....from me. I criticized him on this blog a week or so ago for sending up a report to the President that contained basically two options--do it "my" way or lose. I felt that the President deserved better staff work. Well, now we have the rest of the story.
It appears that when McChrystal headed off to Afghanistan, he did so believing that the decision to implement a counterinsurgency strategy--and by that, he meant the kind that the Army Field Manuals (recently updated) advocate--had already been made. He had his marching orders, and so what he sent back was his plan to carry them out. All of which makes sense now...."my" way was actually what he believed was the President's stated policy as approved by the White House led effort discussed in the linked to story.
So his leaked report should not be read as saying, "Mr. President, do what I say or we'll lose"; it should be more appropriately stated as "Mr. President, here's what I need to do what YOU said, and we need it pretty quickly or we'll lose". These are very different interpretations of the report, and the latter obviously leaves McChystal in much better shape.
But how you ask, did we get to this point? Well, read the story. Read about the spirited debate among the participants. Read about the (in the end) nearly unanimous decision to go forward with a counterinsurgency strategy. Read who the outlier was, and who he represents (for those of you too busy to do so, it was Vice President Biden's National Security Adviser). Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a good idea who our "Leaker" was--or at least who he represented.
By stealing the march on McChrystal--the VP's office--with its own view of what was right for Afghanistan--successfully made McChrystal into a MacArthur like figure, pilloried in the media (and by me) for his actions--when all he was doing was creating a plan to implement his understanding of the President's wishes.
Biden's been in DC for nearly 40 years. He knows how the game is played under the basket. And I think there's a strong case to be made that his office is responsible for the McChystal leak.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Well done, CW. The first report is nearly always wrong.
He also deserves better spelling of his name.
My thinking is if you go to a physician you have confidence in, do what he tells you. He's the expert. So if ask a competent General to achieve one goal or another and he tells you what he needs, do it or don't do it. But don't do half measures. I saw this crap in Vietnam, pussyfooting around. Then I saw Nixon take out the North Vietnamese air defenses in 9 DAYS so as to bring them to the bargaining table!
Win the war or get out.
A superb article here that goes into the "Paul Harvey, Rest of the Story."
Washington Post
October 6, 2009, Pg. 21
Fine Print: "Critics Don't See The Nuance In McChrystal's Comments On War"
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20091006707921.html
The article puts into context all of M4's statements, which the media has basically taken a Michael Moore hatchet job to to fit their agenda.
On the troop level, M4 actually recommended several COAs with a range of troop levels, roughly broken-down by Risk -- Lowest, Medium, High -- incurred by varying levels of troops.
10,000-20,000 (High Risk)
20,000-30,000 (Medium Risk)
30,000-40,000 (*Lowest Risk)
*Note here: NOT "Low" Risk...."Lowest" Risk, with risk defined as the risk of failure towards mission accomplishment
Anyways, M4 is a steely-eyed killer. Trust me, Congress does NOT want him to come testify.
There’s an inscription at the entrance to the CIA, chiseled into the marble there, which reads, ‘You Shall Know The Truth, And The Truth Shall Set You Free’.
Many good people have died to obtain the truth, but even more have died when others attempt to obfuscate the truth.
It is a far better thing to die in search of the truth than it is to die because somebody else was hiding the truth.
what gives you the confidence to accuse VP Biden or one of his supporters of leaking a classified report? Because he has been in DC 40 years? Because he was opposed to the orginal option or because he knows how to play the game? None of them provide any credible evidence of illicit behavior.
Ditto. Win the war or get out. I am thinking under President Peace Prize perhaps getting out is the best option.
Post a Comment