Lawmakers defer to Obama on McChrystal; general replaced by Petraeus

Gen. Stanley McChrystal poses for pictures next to a steel beam from the World Trade Center during a ceremony to commemorate Memorial Day in Bagram airbase, north of Kabul on May 31.
REUTERS/Ahmad Masood
Gen. Stanley McChrystal poses for pictures next to a steel beam from the World Trade Center during a ceremony to commemorate Memorial Day in Bagram airbase, north of Kabul on May 31.

WASHINGTON — Minnesota lawmakers deferred to the White House on the decision over the future of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the  author of the counterinsurgency strategy at the heart of the U.S.-led effort in Afghanistan.

[Update: After a meeting this morning, President Barack Obama removed McChrystal from command of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan and replaced him with Gen. David H. Petraeus. You can read the Washington Post story here.]

McChrystal’s continuation in that role was in serious doubt after an explosive Rolling Stone profile of him was made public. In that piece, McChrystal and his senior staffers blasted almost every leader in the U.S. war effort, from President Obama and Vice President Biden on down.

“It is unfortunate to see General McChrystal’s long and distinguished military career blemished by this indiscretion,” said Rep. Jim Oberstar. “He’s been in the military long enough to know better.But ultimately it’s the president’s call.”

“As Gen. McCrystal has admitted, the comments made by he and his staff show poor judgment,” agreed Rep. Tim Walz, who served for 24 years in the National Guard. “I am glad the president and Gen. McChrystal will have a chance to meet….We all need to focus on making sure the brave men and women who are serving our country in harm’s way have a clear mission and the support they need to get the job done.”

McChrystal arrived in Washington around midnight, summoned from halfway around the world in Afghanistan where he leads the war effort there for what will no doubt be blistering questioning.

Key questions
The most important will be his meeting with Obama this morning, at which two key questions must be answered in that meeting. The first, and most obvious, for McChrystal.

“The purpose for calling him here is to see what in the world he was thinking,” Gibbs said.

The second, for Obama: Is this the guy you want running the war in Afghanistan?

McChrystal’s minuses became crystal clear Tuesday. He’s brutally frank, and apparently indiscreet. His working relationship with the diplomatic corps (save Hillary Rodham Clinton) is almost nonexistent. And troops on the ground are questioning whether his protocols are putting American lives in danger.

The plusses, however, have been enough that McChrystal wasn’t fired immediately. Indeed, Obama said late Tuesday that he might be able to save his job today.

McChrystal, by his own admission in Rolling Stone (and no one has disputed this yet), is the closest American to Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai’s government — indeed Karzai called Obama Tuesday to say he’d like McChrystal to stay on.

He didn’t question the basic strategy in Afghanistan, and interestingly enough there hasn’t been much dispute over his criticisms on the execution of the war.

Which is to say, people are saying McChrystal shouldn’t have said what he said, not that he’s wrong.

Still, McChrystal will face a tough fight to save his job.

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, left, listens as Gen. McChrystal speaks to reporters on May 10. McChrystal accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Hamid Karzai only to give himself cover in case U.S. efforts failed.
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, left, listens as Gen. McChrystal speaks to reporters on May 10. McChrystal accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Hamid Karzai only to give himself cover in case U.S. efforts failed.

“I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a statement announcing that McChrystal had been recalled to Washington.

“Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions.”

Gates added that McChrystal had phoned him to apologize, one of a list of calls McChrystal made to all but one of those high-level officials named in the Rolling Stone article. ABC News reported him saying he’d “compromised the mission.”

The lone omission from that phone call list? Obama, whom Gibbs said had neither called nor been called by McChrystal. Their conversation this morning will come “in lieu of” that phone call, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, and will determine his fate.

“All options are on the table,” Gibbs said.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (4)

  1. Submitted by Beryl John-Knudson on 06/23/2010 - 09:49 am.

    Looking into “Stan the Man’s” Mc-Crystal ball…it is not the hype given to the Rolling Stone article that should be the dominating issue. It is Stan-the grand-executioner; the assassin-general who, initially, should not have been placed in the seat of power after his reputation as overseer of torture-unlimited; his military hallmark.

    Obama cautiously or carelessly compromised when he gave McCrystal 30,000 more men when the warrior god asked for more…soldiers being pawns in this picture; tossed back and forth on the White House floor like toy,tin soldiers; our young men and women of the military; faceless in a war without end?

    They return dead and maimed in many ways, so how can one not wonder whatever the outcome, what damage control will evolve with warrior gods controlling with unlimited power; with little accountability?

    And the war drones on…villagers in this mad circus called a war zone, are pawns too and we wonder why nobody loves us?

    Rolling Stone has gathered no ‘moss’ that wasn’t there already…torture,drones; meaningless killing of local villagers creating another Vietnam…enough already we say now…but it’s too late, too late for so many…

  2. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 06/23/2010 - 12:28 pm.

    What nobody seems willing to recognize is that disruptive command events such as the one McChrystal is currently involeve comes when things are going badly not when you are achieving your goals. Keeping McChrystal or sacking him will make little difference since the entire rational behind waging a war in Afghanistan has been constructed on a false premise. And like any great theory if the original hypothesis is in error then everything built on top of it will be found to be wanting.

    No matter the resolution of McChrystal’s problems, they have consistently failed to define achievable (I say again, achievable) objectives that can be accomplished in that climate, terrain, and culture. To restate the obvious one more time, we are mistaking the sunk-cost fallacy for a strategy.

  3. Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 06/23/2010 - 03:42 pm.

    If President Obama had not fired General McChrystal, he would have given permission for and set an example whereby the entire military would feel far freer to express doubts about their superior officers, thereby sowing doubt and dissension throughout the ranks.

    Surely McChrystal knew that, in revealing these opinions to a reporter on the record and in not reprimanding his subordinates who expressed disparaging opinions regarding the civilian authorities of these United States, he was likely guaranteeing his own removal from command.

    I can’t help but wonder if this was a attempt to escape from what was rapidly becoming an unwinnable situation in Afghanistan. In arranging to have himself fired, it’s possible McChrystal, whether consciously or not, has likely absolved himself from blame for the failure in Afghanistan that he may now see as inevitable.

  4. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 06/23/2010 - 07:23 pm.

    McChrystal was the general who led Dick Cheney’s “dark side” secret assassination program AND the person who either created or approved the glorify-war falsehood about Pat Tillman dying while he tried heroically to defend his men rather than telling the truth until it was leaked later — Tillman was killed by friendly fire.

    Like Cheney, McChrystal seems to hold in contempt all those who would seek peaceful solutions to problems (wimpy) instead of a military option (manly).

    Makes me think ever more highly about people like Joe Biden and others who were ridiculed by McChrystal.

    I say, thanks for giving Obama a chance to fire you, General.

Leave a Reply