Posted on 06/23/2010 6:55:05 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
Andrew Roberts’ magnificent study of command relationships in World War II, Masters and Commanders, should be required reading for anyone responsible for the care and feeding of great minds and enormous egos. It is the story of two great political leaders, President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the two military commanders, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall and the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Sir Alan Brooke. These four men mobilized half a world, devised the strategy, developed the campaign plans and directed the operations that won World War II. While there was plenty of friction between the two sets of masters and commanders as well as across the Atlantic what is remarkable is how well these four titans managed to work together. Each was exceptionally tough-willed and strong minded. Each believed that he knew best how to win the war. Yet each knew that he had to work with the others in order to win the war. Each also knew that while they might disagree as to the means needed to accomplish the ends, they were united as to the validity of the ends themselves. Between them, these four directed the actions of equally strong willed, opinionated and sometimes even narcissistic subordinates of the likes of MacArthur, King, Stillwell, Eisenhower, Chennault, Patton, Clark, Halsey, Montgomery, Alexander, Wingate and Harris.
Although military leaders were responsible for implementing decisions, Roberts’ book clearly shows that it was their political masters who ran the show. It was only when the masters were disengaged, which in Churchill’s case was not often, that a commander might occasionally veer off course. But at no time either in Washington or London was there an example of the kind of chaos and infighting that has marked the Obama Administration’s management of the Afghanistan war. The central theme of the Rolling Stone article is not the bad behavior of a rogue commander but about a dysfunctional leadership in Washington. The article makes the Obama team appear to be less a team of rivals and more like a team of nine year olds.
The lesson here for the current McChrystal “scandal” is that there is no one in charge in Washington over the war in Afghanistan. Rolling Stone recently published a major expose of the administration’s failures to deal with the dysfunctional Minerals Management Service in the run up to the BP oil disaster. This article makes clear that the President failed to act like a chief executive. Now there is a second piece on General McChrystal and the failure of presidential leadership in the war in Afghanistan. The President’s apparent detachment from the business of governing and from the responsibilities for leading the nation in war is reflected in the disorder experienced in the lower echelons of government in the Gulf and Afghanistan.
Should the President fire General McChrystal? There is a story that when President Lincoln was asked to fire General Ulysses Grant he replied, “I can’t fire him, he fights.” As the Rolling Stone article makes clear, General McChrystal fights. And fights. And fights. There is no other senior commander with McChrystal’s credentials in the fight against global terrorism. He is the war in Afghanistan. It is his strategy, his surge, his rules of engagement. No one can step into his shoes at this critical juncture in the war in Afghanistan and hope to lead as well.
When did Rolling Stone become so conservative?
Maybe they ran out of drugs.
It would logically take it to mean that the reader would have to elevate bHo to a higher status than Community Organizer....nope, just CAN'T do that... No, I can't.
Maybe they accidentally hired some real journalists instead of some liberal arts majors who “want to make a difference”
Of course, it might simply be that Rolling Stone is primarily biased not to liberalism, but to sensationalism, and their major expose of the administration is based on the simple fact that "it's a good story".
Another lesson from WW2 is that while the top leadership developed a war-winning strategy, they did not micromanage the actions of their subordinates. For examples, the orders to Eisenhower were quite clear:
1 You are hereby designated as Supreme Allied Commander of the forces placed under your orders for operations for liberation of Europe from Germans. Your title will be Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force.
2 Task. You will enter the continent of Europe and, in conjunction with the other United Nations, undertake operations aimed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces. The date for entering the Continent is the month of May, 1944.
There was more to these orders, but Ike’s main directive is contained in those two short paragraphs. The total order does not exceed one page. Can you imagine anything so simple, straightforward and direct from our National Command Authority today?
No way.
I can’t imagine what is going through General McChrystal’s mind right now. Having to go up in front of a piss ant that doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground and explain himself. If I were him I would just walk up to the President, hand him my resignation and say “End of conversation”. The interesting part is that it is said that all other officers under him totally support him. What will they do? This President does not have the support of the military because he hasn’t earned it.
