A reflection of Obama’s leadership style in McChrystal’s public disagreement
By Steven Lee
Despite his public outspokenness on the need for troop increases in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, may have been exactly what the President was looking for in a general: someone qualified, experienced and passionate enough to be forthright and honest with his views on Afghanistan. President Obama has not yet decided on whether to grant McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan, but he has gained a reputation for trying to consider all sides of the issue before moving forward. Defense Secretary Gates, a conservative member of Obama’s administration, has already complimented the President on his analytical and thorough approach on the issues.
According to “U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Is Given More Leeway,” McChrystal was given extraordinary leeway for his ambitious strategy in Afghanistan. He was allowed to handpick a “dream team of subordinates, including many Special Operations veterans,” underscoring that Afghanistan is viewed as a top priority by the current administration.
After McChrystal’s speech in London stressed the urgency for more troops in Afghanistan despite the President’s reluctance, Obama supported Gen. McChrystal. He reiterated that McChrystal was “his pick” for the job. According to an anonymous source reported in today’s Associated Press, a recommendation is before the President to either: 1) withdraw troops 2) increase troops by 40,000 or 3) increase troops by significantly more than 40,000.
On August 30, McChrystal wrote in a confidential assessment to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that additional troops within the next year are needed in Afghanistan or else the conflict “will likely result in failure.”
Should the General have been as outspoken publicly? Would it have been more prudent and constructive to have voiced his opinion privately?
If the President is content with McChrystal’s latest public outspokenness, perhaps this reflects more on Obama’s respect for General McChrystal and his preference to consider all sides of the issue, since the President has repeatedly expressed his reluctance in deciding to commit 40,000 more troops.
It all depends what our goal in this conflict is. If the goal is to create a strong central government in Afghanistan to prevent it form becoming a failed state again, where Al-Qaeda can create a base, then significantly more troops are necessary.
However, if you believe in a more limited mission, of just eliminating Al-Qaeda members, then airpower may be sufficient.
A strong central state may be necessary. If the govt. in the eyes of the Afghan people is incapable of providing security and goods to the general population, Afghans may look to other avenues, including Al-Qaeda for help. A strong capable govt. is necessary in Afghanistan. The question is, are increased troop levels necessary and capable for a state building mission?
I think Obama knows that if he orders more troops, many more soldiers will die, and this weighs on his conscience. It would definitely weigh on me, and I’m leaning toward more troops. Although I don’t have all facts, and therefor are unable to analyze the situation completely and weigh the pros and cons of such a decision. I am confident that the President is a highly intelligent and analytical person who thinks things through. The law student in him probably equips him with the ability to argue and see all sides of an issue.
“but he has gained a reputation for trying to consider all sides of the issue before moving forward” uhhh that would be called WAFFLING while soldier die for something less then VICTORY! You give way too much credence to Obama. He is working against the military not for it. McChrystal btw did not request those troops in public his request was released ILLEGALLY! New Republicans what is that code for Democrat lite?
I think it shows that Obama is out of touch with the military. Hoiw long does it take him to decide on the request for 40,000 addtional soldiers? Why is it he is not in continual and regular contact with his general? It looks to me like Obama is going to bail out on Afghanistan.
I pity the Afghan women when the Taliban comes back to power.
I truly believe American government and american people has Love and Care for people of afghanistan, Us government want to eliminate Evil forces such as Al Qaueda in that region. I also believe few numbers of Afghan likes to live in Peace
But if people read and learn Culture and their way of living, Unfourtunately by nature afghan re Violent and can not live in peace. During soviet war Afghan people were given shelters in Pakistan, they brough rogue culture and drug and weapons with them, ever since Pakistan has Internal problems and it changes way of thinking of Local pakistani in their own homeland. Only what American people and Obama administration can do pray and do the Best for Afghanistan. It will be Miracle if we see Peace in Afghanistan. If we read history of British colonial Era, during that time Brits were not able to Civilized this nation. They re still living in stone age. Coming back to point increasing troops will help, yes for short time. Not perminent solution. God Bless All of you
Albie
President Obama tends to wait for consensus (or quickly recapitulate if the majority are angered or offended by his actions). That concerns me–just as it did when George W. Bush was president. My objection to both men when they were running for president was that neither had the experience nor a successful track record to indicate that they’d make good presidents much less be able to fulfill their campaign promises.
