Gail Collin's "General McChrystal's Twitters": A Travesty of a Travesty

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I have long opposed U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, yet I find myself disturbed by Gail Collin's New York Times op-ed, "General McChrystal's Twitters", which seems to make light of the dismissal of Stanley McChrystal.

Say what you will about General McChrystal, but here was a soldier instructed by Obama to perform a Herculean task: stabilize with a skeleton fighting force over 650,000 square miles of foreboding territory, harboring a hostile population of almost 30 million warring tribesmen, in a year and a half. No, it couldn't be done, it still can't be done, and it is horrifying that in recent days the total number of U.S. fatalities in this country went over the 1,000 mark.

Faced with the article in Rolling Stone, Obama was required to make a no-win decision: No matter how he opted, he would not come out smelling like roses. But having already noted my opposition to the Afghanistan War, I still think Obama chose incorrectly.

How many persons who will read or comment upon Gail Collins's op-ed actually took the trouble to read all of the Rolling Stone article? I still find myself asking what were the "horrifying" things said by McChrystal.

How many persons who will read or comment upon Gail Collins's op-ed have ever toted an automatic rifle and sat in silent ambush in the middle of the night, hungry, cold, exhausted and eaten raw by mosquitoes and ants? Question to those who have served in combat units and watched their comrades killed or maimed: Do you ever recall voicing "displeasure" with those who sent you on your mission, but don't have the slightest notion of your physical and mental suffering? I do.

Sure, there are different expectations from generals, but McChrystal is a commanding officer who made a point of going out with his soldiers on their most hazardous missions. If I were in the field, this is an officer I would want beside and over me.

Sure, McChrystal may have insulted Biden, and his staff voiced nasty utterances about certain Obama administration officials, but at the risk of sounding trite, war is not a pretty thing and does not elicit verbal niceties. Perhaps this was indeed an instance where Obama could have brought Biden and McChrystal together to air out their differences.

Has Obama proven himself tough to his Republican opponents by firing McChrystal? I don't think so.

I would prefer to see Obama demonstrate his courage by removing U.S. forces immediately from Afghanistan and shouldering the blame for this fiasco upon himself - where it now squarely belongs.

[I posted the content of this blog entry in response to David Brook's Friday, June 24 op-ed, "The Culture of Exposure" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25brooks.html). I would only further observe in McChrystal's defense that he was asked by Obama to prosecute an ugly losing war, while Obama permitted senior administration officials freely to question its goals and legitimacy. Was it fair to allow these administration officials to undercut openly McChrystal's thankless mission and not to expect any expression of anger, offense or resentment from the general and his staff? These are not saints; they are soldiers. Obama is the commander in chief, and he made a decision, albeit the wrong one. In fairness to the U.S. armed forces sent by Obama to Afghanistan, was it not his responsibility also to demand that Biden, et al, refrain from public expressions of skepticism? Although highly educated, Obama was never schooled in management or leadership, and we are witnessing the results.]