McChrystal, the media and the military

Admiral William Fallon, commander of the U.S. Central Command, was terminated for challenging the Bush-Cheney strategy that might have led to war with Iran. The reality that Shinseki and Fallon were eventually proven to be right was of little consequence. The President, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, has authority to discipline his senior officers for disagreeing with him, even privately.

While President Obama, perhaps more than most of his predecessors, encourages debate and vigorous discussion, he couldn't have a field commander publically disagreeing with him. McChrystal’s statements, said the President, represent conduct that “undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system”. It was a concept fully supported by General George Washington before and during his presidency.

When the right-wing got tired of attacking President Obama, they attacked the messenger. Rolling Stone, they shrieked, wasn't even a good magazine. Gen. McChrystal shouldn't even have been talking to it. It was - you know - an entertainment magazine, thus proving how little they truly know about the media or journalism.

The 24/7 cable news networks, ecstatic that they had a brief diversion from the Gulf Coast oil spill and athletes not kicking soccer balls into nets, for their part brought in all kinds of experts to spew opinions that sometimes seemed to make the pundits look brilliant by comparison.

Somehow in all this orgasmic hyperbole, Fox's Gretchen Carlson told the "Fox and Friends" audience that being president involves making "these tough, huge, monumental decisions". But then she explained that the work of TV anchors - the real journalists, apparently - was similar to that of the president of the United States, since they have to make decisions on breaking news stories under near-battlefield conditions all the time, and "they would have to carry a story all along". This is the same news anchor who called Ted Kennedy a "hostile enemy" and whose own combat experience was restricted to fighting with double-sided tape to hold her swim suit intact during the Miss America competition.

There is no question that President Obama needed to relieve Gen. McChrystal of his command or risk appearing to be weak and ineffective during wartime. But there are other realities. The extreme right wing, blinded by their venomous hatred of President Obama, used the words of Gen. McChrystal to bolster their attacks upon the President. The left-wing, already upset with the expansion of the war, piously screamed their support of the President, but only if he got rid of the "troublemaker".

Lost in the war of words is the reality of who and what Stanley McChrystal is. He is a loyal American who grew up in a military family and who has siblings and in-laws who also were career soldiers. He is, by training and disposition, not a diplomat but a warrior, the kind you want on the front lines of any war. He was obviously frustrated by the lack of progress in Afghanistan, by a war that seemed to be doomed to failure no matter whose strategy was used, by an Afghani army and a civilian population that was easily compromised by warlords and the Taliban, by a country whose cash crop isn't grain but opium.

McChrystal understands the military system; he has little understanding of civilians and the media. Perhaps in the field, he and his senior aides would have been more cautious than on a diplomatic mission in Paris and Berlin hotels and nightclubs, areas that invaded their comfort zone. He was poorly prepared and ill-advised about being so open when talking to a reporter who had a notepad, a tape recorder, and made clear the rules of the interview. For a junior officer to make these mistakes is understandable; but, a four-star general should have known better. And that, not his words, was his downfall.