On 9/11, I worked at the Southwest Airlines ticket counter in Reno, Nevada, and my first reaction to hearing that a plane had flown into the WTC was that it was highly likely a terrorist act because the 1993 WTC bombers were being sentenced that week. As I checked in customers for the first flight of the morning, I anxiously waited for our president to react decisively. As I checked in customers, I anxiously awaited word that all flights would be canceled. Instead, that first flight left for Las Vegas. I was in anguish. I couldn’t believe that a lowly woman who simply read the newspaper and kept herself apprised of world events could recognize the danger and what needed to be done–while my own president and his administration did not.
When the United States invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, I was again in despair, because I knew that the U.S.S.R.’s economic life’s blood had been sucked dry by its decade-long war in Afghanistan along with its increasing spending on monitoring its citizens. I knew that we were repeating the U.S.S.R.’s history. We still are.
We need bold, smart, cutting-edge leaders who know world history and can anticipate future events rather than simply reacting to opinion polls and to events that have already happened. I pray that President Obama will be that kind of leader for America, but I fear he is what his experience and track record predicted prior to his election as our president and what he said he’d be early in his campaign: America’s charming cheerleader.
Obama’s lack of military experience, let alone a significant lack of knowledge regarding military stretegy and tactics, leaves him vulnerable to idological influences from the liberal left. Such influences may well be what is causing him to reconsider objectives in Afganistan, rather than do what is necessary to accomplish previously established objectives. As I have suggested earlier, he is either foolhardy, or stupid to disregard the advice of his military commander in the field in Afganistan. I don’t think he is stupid. Therefore, I can only conclude he is unduly influenced by idologically leftist sympathizers who seem well positioned to keep him from giving serious consideration to advice contrary to their own political objectives. McCrystal’s London speech citing the need for more troops was addressed to coalition contibuters as well as to American decision makers. His candid assessment was refreshing at a time when promised transparency by the Obama administration seems woefully lacking. I believe his London speech came after he had previously sent his Afganistan assessment to Washington for consideration. He followed the appropriate chain of command before speaking publicly of his perceived need for more troops. The truth hurts, especially when it conflicts with contradictory idological interests.
Reminds me of some of the dust-ups between the Clinton Administration and the military. My husband was in the military active duty during the Clinton Administration. The disagreements between the military and some in the Clinton administration really tore down the morale!
Mr. Obama’s leadership style is irrelevant, as there is nothing republicans (new or old) can do about it. I am far more concerning with the lack of agressive leadership within the republican party.
I totally and absolutely agree w/Ron, above. Here 11/2/2010 looms a short 13 months from now and we have the same dysfunctional, out-of-phase GOP that we had on 11/7/06 and 11/4/08.
It ought to be abundantly clear to anyone what direction Obama and the democrats are ”leading” this nation. As for McChrystal, he’s doing what he gets paid to do - juggle handgrenades while walking a tightwire. If he can only hang until 2010 and if the Republicans learn some humility and become teachable asap, they might win again and regain control of the House, Senate or both. But as it stands now the GOP thinks they need do nothing. That somehow voters will react to the wicked deeds of the left and thats all it’ll take to get them to vote GOP again. This is a dangerous gamble and I believe will be a tragic mistake. Darvin Dowdy
We are personal friends with one of the very talented military advisors who Gen. McChrystal called upon in the last two months to help him formulate the plan presented to Pres. Obama. Our friend is much too much the professional to share with us the advice he gave Gen. McChrystal, but we have no doubt that McChrystal’s recommendation to the president is solid and extremely well-considered and that ignoring his recommendations would be ill-advised if the U.S. goal is to elimate the threat to the American people from Al-Queda and the Taliban.
How about an article on Obama’s ultra-liberal choices for several key leadership positions around the White House, or about his association with the school of community activism pioneered by Saul Alinsky?
Support Sarah in 2012: A Keepsake ‘Moose’ or ‘Polar Bear’ Garter with 2012 Imprinted on Ribbon Tails. RWB Hockey Garters. Custom Accessories Garters ~ garters.com
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Comments
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
Topics
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.