I retired a long way from general ranks. Once I thought I could get close and once I was even picked for rapid progression which might lead to a bright future. But I've always said what I thought and when I was younger, I did it without prompting and often in indelicate language. At first that served me well, but when more mature behavior was in order the old habits didn't die easily. I wasn't close to making general.
But along the way, my checkered path intersected many general officers. Some of them I met on their way up and some I met when they had donned the rank. As in all professions there were some that were outstanding and some that were buffoons. Some were the sort of leaders that you would follow to the gates of hell and sacrifice everything to avoid them failing. Others were butt-kissers who paid no attention to their subordinates and engaged in brutal cut-throat politics among their peers and competitors to get ahead.
Along the way I worked for guys like Jack Chain who became CINCSAC, but was a fighter pilot to his very core. I went on his wing to Hanoi and he flew mine once or twice. I doubt that he changed very much on his way to four stars.
I was an Ops Officer under Chuck Donnelly when he was a wing commander and was awed at the way he handled his wing. While other wing commanders had chewed, yelled, intimidated and embarrassed, when Chuck was in command he instilled a feeling in his troops that they could do the job and when you stumbled in the process you felt that you had let the boss down. He made four stars and some say he changed. I saw him when he had two and he still looked the same to me.
I followed the path of Bear Chambers when he was a Captain in F-105s and then worked for him when he was Wing Commander in the AT-38 Fighter-Lead-In Program at Holloman. He was a prince of a guy. He was at a reunion two years ago and although he made three stars he was still a solid fighter pilot that I'd go to war with in a minute.
Tony McPeake wasn't called Merrill when he was a Captain at Nellis. He was known as a good stick and regular guy. Somewhere along his way to Chief of Staff, he sold his soul. I'm sure there is someone who was in the AF during his tenure that thought well of him, but I can't say I've ever met one.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Some generals remained good guys and some fell victim to the quest for power at the expense of their common sense and ethical foundation. Guys like Joe Ralston and Ron Fogleman are on my short list of greats. Even guys like my one-time nemesis, Mike Carns, have my grudging respect for their efforts and achievements.
But now I've got this McChrystal and Petraeus soap opera to ponder.
McChrystal seems respected and admired by a lot of Army folks and some purple suit guys as well. No question that he's talented, dedicated and willing to get mud on his boots. How then do you account for the interview?
General officers are, if nothing else, discrete. It was indiscrete to invite Rolling Stone magazine into his staff meetings. It was foolish to imply some of the derogatory things which he said, even if he believes them to his core. It was beyond irresponsible to surround himself with a selected staff which acted like a bunch of towel-snapping high-school football players cavorting in a locker room after a winning game. That sort of thing does not happen at the four-star level, even in a combat zone. Or at least it shouldn't.
Did he want out? Was it intentional? Had he analyzed the situation and determined that his best result was something unconventional like this? He is the master of unconventional warfare, after all.
Then there is Petraeus. What is he thinking? The record of the trashings which this administration has heaped upon him is long and sordid. Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, and an incredibly long list of others have all expressed disagreement, distrust, and distaste for him. He has four stars already and a long career completed. He has a bright future available as valued board member or director in dozens of defense industries. He has been touted as a potential top level political candidate in 2012. He could write a great book and make big bucks on the rubber-chicken circuit. He doesn't have to take this abuse.
More importantly, Petraeus could make a huge statement by declining the "opportunity" and resigning. I'd pay to see it!
4 comments:
Any ideas anyone on how it should have been handled?.
I submit that a short stern call to the Gen like "Get your boys to stop dissing my boys -understand".
This to be followed by a press conference dismissing the article and referring to the call.
Surely this would have:
1. Projected POTUS authority
2. Saved jobs
3. Restored cohesion
4. Preserved honour
I cannot imagine President GW Bush
allowing himself to be influenced by a muck raking Rolling Stone article, thats weak leadership!.
No winners here and I am sorry to see the General needlessly go over
it.
A loss to the coalition of a fine soldier.
Hmmm...
Just read the excellent MacArthur article on the American Spectator sidebar.
I guess I have to be dreaming re the above.
Oh well. it's Friday evening here and the beer fridge beckons...
Raz,
It is always enjoyable when you juxtapose insights gained during your USAF career with current military topics. This is particularly true in the strange case of Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
It is unfortunate (but not surprising) that virtually all media attention in this matter has focused on the man rather than the mission. McChrystal is now gone, with the brilliant Gen. David Petraeus being demoted for return to the battlefield. It remains to be seen what the Messiah will now do with his problematic ambassadors (i.e., Karl Eikenberry and Richard Holdbrooke), not to mention VP Joe Biden. These three have been especially egregious in undermining U.S. military policy at a time when American troops are engaged in battle. Moreover, the decision to demote Petraeus introduces a whole host of problems. Who will be the new CENTCOM commander? How long will it take that person to be confirmed by the Senate, and what will be the spool-up time? And how will that person work with the newly demoted Gen. Petraeus?
By the way, since when did we need a four-star out in the Afghan battlefield? Would it not have been better to promote one of our very able brigadier (one-star) generals with COIN experience in that theater, and let that person implement McChrystal’s already developed battle plan? (Note that theater commanders in Korea have typically been major generals). And keeping Petraeus in command of CENTCOM makes far more sense than providing OJT to a new face, especially if things get hot with Iran during the next year. Stay tuned.
There is another possibility. Petraeus may have volunteered. It's a stretch I know but it may have happened. Petraeus has a good rep with the line dogs. I believe he has their best interests at heart and they do too. If obama were to choose an 'acceptable' general from among those deemed loyal to him it could (and almost certainly would) have been a disaster for those at the sharp end. Petraeus certainly knows this. As you said, he's at the end of a very successful career and hardly needs the headaches, especially when there's so much at stake. I believe he's the best man for this job and he probably does as well. Taking over himself lessens the transition time and a smooth hand over means less confusion and a continuation of the tempo of operations. Less uncertainty means greater confidence among the trigger pullers that they're not being hung out to dry. They well know Petraeus' victories in Iraq (Many will have served under him there) and will be confident in his decision making skills and battlefield approach. Petraeus knows this as well.
If Petraeus is the General, soldier and man I suspect he is, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he called and offered his services as soon as it became apparent what the final outcome re McChrystal was going to be.
Post a Comment