
Time to update the resume?
I’ve not been much of a John King fan lately, but I must admit that he practiced some actual responsible journalism Sunday morning on his show "State of the Union" on CNN. His guest was James Jones, the National Security Adviser. CQPolitics has posted a transcript of the interview.
Very early in the interview, King asks Jones if General Stanley McChrystal might resign if things don’t go his way on Afghanistan troop levels:
KING: If he has campaigned, General McChrystal has quite publicly, a big speech in London the other day for his plan — if the president decides no, I’m not sending more troops to Afghanistan, you have been in that position yourself sir as a commanding general. Could General McChrystal stay on if the president said no?
JONES: Again, that’s another hypothetical that I probably –
KING: Would you?
JONES: I shouldn’t judge what General McChrystal is going to do or not do. I am absolutely convinced that General McChrystal is in it for the long haul. He has said so publicly and privately. So this is not a — this is not — I don’t think this is an issue.
But King does not let up on the question of McChrystal making his request for more troops into a public case he argued in the speech in London. Here is King’s next question and the response:
KING: The president sad [sic] down face-to-face with General McChrystal the other day on Air Force One in Europe. Did he express any disappointment that the commander has been so public? Essentially many in Washington think almost putting the commander-in-chief in a box by publicly saying, I need these troops?
JONES: Well, I wasn’t there and what happened between — the conversation between the — and I’ve not spoken to the president since he talked to him, so I can’t comment on the conversation.
KING: Is that an appropriate — would you act that way as a commander? Is it at all unseemly that the men in uniform, and I know sir you wore the uniform for many years, that they’re out openly campaigning for this one as an open question for the president?
JONES: Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command and I think that General McChrystal and the others in the chain of command will present the president with not just one option, which does, in fact, tend to have a, you know, enforcing function, but a range of options that the president can consider. And as I said, and forgive me for repeating myself, troops are a portion of the answer, but not the total answer. It’s this coordination that has —
It looks like King was fishing for Jones to suggest that McChrystal should be fired for taking his request directly to the public. The McChrystal situation here seems to be taking on the feel of the "full confidence" quotes that come out just before someone is shown the door.
King then moves on to attack Jones and others in the Obama administration who have pushed back against McChrystal’s public campaign for more troops for Afghanistan. King relies on his old buddy, John McCain. Jones swats the attack away with grace and ease:
KING: But you know you have some critics. Having seen General McChrystal made his case publicly, having spoken to General Petraeus, having been to the region, some Republicans including Senator John McCain say that you, sir, and others in the White House are playing politics with this decision. I want you to listen to Senator McCain.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: It’s well known, it’s broadcast all over television, that there are individuals, including the vice president of the United States, now, unfortunately, the national security adviser, the chief political adviser to the president, Mr. Rahm Emanuel who don’t want to alienate the left base of the Democrat Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Is that a factor in the White House, rising Democratic opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan? Do you, sir, say, Mr. President, no more troops, because of politics, as Senator McCain says?
JONES: Senator McCain knows me very well. I worked for Senator McCain when he was a captain. I’ve known him for many, many years and he knows that I don’t play politics with national — I don’t play politics, and I certainly don’t play it with national security and neither does anyone else I know. The lives of our young men and women are on the line. The strategy does not belong to any political party and I can assure you that the president of the United States is not playing to any political base. And I take exception to that remark.
More meetings of the administration’s senior working group are planned for the upcoming week, and a decision on Afghanistan strategy is due soon. Is McChrystal’s fate tied to whether his recommendation is accepted? Is his job already in danger due to insubordination?
Stay tuned.
Update: See Siun’s post for more on this ongoing question.



49 Comments







We can only hope he’s out soon:)
You beat me to it.
Good for Jones! McChrystal sure seems to be behaving in an insubordinate manner. Showing up to meet with the commander in chief in battle fatigues? How disrespectful!
I’m hoping he’s gone.
He literally flew in from the battlefield, how do you expect him to be dressed? By the way, Obama did not meet the General, his staff did. Apparently Obama thought the Olympic Games was more important than a strategy in Afghanistan.
Don’t know where you got your info. All the news stories said he met with him for 35 minutes and Jim White has another post today with a picture of their meeting. Maybe you ought to do a modicum of research before commenting.
1) Assuming McChrystal’s insubordination is not part of some (delusional, IMO) three-dimensional chess game: Does Obama recognize he made a mistake appointing this guy?
2) If the answer to 1) is “yes,” will Obama admit he made the mistake and get rid of the guy?
I’m not holding my breath on either question. See Rayne’s comment at number 27 on Siun’s thread. She may have the answer.
Rayne’s comment at number 27 on Siun’s thread:
Rayne, if you come by this thread: do you think Sec. Gates wouldn’t do the firing? Even on orders from his boss?
