Folks,
Dr. Pournelle's
discussion of Obamolech and General McChrystal deserves the reader's attention. Without reading the Rolling Stones interview wherein General McChrystal was allegedly critical of our Incompetent in Chief, it's difficult to speak intelligently about this affair. But whatever the case may be, Obamolech deserves every bit of criticism he receives, and if he cannot trust his generals, then whom can he trust? Kings and Emperors in ancient times lost control of their military. It never ended well for any who did. It still doesn't today. Most of the military is conservative , NOT liberal and don't like serving under a liberal, especially a socialist Muslim who apologizes to the rest of the world for every action the United States has done to same them from their own self-made fates.
I actually view this as a good sign. If the American people see that the military doesn't trust the jerk in the Oval Office, then why should they?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The big news is the McChrystal affair. The left is already calling it the equivalent of the Truman-MacArthur imbroglio. Liberal spokespeople are calling for McChrystal's resignation. I have also heard populist voices demanding that McChrystal be dismissed and disgraced, complete with stripping him of his medals and insignia and publicly breaking his sword for his "disrespect" for the President.
I am just reading the Rolling Stone article that caused all this controversy. I am not a regular Rolling Stone reader (they did have a couple of good reviews of my books many years ago, but I didn't find the publication much to my liking) and it's not easy reading. As I understand it, the President has ordered the Commanding General of the Afghan War to come to the White House and "explain" his remarks in Rolling Stone; and the General has made some sort of apology for those remarks. We may expect a lot more on this in the next few days.
I wonder why there is any crisis at all. I find it hard to believe that General McChrystal did not know that Rolling Stone is a populist somewhat left of center** publication, and that he said anything to their reporters that he didn't expect to find, with typical spin, all over the popular press. He certainly could not have expected anything sympathetic to the military in that publication. It's hard to know what he thought he was doing, but it's also hard to see what it is he is supposed to have done. He has not disobeyed any orders. He has implemented the insane Rules of Engagement imposed by the White House and their Ambassador. He has apparently said that Obama was "unprepared", which is hardly news; did anyone think Obama was prepared to assume command? What did he do to prepare himself? I wouldn't have thought that saying anything unflattering about the President to Rolling Stone would be a good idea for a commanding general, even if what was said is manifestly true. It's lese majeste at best, and although McChrystal is unlikely to lose his head for maiestas as he would have in the times of Tiberius, it may "cost" him his job. Saying that the Emperor has no clothes doesn't always have a happy ending outside of fairy tales.
Of course that's not inevitable. At the moment, McChrystal is restrained by both law and tradition from being really critical of the President's handling of the war, and the silly Rules of Engagement that have been imposed, and the less than brilliant leadership of the civilian overseers of our expeditionary wars. If the President dismisses him, those restraints are gone. You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, but it's a bit hard to see how the President comes off well here.
In the Truman-MacArthur controversy there were serious issues at stake, not just civilian command authority -- after all, no one including MacArthur questioned that -- but what place the Korean War had in the American Cold War strategy, and whether conscript soldiers could be sent into a war that we did not intend to win. "There is no substitute for Victory." MacArthur thundered. When America goes to war, she goes to war. Don't Tread on Me.
Truman worried about the risk of nuclear war, about just what would be the cost of China actually entering the war rather than maintaining the fiction of a "volunteer" expeditionary force, of expanding the war to include naval operations, Japan, Formosa (at the time recognized by the US as the Republic of China and the only legitimate government of China); of driving Mao and Stalin into a closer alliance. Was Containment a legitimate strategy, or must the US undertake to roll back Communism? How far should we back Generalissimo Chiang? Recall that Madame Chiang, a Christian, was quite popular among many in the US.
These issues are debatable even now that the Cold War has ended with the collapse of the USSR and the conversion of the People's Republic of China from a totalitarian regime of irrational Maoists into an authoritarian gerontologic oligarchy reminiscent of Franco's Spain -- economic but not political freedom.
Return to the crisis caused by a general's off handed remarks about the President's state of preparedness. Why is this a crisis at all? It did not need to be one: the President created it by summoning McChrystal to the White House. Where is this going? Is it a crisis that must not be wasted?