It has been my experience that relaying objective truth, regardless of the consequences, usually signifies a conservative reporting institution, whereas only reporting on the portions of a story that tend to reinforce liberal points of view is the hallmark of liberal reporting.
Therefore, any article the even remotely resembles criticism of Zero is, in my book, leaning towards conservatism.
I don't think they ever did; I think it's more a case of the left becoming 'the establishment.' In fact, that's one of the reasons I strongly suspect McChrystal and his staff have masterfully orchestrated a classic strategic PSYOP/Civil Affairs campaign through a few deliberate, but anonymous leaks, and this morning it now looks like yesterday's rumours of McChrystal's resignation were even part of a subtle disinformation campaign.
Had McChrystal aired his grievances to Fox, the WSJ or National Review, he would have been written off as a right-wing Obama basher. The exploitation of Rolling Stone puts the whole matter where it can not be ignored or swept under the carpet by the MSM or the left in general. McChrystal has positioned himself as the rebel and the underdog, and Obama is now the oppressive establishment.
Obama is fighting by Alinsky rules. McChrystal showed up with his copy of Sun-Tzu.
To add to your comment, I was frosted this morning when I heard bloated Bobby Gibbs say, in response to the general’s comment that B.O. was distracted and unprepared in their former meeting, “Well, the general will have the president’s full attention NOW.” OOOOhhhh, I’m SO SCARED! I predicted that the general will grovel but was immediately corrected by a FReeper who said that he will NOT grovel. I would PAY to see a verbal slapdown and sucker punch to the gum-flapper-in-chief. Seems he never encounters anything but yes-men and lackeys.
bump for later.
great analysis ... McCrystal is flying the plane here ... NOT Zero ... and there’s undoubtedly MORE to come ... I absolutely love this ...
To resign would not be as interesting (fun?) as watching the community-organizer-in-chief squirm and rely on his minions to prop him up. McC is going to enjoy this.
This is going to be a great day, watching for more action by a man who intimidates Obozo and will know precisely what to say in front of this amateur.
bump
bump
The exposure of that chaos and McChrystal's apparent dissatisfaction with the murderous (for Americans) ROE are, IMHO, the real reasons why the Regime is so upset with the article.
Many people who read this may ask why I refer to McChrystal's "apparent dissatisfaction" with the ROE when the article doesn't report a single antagonistic thing said about the ROE by McChrystal or any of his close subordinates. That's because the article does extensively discuss the great dissatisfaction among the troops with the ROE, dissatisfaction which McChrystal was quite happy to let the article's author observe and report on. McChrystal has not challenged the article's accuracy. He deliberately allowed the author to sit in on sessions with the troops where dissatisfaction with the ROE was strongly expressed. He could have challenged the article's accuracy accuracy and, initially, prevented the author from observing the troops' dissatisfaction with the ROE. That he didn't speaks volumes and tells me he dislikes the ROE he was forced to implement as much as the troops do. By allowing reporting on the troops' dissatisfaction he, in effect, criticized the ROE and those who forced him to impose the ROE.
I was under the impression that the ROE were McChrystal’s idea? Am I incorrect? thx.
Executive Mansion
Washington, January 26, 1863
Major General Hooker:
General.
I have placed you at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course I have done this upon what appear to me to be sufficient reasons. And yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which, I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe you to be a brave and a skilful soldier, which, of course, I like. I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession, in which you are right. You have confidence in yourself, which is a valuable, if not an indispensable quality. You are ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather than harm. But I think that during Gen. Burnside's command of the Army, you have taken counsel of your ambition, and thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great wrong to the country, and to a most meritorious and honorable brother officer. I have heard, in such way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a Dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes, can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The government will support you to the utmost of it's ability, which is neither more nor less than it has done and will do for all commanders. I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the Army, of criticising their Commander, and withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist you as far as I can, to put it down. Neither you, nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out of an army, while such a spirit prevails in it.
And now, beware of rashness. Beware of rashness, but with energy, and sleepless vigilance, go forward, and give us victories.
Yours very truly,
A. Lincoln
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.