Nope.
Gates’ loyalty is to the Bush family — and I don’t mean W., but more so to Poppy. Gates was put in as SecDef after Poppy had enough of the fuck-ups in Iraq and decided they had to change course; his consiglieres used the Iraq Strategy Group as a method by which they wrested control from Cheney/Rummy and returned it to some nominal degree of sanity.
Gates has known his days would be numbered as SecDef, that he was in the position solely to ensure the appearance of continuity. (If this had been a corporation with a change in upper management after a merger, any senior exec would be brushing up their resume and boning up on their golf game, yes?) As little as he has done to squelch the friction inside DOD about Afghanistan, I believe he’s checked out mentally. It’s not in his best interests to make Obama look good, after all; his original marching orders were to make the Bush family look better.
There’s a chance he could get asked by Obama to do the dirty work, but I think Obama would rather not piss off a guy with a deep background in intelligence.
I have heard rumors of other major turmoil in upper ranks over Afghanistan; the only way I see this getting settled is that somebody, with a firm hand who is highly respected and pragmatic, comes in and cleans house and spanks others as part of a shift in strategy. They will have to make a concerted power play as they step in to make a point — the chain of command has been restored and everybody is going to get the fuck back in line, like yesterday if not sooner.
And I’ll bet whomever this is has Biden’s back, and Biden has his, because Biden is going to be the buffer between Obama and DOD on this.
Just my opinion, natch.
Let me add, if Gates is thinking about a run for the POTUS, Gates may want one of “his guys” to be loyal and put his “neck in the meat grinder,” in order for Gates to appear to “have” to step down because Obama told him so. It creates situational competition between him and Obama. And I think Gates probably thinks it would make him look on the offensive. Perhaps McCrystal has been promised SOD should Gates get elected.
The problem is, in trying to frame it to look like an Obama failure, Gates is counting on looking like the victim of a non-military President. However, Gates will not look like a victim. In the end, Gates will look like a SOD who could not control those under his command to respect the chain of command, which is a BIG no-no in the military. I mean, if this is happening now, how is he going to control that as Pres? The very point that Gates is trying to use against Obama will bite back at him, should this in fact be the gaming going on. It is even worse when someone who is a leader in the military cannot control the chain of command within the military. It makes the military look bad in their actions towards Obama, not the other way around in terms of Obama having no military background.
If Gates is hoping for a successful run for POTUS, he actually needs to be free of his position as SOD now. It’s kind of difficult to run as the oppo when you are in fact a member of the standing Pres’s cabinet.
I do not know where to begin should “someone” be using our military to “play politics” for the next run for POTUS. I. Hope. Not. But. It. Does. Not. Look. Good.
The silence speaks to that fact.
So let’s see how long it takes to break the silence after “one of his” reads Rayne’s thoughts here. Clock’s ticking.
No freaking way does Gates stand a chance in hell of POTUS. I hope he understands the people won’t stand for a guy with as much intel background as he has in that slot. Poppy was a mistake, someone who should have stayed in intel, was not the charismatic leader this country demands let alone effective as a leader.
Gates would be Poppy all over again, and this is the very line of attack we would take: who wants a Bush crony or Poppy-Part 2?
This entire scenario, where Gates is supposed to be in control of the military and he’s obviously letting them duke it out behind the scenes and brawl in the street, is an example of the kind of lack of leadership we can’t afford. Would take a massive PR campaign to overcome this. Military mid-level and below would be a very, very hard sell.
I totally agree with you on all points irt Gates running for POTUS. The PR campaign against him would be an easy one.
However, if he is considering it, he cannot just “quit” SOD. Thus, my supposition irt McCrystal.
Yeah, I hear you. I’ll give Gates that much that he hasn’t bailed out already.
And maybe he thinks (rightfully so) that he owes us that much consideration after the event I mention at (23) above.
Least he could do after a massive fuck-up on his watch (didn’t even bring up how bad that would look during a presidential campaign). Maybe it wasn’t a fuck-up, either, but a thwarted op — how would that look on his resume?
Rayne, you make terrific points here in your argument…but one thing scares me (and after the last eight years, I don’t scare easily any more).
This is the first I’ve ever heard of Gates’ potentially running for POTUS. The thing is…there’s nobody else who’s worth a crap or has a rat’s ass of a chance to win for the Republicans. But Gates MIGHT.
I dunno. You are probably right, but ANY Republican candidate with a brain and who’s willing to steer clear of wingnut rhetoric (he’ll let FOX News do the propaganda FOR him) has somewhat of a decent chance at winning–and twice the chance of Huckabee or Palin.
Besides Powell, or maybe someone else I haven’t thought of yet, he really is their best chance; and to think that I was unaware of it before today.