One result of the McChrystal incident is to distract us from the upcoming Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Kagan; from the oil spill; from the coming collapse of the health care system as more and more employers realize that they cannot afford ObamaCare; from the executive action of implementing ObamaCare in 2010, not in 2014; from the $20 billion dollar slush fund to be handed out by political appointees; from the myriad issues that caused Thomas Sowell to wonder if we are not already on The Slippery Slope to Tyranny.
Another result may be an actual meaningful debate on the simple question of Why Are We In Afghanistan?
Many years ago I was asked in a televised debate what should be be strategy for Viet Nam. I said "Win it and get out." Allard Lowenstein said to me, "But Jerry, your friends in the Administration want to lose it and stay in." Of course McNamara and his people were hardly my friends, as Allard knew; but it was a fair observation. Obama decided to stay in but send fewer troops than McChrystal asked for. Why?
As we come closer to November, expect many more incidents and crises that must not be wasted. And see below.
=====================
Bob Null, RIP
A very old friend, twenty times the Vice President of the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society (LASFS), and nearly always present at meetings. He was getting radiation treatments at the Kaiser Sunset facility where I went, and for some years those had gone well, but lately things had not been going so well. We were old friends but not close friends, fellow survivors who exchanged greetings and good will. For many years he gave LASFS the benefit of his steady judgment and quiet competence. Farewell.
==============
Waiving the Jones Act.
No fewer than twelve nations along with the U.N. offered assistance to the U.S. following the blowout: Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, the Republic of Korea, Spain, and Sweden. It's not accurate to say that all were turned down, because some apparently received no answer at all.
The culprit here appears to be the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, AKA the Jones Act, which requires that all commercial vessels operating in U.S. waters be American-owned, constructed, and crewed. (A quick read of the act suggests that it was intended only in reference to merchant bottoms, but such laws usually are interpreted in the broadest manner possible.)
Both Dutch and Belgian companies experienced in oil spill cleanup offered their services only to be turned down. Using specialist vessels, the Belgians and Dutch could clean the spill in three to four months. Only a half-dozen such ships exist, none owned by U.S. companies.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/barack_and_bureaucracy.html
President Obama had the opportunity to waive the Jones Act as President Bush did after Katrina.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/21/robert-bluey-gulf-spill-katrina-jones-act-waive-obama/
Why didn't he?
Lawrence
It's a good question. Could it be that no one thought of it? I can't believe that union politics ruled in a situation of this gravity. Why didn't the President suspend the Jones Act for this crisis? I really can't think why not.
=======================
Jerry,
Many of your readers may know this, but some may not. All members of the military are subject to the uniform code of military justice or UCMJ. Article 88 prohibits contempt toward officials. Specifically "Commisioned officers may not use contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession". On the face of it the General is guilty.
I think he is being truthful and that is observations are correct, but he was not allowed to say them. At this point I think his only option will be to resign.
Jim Cook
First, it is not established that the General said anything at all; we only know what a not always reliable source says that he said. Leave that. Assume the Rolling Stone article is perfectly factual. It then has to be established that to say the President was unprepared is contemptuous, and that saying so in a bar in an informal and theoretically off the record meeting is to "use contemptuous words" within the meaning of the Act. Would it be contemptuous to say that the President is clean and articulate? I presume that proving 'contempt' has to be done by a General Court Martial, not by the press or by the White House. I doubt very seriously if any such Court will be convened; certainly the question of whether or not the President was prepared how he prepared himself would come up in any such trial.
Of course the President has the constitutional authority to relieve McChrystal of his command. And McChrystal has the option of resigning.
The problem is that the President was and still is unprepared for this war. He is also ambiguous about it. He doesn't want to be there and he doesn't know how to get out. He was unwilling simply to cut and run -- which he undoubtedly wanted to do the day after his inauguration -- because of the consequences. He sent in enough troops to keep us there without disaster, but not enough to win. He put unprepared and unfit people in charge of framing the Rules of Engagement and the general tactics of the war. He let Nuts have control of vital aspects of the War. He remained less than knowledgeable about many of the important aspects of the war or of this kind of war, but did not compensate by allowing those who do know something of war be in charge of it. He doesn't know if the war is winnable or not.
