Once again I'm finding myself in a position I never thought I'd find myself in, that of defending Stanley McChrystal. The most overlooked fact in the news coverage over the remarks is that he never said any of ones the media is making the most of, with the exception of the quip one would have to have no sense of humor to be offended over, "Are you asking about Vice President Biden? Who's that?"
-- "Biden?" the aide was quoted as saying. "Did you say bite me?
-- One aide said McChrystal had compared Special Envoy Holbrooke to a "wounded animal"
-- One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown"
The only insubordinate quote raised was one for which he had already received a dressing down, last fall, after which Obama determined that it was Mullen and Petraeus who were putting him up to saying things which boxed the president into escalating the number of troops in Afghanistan, which would have been a firing offense except Obama did not assert his authority as commander-in-chief at the time and went along with the escalation.
Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One.
All I'm saying is, there is something else going on with this feeding frenzy. This is theater.
It is perfectly legitimate to question McChrystal's COIN strategy but honest opposition to this would require his critics to demand Congress shut off the funding which is funding this COIN war, whether it is led by McChrystal or one of his proteges. It is perfectly legitimate to question his role in Pat Tillman but that would require we demand the case be re-opened. As a great fan of Mary Tillman, Pat's mother, that would be fine by me.
What gives me pause is the changes described by the Rolling Stone in Afghanistan.
Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it - for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S. official, "the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a 'civ cas' incident." The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win an award for: There's talk of creating a new medal for "courageous restraint," a buzzword that's unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-ho culture of the U.S. military.
But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."
As I have said in these pages, we peace activists have got a better way to get you guys out of danger: getting you out. We're working on it.
There is also the curious fact that McChrystal has pushed back to "September at the earliest" the operation in Kandahar which was not supposed to take place now, in apparent deference to the Kandahar elders who have said they do not want it.
Is the real issue that McChrystal has gone soft on the warmongers in Congress and the Pentagon? In listening to his remarks over the last year, almost gushing about Afghans, I have been wondering if the man's "gone Injun," as was charged of Kevin Costner in "Dancing with Wolves." We want more people dying NOW, Stan!
He has not, predictably for those of his station in politics, put everything on the underlings who made the remarks and fired them for "misrepresenting his views." Not even a hint of this. He has taken full responsibility for what they said and is not making any excuses.
How yesterday.
UPDATE: Seriously this is all quite irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how your congressman will vote on the upcoming war supplemental funding bill, which should be "no" to anyone who really cares about civilian control over the military. Better yet, lobby retiring Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey to keep the bill bottled up until it is only for orderly withdrawal and civilian assistance. Otherwise many more Afghans and Americans will die unnecessarily.
Chairman Obey's office during business hours is (202) 225-3365. After hours and over the weekend a voicemail can be left at the number for his district office (715) 842-5606.