I'll confess that my military career was a rapid rise followed by extended stagnation, usually couple with headshakes of disbelief about where it went despite my record. My problem was that I never missed an opportunity to not shut up. I have always had opinions and I've never been shy about expressing them. That does not always get rewarded.
We have always had two distinct tracks in the military. Occasionally the rare individual can operate with a foot firmly in each camp. There should be no doubt that the business of the military man is killing people and breaking things to support national policy objectives. That requires a somewhat brutal outlook.
Top level management requires nuance and balance. It benefits from forging alliances and fostering loyal supporters. You climb the corporate ladder by hitching your wagon to a star and occasionally by scrambling over the heads of those who get in your way. It is difficult and it requires a different perspective than that of a warrior.
The warrior is not always nuanced. The careerist is not always a warrior. When the two come together you get something special, but it doesn't happen often. I've only known a handful...a small handful.
A warrior bristles at the headquarters assignment. The professional staff officer avoids the discomforts of the actual war-fighting. When cross-overs occur, the warrior gives a lousy briefing and the careerist isn't very aggressive.
Yet, we have always had a bench of waiting warriors to draw upon. When we need a leader for Desert Storm we don't go across the Potomac to the Pentagon, we look to Tampa for a crusty old guy like Norm Scwartzkopf. He doesn't go to the Pentagon either when he needs an air component commander. Stormin' Norman latches on to crude fighter pilot Chuck Horner. Then they go win the war.
Ten years later when we crank up Iraqi Freedom, a similar pattern emerges. No perfumed prince to hit the desert. We've got Tommy Franks ready and able.
For Afghanistan it looked like Stan McChrystal was the go-to guy. Now, he's being called to the Messiah's woodshed for a talking to. It looks like McC has gone off the reservation with his interview for Rolling Stone.
On the Cover of the Rolling Stone
The rule is that you voice your concerns and ideas in the staff meeting, then when you go out the front door, you speak as one voice...the voice of your leader. When McChrystal signed on he sold his soul to the Messiah. He took a dangerous job and agreed to comply with the guidance of someone who hasn't the slightest idea about leadership, the military or war-fighting. That has left the General where he is today.
But, here is an aspect that we should be aware of as well:
Don't Go Where You Might Encounter the Enemy
So, while McC doesn't like the guidance from above, the troops below seem to have some mis-givings about their field general. You can't have it both ways.
McChrystal should go. Will the Bamster have the initiative to do that? If he does, is there someone left on the bench? Is there a warrior remaining who is willing to deal with the Commander-in-Chief? I've got serious doubts.
4 comments:
It seems the good General or his successor will have to choose between winning the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghans or keeping those of his own troops.
What an invidious position to be in.
I'm no expert in this stuff but hasn't the strategy met with some success in Iraq?. The British were successful with it during the Malayan insurgency of the 1950's.
I guess the strategy assumes a general level of reason and rationality within the general population of a country that the Afghan people lack. Or maybe it hasnt been given enough time there.
Frightening, and firing the General
wont fix it.
COL Rasimus, I was extremely fortunate during my 27 year "career" in both promotions and leaders but saw an increasing number of what COL Hackworth referred to as "Perfumed Princes" being promoted rather than the real warriors. My army was indeed changing. Our creed of "no more Quincy Nightengales" was becoming "more Quincys" by the time I retired. All branches need "A Few Great Captains." On another note, who in the hell gave The Obamessiah the A2 flight jacket that the SOB was wearing on the video clip shown on FOX tonight? regards, Alemaster
Ed,
OT, but I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks (without internet, cold turkey is an UGLY thing). Really like the redo on the blog. Looks great!
Let me offer a slightly different perspective of the McChrystal flap.
First, some push back from a theater commander is not necessarily bad for the country. In April, 1951 Gen. Douglas MacArthur was relieved of his command in Korea by President Harry S. Truman. That happened after a member of Congress released a letter in which the general criticized HST’s limited warfare concept, declaring “There is no substitute for victory.” MacArthur was not always a brilliant field commander, but he had the big picture right. Fast forward to 1977, when our nation’s second worst president removed Major General John K. Singlaub as the commander of US forces in Korea. In this case, the general had been critical of President Carter’s plan to reduce troop levels at a time of considerable tension. Once again, a general spoke out of turn and was cashiered, but our country was better off for it.
Now let’s look at Vietnam. For most of America’s involvement in SEA, the ground war was commanded by U.S. Army Gen. William C. Westmoreland − a fine and courageous officer by any standard. But the loyal Westmoreland did not push back effectively against SecDef Robert McNamara or President Lyndon B. Johnson. The result? An extended “no win” mentality where inept leaders in Washington micromanaged tactical decisions, professional soldiers offered hopeful and often inaccurate body counts while criminal prohibitions against destroying high value targets from the air prevailed.
Now America is again committing young American lives to battle with ridiculous rules of engagement. The Messiah, who believes a talented commander can pierce the fog of war and run a combat operation like a symphony orchestra, remains out of touch. Recently pundits from the left and right expressed hope that, instead of victory, we may gain valuable mineral resources from Afghanistan. Once again, we appear to be fighting for the wrong reasons with Queen of Marquessberry rules intended to produce success (but not victory) and a new world order.
General McChrystal probably did not violate Article 88 of the UCMJ (i.e., ‘Contempt towards officials’), although the uniformed officers who arranged the Rolling Stone imbed were probably derelict. No matter. McChrystal accepted a mission from the Messiah that he should have known would cost many lives and ultimately fail. Let him resign.
Post a Comment