I wouldn’t worry about Gates. And yes, Powell would have a better chance, especially since he threw behind Obama. But there’s no way in hell this country would be ready for a second African American POTUS back-to-back.
Far more worried the wingers are going to throw behind Petraeus with a helping of Huckabee on the side. That’d be the most likely but scariest combo, an ex-military POTUS with a X-tianist VP.
Makes my skin crawl, have gooseflesh even thinking about it.
Diagree about Gates, he’s a sharp guy and doing a first-rate job pushing the services to reform. And for a former USAF officer, Gates certainly is not playing favorites– he canned the AF Chief of Staff and Secretary (that is, the top general and top civilian) on the same day.
You’re entitled to your opinion.
It was hardly a demonstration of his lack of favoritism to can the USAF COS and Sec; you’ve minimized this to an extreme.
If Gates hadn’t fired the USAF COS and Sec when he did, well, jeebus…who in their right fucking mind wouldn’t have been forced to put some heads on a pike for the public after a bent spear event? This was one of most egregious breaches of procedure and security our military could ever experience.
If he’d really been doing his job, there would have been far more than two heads. And if Bush had been doing his job, there would have been more done which was visible to the public to reassure them this will never, EVER happen again.
Exactly.
And though that briefing stated pylon (6 missiles), it never clarified whether 6 missiles were recovered on the other end or “why” the media had the conflicting information of 5 vs 6 missiles.
Interesting thoughts. I don’t have much to add to them except this observation: If Gates was brought in just to make the Bush family and name improve in brand repair, he did a miserable job. And, Gates has shown a remarkable ability to at least sound like he lives in a reality-based world.
If he gets the boot, I have no problem with that. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama put some REAL neocon in his place, in the spirit of ‘bipartisanship’ or some other such insanity.
Isn’t that what a President is supposed to do?
Obama has to fire this guy sooner or later this General got away with it he will do it again its his pattern he will keep doing it until stopped.
Dang, I’d love it if Obama gave him a well-deserved boot. Not that I’m holding my breath.
Recommended. Keep the pressure on Jim. I left a comment over at Siun’s. Thanks for the link.
It is extremely dangerous when the military goes public on any policy issue. I think the critical issue is the leak, rather than the public comments in UK. How did it leak, and who done it.
BTW, doesn’t it appear to anybody else that McChrystal is spoiling to be cashiered?
Maybe it’s my mom-ness, can’t shut it off, but if McChrystal was a kid who kept doing something in spite of knowing the rules, wouldn’t a reasonable, rational adult see this as acting out and a need for boundary-setting to be enforced? You know, the afternoon meltdown temper tantrum demanding a toy but really needing a parent to step in and put somebody down for a nap, or the umpteenth missed homework assignment because of too much video games which needs a parent to lock up the PS2/Wii/Xbox?
McChrystal’s asking for it. The question is why?
Rayne @ 10: I like that analysis. Care to name any candidates yet for SecDef and/or Afghanistan commander?
CO @ 11: Absolutely. Over on Siun’s thread the discussion mentioned Petraeus’ political ambition and how McChrystal’s actions appear to be supporting him. Very dangerous stuff when you couple it with the Newsmax wingnut advocating for a military coup.
Wish I could, but I think it’s far too early to name any names. I’d like to see a couple other things shake loose, about which I’ve also heard rumors, before I throw out any names.
Let’s just say that one of the names I’ve heard I think both sides will view favorably, save for the most extreme faction — and that’s a pretty rare bird.
Rayne @ 10: I like that analysis. Care to name any candidates yet for SecDef and/or Afghanistan commander?
Yes, its probably too early to name names, but I like Wesley Clark.
I know I know. I’m dreaming.
Probably so. The major drawback there is that Clark did move on into the overtly political world (but after retiring), so it would be tough to argue why he should replace someone being fired for becoming political. I agree that without that problem he’d be a great choice, though.
Yeah, see the problem here is, one military man followed the correct line of rational…Clark, retiring than becoming political…the other, McC is being political while Still in the military. He is trying to be sly to enable the hawks to continue their WAR! WAR! WAR! above all else mentality.
Wasn’t there some enlisted soldiers arrested for protesting in front of the WH in their uniforms? They were arrested for their political posturing while wearing there uniforms. McC is doing the same thing except on a bigger scale and using the media. If Obama had some backbone, which he doesn’t, he would discipline that man and put Clark in. (pull him outta retirement)
how can you say that about your President? and what would you know about backbone? siting at home at a key board.
Right, we can only hope.
Yeah, five procedural errors at a base that tracks nukes? And still no clear answers? Is there more than one way the odds of five procedural errors happen?
And there are still so few answers.
Resume? Who looks at the resume of a three star general? In any critical way?
The defense contractors will be lined up to hire this guy to lobby or sell for them. He’s an utter failure, and that attracts corporatists like shit draws flies.
