolling Stone might have unwittingly dealt a very powerful blow against the entire Liberal establishment and Obama's credibility in particular.

I think the General should be congratulated.

He is not a fool, nor unwitting to the potential consequences of inviting anti-war rag Rolling Stone into his inner councils. The first - huge - mistake is to so misjudge this man. No, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and it was a form of policy insubordination, but done very subtly.

He probably understood that it would perfectly fit the negative concept news anchors have of the military to assume that he and his staff are just a bunch of credulous, unsophisticated klutzes when it comes to PR, kind of like General Patton during WW2. The Rolling Stone people certainly would think that way about the military. And news anchors, by and large, are not known as deep thinkers either, nor apparently capable of imagining this being done deliberately and craftily. Even FoxNews, normally a bit more perspicatious about events making news, missed this one.

Think about it: what would you, a real patriot, do if you were forced to fight a counter insurgent group who knew you would be out of there next year sometime? That makes all your efforts null and void. You become a convenient target, but nothing more. The insurgents have already won: all they have to do is sit back and wait you out. Therefore every American death is totally wasted because the outcome is predetermined by the traitor in the White House.

If I were a commander who took my responsibility seriously - as a sacred mission to accomplish the nation's goals while shepherding my men's lives, not treating them like pawns in some kind of political game but as comrades and buddies - I would be furious at Obama's sellout of the military and his subversion of the very idea of winning.

What would you do to prevent the betrayal of the troops whom you loved and who would do anything for you? Would you march yourself and the rest of your command over the side of a cliff for such an one as Obama? When we have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, it is insane to think that we owe a usurper any obedience and loyalty. To many minds, acknowledging Obama as commander in chief of the military is equivalent to appointing Jack the Ripper as head doctor over an abused women's recovery ward. 

Nothing will change unless Obama gets backed into a corner by circumstances - public opinion - energized by the perception that he and his home-team are betraying America's interests, and a solid view that the administration is proven to be held in deep contempt by practically the entire military establishment, and especially his hand-picked army-guy in Afghanistan.

What better way to do that than though the pen of one of the publications that loathes the US Military? And done in such a way that it appears to be a mistake in judgment by the top military people to disclose their real feelings? That might change the rules enough to save the war effort, or derail Obama and his strategy of surrender.

As long as McChrystal played by the rule book, the troops will continue to lose, the Nation will lose, and our strategic interests will lose. So he had to go outside the rule book.

Douglas MacArthur did it with Truman, and for arguably similar reasons.  The only difference is that McChrystal might actually succeed in changing policy, whereas MacArthur did not.

Contrary to all the cluck-clucking about "bad judgment," I think that he acted with deep wisdom, even managing to extricate himself from political and military oversight so as to be able to become an advocate for America's true interests. He certainly could not do that as the commanding General in Afghanistan.

The sacking of a Theater commander is a big deal. It makes a lot of ripples and causes people to think about the reasons for the war, and the wisdom of the political leadership. McChrystal did not choose the path of direct insubordination that MacArthur did; he was more subtle about it, and thus, he might have served the best interests of his troops and his country far more effectively than any direct assault on Obama might have done.

I am betting that we have not heard the last of McChrystal on the war effort and the Obama administration.