![](http://i36.tinypic.com/110bscz.jpg")
Posted on 09/22/2009 7:47:30 AM PDT by CWW
McChrystal to resign if not given resources for Afghanistan
By Bill RoggioSeptember 21, 2009 4:17 PM
Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal's team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn't given sufficient resources (read "troops") to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:
Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.
In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion "premature." Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "time is not on our side"; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public "to take a deep breath."
...
In Kabul, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.
Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he'd stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.
"Yes, he'll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far," a senior official in Kabul said. "He'll hold his ground. He's not going to bend to political pressure."
On Thursday, Gates danced around the question of when the administration would be ready to receive McChrystal's request, which was completed in late August. "We're working through the process by which we want that submitted," he said.
The entire process followed by the military in implementing a change of course in Afghanistan is far different, and bizarrely so, from the process it followed in changing strategy in Iraq.
For Afghanistan, the process to decide on a course change began in March of this year, when Bruce Reidel was tasked to assess the situation. This produced the much-heralded yet vague "AfPak" assessment. Then, in May, General David McKiernan was fired and replaced by General McChrystal, who took command in June. General McChrystal's assessment hit President Obama's desk at the end of August, almost three months after he took command. And yet now in the last half of September, the decision on additional forces has yet to be submitted to the administration.
Contrast this with Iraq in the fall of 2006. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was fired just one day after the elections in early November. The Keane-Kagan plan for Iraq was submitted to President Bush shortly afterward, and encompassed both the assessment of the situation and the recommended course of action, including the recommended number of troops to be deployed to deal with the situation. General David Petraeus replaced General George Casey in early February 2007, and hit the ground running; the surge strategy was in place, troops were being mustered to deploy to Iraq, and commanders on the ground were preparing for and executing the new orders. The first of the surge units began to arrive in Iraq only weeks later, in March.
Today, the military is perceiving that the administration is punting the question of a troop increase in Afghanistan, and the military is even questioning the administration's commitment to succeed in Afghanistan. The leaking of the assessment and the report that McChrystal would resign if he is not given what is needed to succeed constitute some very public pushback against the administration's waffling on Afghanistan.
The situation is not at all like MacArthur in Korea. MacArthur blatantly sought to overrule and ignore the commander in chief in terms of the overall policy of the war. He was just as wrong as McClellan was in defying Lincoln during the Civil War. Both thought that they were above civilian control and untouchable; the height of arrogance. Both longed for the glory without regard to the constitutional controls imposed on them. Hell, MacArthur was upset that the A-bombs ended the war before he could lead (from the rear) the assault on Japan that would have certainly resulted in millions of deaths.
The current general in question is not defying orders or policy, he is disagreeing and willing to resign and retire rather than put the troops into more of a no-win position than they are in now.
That is not to say that Der Fuehrer will not appoint a butt-boy to take over and get people killed or that he won’t cut and run.
"Uh.....um......er......ahem......why do you guys keep bringing up the War and Acorn when you know they're chump change compared to health care and health care. You know you're just being rude and uncivil now, don't you?"
Leni
Is Obama’s chief of staff isolating Obama?
Obama is so busy being serviced by the networks, cnn, and tingly pmsnbc how can he have time to even CARE about afganistan. Obama is equating the USA with the USSR in afganistan. the ussr wanted to keep afganistan, the usa wants to give it to its people and go home.
WHY DO PEOPLE POST THINGS IN CAPS???
They're not the same. MacArthur was fired for insubordination (and in the process advocating a strategy that would probably have kicked off a nuclear WWIII).
McChrystal is attempting to follow his orders, and will resign if not given the tools to do so.
Our brilliant, military-devoid president changed the mission.
we need all those troops because of Zero’s bs rules of engagement, as some soldiers in the ‘Stan call themselves “bullet sponges.”
funny thing about our bs nicey nice rules of engagement. Ive heard our allies dont put handcuffs on their soldiers
BHO has no moral compass.
Three months is enough time to fully assess the situation, and determine that he is not interested in being tossed under the bus when Obama's policy fails.
BINGO! You are correct. It’s a Hobson’s choice! Either dedicate the troops and try and win the war (whatever that is), or pull out and let the Taliban run the roost and crow about defeating the Big Bad USA ala Sovient Union style.
WOW really
BOY rats are fleeting the sinking ship LOL!
“I’d like to see the general change thr Rules of Engagement to realistic ones and dare obozo to fire him!”
What is your point Obama? Give our Military the objectives and backup they need and let them shoot when necessary. If you are going to have boots on the ground over there, let them defend themselves against terrorists and do their job.
If the Obama Administration wants to ‘win hearts and minds’, have them send over missionaries or mommies. If they want to win battles, have them send Marines and the American military!
Everything else is pandering to and placating the enemy.
The posted story is one more proof that civilian control of military war operations is quite over-rated.
Damn Barack Hussein Obama to the eternal flames of hell for his cowardly actions.
Dovish socialist? Sellout socialist? "Modern" Republican???
They wouldn't be wondering if they simply recognized that Obama habitually fails to make his rhetoric match up with reality. Indeed, it seems the purpose of his rhetoric is to disguise the reality altogether, to hide it from sight.
So if he says "Here's what I want," you can practically take it to the bank that what he really wants is the very opposite of what he says he wants. Or at least this is the case most of the time, nowadays.
It's all straight out of the Alinsky playbook....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.