Political operatives do look — like Karl Rove.
We do have them on the left side of the fence, they just aren’t as insidious.
And yes, Gates’ best opportunities will be with defense contractors. Bet you it’ll be a really big one — ye old military-industrial welfare system.
Oh, dude, sorry I wasn’t more clear…I was just talking about McChrystal. Maybe you knew that. Gates had some job teaching at that Texas university when the Bushes tapped him, right? He can always go back to that…
I’ll never forget the blogosphere reports that Gates had privately criticized Geo. W. at the university, at cocktail parties, calling him the worst president to ever serve, etc. Gates is…okay, as far as I’m concerned, but what we really need is what Spain has–
–a pacifist SecDef! ;-)
Re: (31) — I suspect that Gates didn’t realize what he was up against when Poppy’s pals put him in place. Which in itself is bad news for a former intel guy; I seriously think he didn’t know how malignant the Cheney faction was, and they screwed him. Perhaps what we are seeing is the reaction of a whipped dog. Just my opinion.
Re: (32) — “Dudette,” to you, thanks. I still think Gates will end up on the gravy train to keep him quiet. McC is a totally different kettle of fish; I can see him ending up at Blackwater/Xe or another competitor. It’d be a bidding war for his kind of ruthless intellect. And he’d be mofo dangerous, more so than he is right now.
A different person will not the situation change. And, should Obama do so and adopt a radically different strategy, he will then own that war 100%. If it goes great, wonderful, he gets full credit. If it doesn’t, he will be pinned with 100% of the blame.
Personally, I think that no matter the decision, one way or the other, they have dithered too long. This was all known 40 days ago or more. They had done a full top to bottom assessment in about 60 days. So, they should have all the basic info already in hand and only need to update themselves on the election situation. That doesn’t take that long. Meanwhile, the situation continues to go further bad, limiting your options even more.
I think Obama is going to go for the troop increase in major part. But, he does not want to do it now and piss off the left side of the party when he needs their support for the health care bill.
I think too much is being made about Gates role and I suspect that Obama, Gates and Jones are still a tight unit. You are forgetting the role that Gen. Petraeus is playing in this. He pioneered the role of an active duty commander playing a loud political role through the media and the congress, of course with the full backing of Bush-Cheney. He was used and he used the administration. Gates could not do anything to insist that Petraeus go through the chain of command and I doubt that he wanted to. Letting Petraeus and Bush play the game, meant far less pressure for Gates.
I’m sure that Petraeus who has remained quiet has been coaching McChrystal and it wouldn’t surprise me that Petraeus is behind the report leak.
When I heard that McChrystal was called to meet on Air Force One when Obama was in Copenhagen, I said to myself, I sure hope Obama is telling him who is the commander-in-chief and who better stop playing the Petraeus game. I also suspected that Jones was the one who recommended Obama hold the meeting. Recall the great response Obama got during the campaign when he said he would make clear to the military when it became necessary who was ultimately in charge.
Jones performance Sunday confirmed my suspicions. If I am right, you will see McChrystal stop his political pushing. He and Petraeus will have to use congress critters to make their points.
Allowing commanders to play a political role to get their way is a very dangerous precedent and I hope it is stopped. If anyone is to be fired it will be a while before that could take place unless after the Copenhagen meeting, issued orders are not followed. I realize all my points are sheer speculation, but I did spend 28 years in Air Force public affairs as a basis for my thoughts.
Wow. Who left the door open and let all the bugs in?
Could just mean we’re getting some attention and hitting a little too close for comfort…
Yeah, I was thinking that…they appear to have the spread covered with a minimum of words, too.
Right now one of the front-page stories at the LA Times is on Gates telling his officers to go through channels instead of making speeches about how things should be done in Afghanistan (or elsewhere).
The New York Times is carrying the same story in a speech Gates gave on Monday to the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army. “The Army’s top general immediately echoed Gates’s remarks, which seemed designed to rein in dissent within the ranks.”
That confirms for me that my previous comment about McChrystal getting dressed down by the President is correct. It’s also why the Dems stopped McChrystal from testifying to congress. It’s about time. Gen. Petraeus was way out of line during the Iraq surge campaign even though he was acting for President Bush. Military advice has to remain private so the discussion can be thorough and honesty devoid as much as possible of politics.
Thanks again, RMP. The perspective from your experience has been extremely helpful for the rest of to understand what is happening.
Rayne, I told you the clock was ticking! It didn’t take long did it!
Some bug repellent is in order, I see…
Wayne Madsen had the dirt on the Minot-Barksdale debacle in early 2008, if not before…interesting Blackwater and Israel connections… I would use links, but these articles may not be on the public WMR…since they are dated articles, Wayne Madsen is fine with release in full…
===================================
continued~~