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.
“McChrystal makes clear that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. Most starkly, he says: ‘[I]nadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.’”
Was thinking more along the lines of Westley Clark, Collin Powell, Jack Murtha, John McCain, Jim Webb, George McGovern, Max Cleland, Albert Gore Jr., and of course...John F. Kerry-Heinz (who served in Vietnam).
Selling out our troops at the benefit of politically correct appearances is treasonous.
Let our guys win and put someone at the helm that has a heart and soul for our troops. Preferably someone who knows their rear from a hole in the ground.
Exactly my point.
Guys and gals.
implimented/implemented
geez
I think Obama has already anticipated that, and that is precisely what he wants. First he’s gutting our arsenal, it’s not like he is doing anything to HELP keep morale up or anything of that sort.
But, then, as a socialist what do you expect from him? He’ll push this as long as he can because he doesn’t WANT us to really win, he wants to cripple us completely... JMHO, of course.
Certainly no one is pleased or happy with the apparent stalemate in Afghanistan - however it's patently obvious that obama is choosing to “stall” in terms of declaring any sort of amended strategy and then issuing orders to the military to carry out that strategy.
He heard of Afghanistan, alright:
“McChrystal was implicated but not disciplined in the Army’s bungled handling of the death of Army Cpl. Pat Tillman. The former NFL star was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in 2004.”
“Although the Army knew within days that fratricide might have been involved, Tillman’s family was not informed for more than a month and the erroneous information was repeated at a memorial service for Tillman, who had been recommended for a Silver Star.”
“McChrystal acknowledged to Pentagon investigators that he had suspected that Tillman was killed by fratricide before approving the medal.”
The article I posted was the original article. McChrystal has NOT threatened to resign. People that “know him” said he would, IF....
Other media sources took this article and changed the context, giving it more legitimacy than it deserves.
Yes, I am right.
Politico was the “first media source” that took this ONE line and ran with it as a done deal. It isn’t, but it was picked up, like so many other pieces of manipulated “news” by other “media sources” and not fact checked, just repeated.
Good point. While I was in, it was said that it was better to be fired from a position than to quit. Being fired meant you weren't up to the task, but that you tried your best till the end. Quitting meant one gave up before exhausting all effort.
I hope the General does not resign. There are enlisted personnel that don't have the option of resigning from Obama's management of the war effort. Rather, I would hear him say he will do his very best to fulfill his mission while also safeguarding the lives of his soldiers. That the struggle is uphill but that he and his charges will do their best until further assistance arrives.
Indeed.
That would be a quite definite NO!
Very interesting timeline, PKM. Thanks for the reminders as well. You may want to keep adding to that, unfortunately...
Check out PhiKapMom’s very interesting Obama timeline in #198.
Thanks for the ping!
If I was a general or any military leader I’d run from ostammer as fast as I could move. Ostammer is a career-killer for serious military men.
EH? Whos that?
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.