Were I McChrystal I would probably go to the meeting with the President, resign, and come out of the meeting with the message "He's still not prepared." At least I'd dream of it. Whether or not I'd do it is another matter. I once asked Charles Beckwith why he led the mission into Iran, given that he knew there were insufficient resources to accomplish the mission, and it was likely to lead to disaster without a miracle. He said, "Son, when the President of the United States stands you up in front of his desk and says 'You are the best man to lead this mission. Your resignation is not accepted,' you shut up and soldier." The resulting events in the Iranian desert were not as big a disaster as it could have been, but it wasn't very good outcome either.
The President would probably very much like to dismiss McChrystal and use him as an excuse to cut and run, but if he dismisses McChrystal the general is free to comment on the President's preparedness. It will be interesting to see what happens. I sure don't know. In the time of Tiberius Caesar maiestas was a capital crime, and many of the Senators and many of the equestrian order died of it. We have not come to that in our Republic. McChrystal can be glad of that.
================
Note that the UCMJ protected Bremer from the truth. Bremer was arrogantly incompetent. He deserved contempt. An eyewitness says
Bremer walked into the palace they were working from for the first time and told General Sanchez "you're out of here, leave". Bremer was a foul mouthed ass.
This is pretty apparent from Bremer's book, which makes it clear that this inept proconsul had no clue as the effects of his actions. Perhaps the world would be a different place if someone had treated him with the contempt he deserved then demanded a Court Martial, with the defense that the contempt was deserved. Why Bush sent this monumental incompetent isn't known; he was apparently selected the State Department.
============
"We who preach and write books ... write while we make progress. We learn something new every day. We dictate at the same time as we explore. We speak as we are still knocking for understanding". Augustine of Hippo
=======================
** "Left of Center" is a term used by the popular press, and usually is thought of as more or less synonymous with "liberal socialist." It's a very imprecise term. Many years ago I wrote my PhD dissertation on the unreality of the "left-right" political spectrum and its lack of utility in serious political discourse. Instead I offered the "Pournelle Axis". I explained all that in an article written for one or another of my anthologies, and sharpened with the help of Jim Baen's editorial skills. The result was a column which Jim liked enough to publish in several places along with his comments. You can find it here. The political spectrum has changed in some ways since I wrote that.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The President has relieved General McChrystal of his command, as is his right. It's not clear what McChrystal, certainly one of our best counter insurgency warrior officers, will do now. The rumor is that he offered his resignation and that was refused, but the President says he has accepted the general's resignation as CINC in Aghanistan. The President never wastes a crisis.
There's a lot to be learned from this. One is that the principle of unity of command remains valid; and it was violated by Obama in Afghanistan as it was by Bush in Iraq. Obama talks about unity in command, but that is precisely what does not exist in Afghanistan, as it did not in Iraq.
Another is that Obama demands respect. He said so in his speech.
Of course the most elementary lesson is that hanging around with reporters from Rolling Stone is probably not a productive thing to do for military of any rank. One wonders why that wasn't obvious from the beginning. Interestingly, that only happened because the volcano in Iceland stranded the Rolling Stone reporter in Europe at a time when the Afghanistan command was also there. An irony of history indeed.
More ominous is Yale Professor Ackerman leading the charge for using this crisis as a purge of the officer corps. I expect this to be echoed by much of the media.
=============
A more interesting discussion would be whether the COIN strategy, which Obama affirmed in the same speech that announced McChrystal's dismissal, has any chance of working in Afghanistan.
===========
And Lo, I will be with you always, even unto the return of the Taliban. But in July, 2011, we're out of here.
I am not sure how to sell that to a tribal leader, who is faced with choosing between the Taliban insurgents and the Mayor of Kabul.
===============
I wonder what Petraeus exacted as the cost of taking that position? Petraeus sent the troops in for the kill in Iraq. Did he also get the July 2011 withdrawal date cancelled? Did he get assurance that he can change the rules of engagement? It's hard to believe he would accept the command under the restrictions McChrystal endured. And yes, I am aware that McChrystal wanted the job, and seems to have embraced many of the crazy rules -- except that the Rolling Stone article doesn't precisely show that.
The real question is, what authority does Petraeus now have, and how will he use it? Will there be a change in the rules of engagement? The purpose of the military is to break things and kill people. Will the Legions in Afghanistan be permitted to do that? I find it hard to believe that Petraeus would accept the command under the restrictions McChrystal endured.
===================
