Latest GOP Stunt on McChrystal Testimony Fails, and the GOP Is Lucky It Did

By
Thursday, October 01, 2009 at 6:02 pm

An amendment to the defense appropriations bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to compel Gen. Stanley McChrystal to testify before Congress by mid-November has failed on a party-line vote of 59 to 40. It was an escalation of a gambit most recently backed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to cleave McChrystal from President Obama. But funny thing: the GOP might have ended up in a worse position if it got McChrystal to testify ahead of Obama’s decisions on Afghanistan strategy.

To understand why, really listen to McChrystal’s remarks to London’s Institute for International and Strategic Studies. The New York Times piece doesn’t do McChrystal’s performance justice. McChrystal reiterated his position that Afghan population security is necessary for a strategy to defeat al-Qaeda, but not at all in the thumbing-his-nose-at-Joe-Biden way that the Times portrays.

Instead, as I’ve been writing, McChrystal loudly and clearly defended Obama’s strategy review. Like a lot. When questioners asked if Obama needed to make a decision on Afghanistan strategy nownownow, McChrystal replied with statements like, “Sir, I don’t think we have the luxury of going so fast we make the wrong decision.” While the Times quoted McChrystal saying, about his resource request, “I think if you don’t align the goals and the resources, you will have a significant problem. If we don’t do that, we will,” it left off the preceding part of his answer:

I think any decision to go forward will not just be based on resources, it will be based on what are our goals. And I know people are re-looking what our goals and objectives are and redefining and clarifying those, and I think that’s helpful. Once they do that, I think the resources, of course, are linked to that, because obviously you have to have a ways and means match. So, I don’t think that if we align our goals and our resources, we will have a significant problem. Our problem would be as — if we didn’t.

Still not convinced? Want another quote? OK: “This is a necessary process we go through so we come to a clear decision, and then move forward, and I think once we make that decision — once he makes that decision, in concert with our international partners — then I think we’ll be in a much stronger position.”

Or how about this? When asked if he would “circumvent” some caveats placed by European parliaments on the use of their troops, he said, “I’m certainly not going to circumvent any political leadership, because at the end of the day, political leadership and the people are who I work for, and I’m proud to do that. I think the more deliberations we have, the more debate we have, the healthier this is gonna be. Because at the end of the day, we would be in much worse shape to have a decision made without that level of public debate.” You listening, Karl? Because McChrystal rebuked your old boss, not his current one.

And that’s likely to happen when McChrystal ultimately testifies before Congress. Military command is not the role for spoiled children who stamp their feet when they don’t get all the toys they want. It’s a responsibility for professionals like McChrystal who understand that they work for elected leaders who have to take a broader national strategy into consideration. McChrystal was faced with a room of people who were trying to open some daylight between him and Obama. And these were his responses.

Does the GOP actually think that McChrystal is going to rebuke his still-popular commander-in-chief to curry favor with the minority party? Indeed, even taking such a cynical view, it’s better for the GOP for McChrystal to testify after Obama’s decision, because if he remains in command while being dissatisfied with the decision, then the Republicans will more likely to exploit that fissure in testimony. But McChrystal has given no indication at all that he’d serve in that capacity.

This is a strange place for the politics of national security. The minority party is hoping that McChrystal will somehow decide that it’s in his interest to throw his chips in with a powerless party rather than exercise the responsibilities of his command and cultivate a constructive relationship with both parties. It’s that kind of thinking that led John McCain to become the 44th president of the United States, partnering with Mitch McConnell’s 60-seat Senate majority.

And for its part, there are even some on the progressive side who misinterpret recent McChrystal interviews to fit into some desired insubordination narrative, whereby Obama — and by extension, the progressive movement — is absolved of responsibility for the war because of the nefarious machinations of a revanchist military. None of this is remotely true. And McChrystal’s remarks in London, read in their full context, prove it.

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

10 Comments

Tweets that mention The Washington Independent » Latest GOP Stunt on McChrystal Testimony Fails, and the GOP Is Lucky It Did -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted October 1, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dan Lehr and WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Latest GOP Stunt on McChrystal Testimony Fails, and the GOP Is Lucky It Did http://bit.ly/xNNOG [...]


Upcoming Events « Templeton Elliott « Blogs « The Skateboard Mag | Skateboarding Leisure Knowledge
Pingback posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

[...] The Washington Independent » Latest GOP Stunt on McChrystal … [...]


chrisjay
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:17 pm

McCain's 'expertise' on foreign affairs is actually an elaborated hoax. Add to that the fact that, in a heartbeat, the McWeasel will piss on our nation's best interests if he senses a short-term political profit. Years of repubs exploiting the military have rendered this little stunt totally predictable. McConnell & McCain are sleazeballs.


knowbuddhau
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 6:32 am

Not even the Council on Foreign Relations believes al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan, why does McChrystal think our presence there is crucial to defeating a force whose Command and Control are almost surely in Pakistan?


“Obama, Afghanistan commander meet” and related posts « Composition4u.info Blogs
Pingback posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

[...] Latest GOP Stunt on McChrystal Testimony Fails, and the GOP Is Lucky It Did - The Washington Independent [...]


Storm our greatest sports team | Courier Mail Sport Blog | Sports Leisure Knowledge
Pingback posted October 4, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

[...] Latest GOP Stunt on McChrystal Testimony Fails, and the GOP Is … [...]


Jones Tells McChrystal to Be Quiet | The Lie Politic
Pingback posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

[...] Marine general and NATO commander, wanted it. It’s also worth remembering that McChrystal repeatedly defended President Obama in his Thursday remarks in London and also repeatedly declined to discuss pending decisions on troops. McChrystal very mildly gave [...]


The Captain’s Journal » McChrystal v. Obama
Pingback posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:48 pm

[...] something else in the wind concerning McChrystal and Obama having nothing to do with McChrystal.  Spencer Ackerman attempts to align McChrystal with Obama’s strategic vision (h/t Greyhawk), but he’s [...]


phalaanx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 11:43 pm

I think you're right that McChrystal wasn't circumventing the chain, nor was he somehow trashing Biden's proposal. It does look like people were fanning the flames to turn this into an “event”.

However, I don't think currying favor with this party or that party had anything whatsoever to do with it. The bulk of the military are proudly apolitical, and consider getting down in the political muck with the Pelosi's, Bruce Ackermans, et al., is dirty stuff to be transcended at any cost. While usually liberal civilians love to haughtily remind generals that “they work for the civilians”, generals are usually happy to leave the scummy stuff to the civilians to handle.

It looks to me like McChrystal is trying to make this U.S. effort succeed, with the least number of lives ultimately lost. And he's willing to absorb attacks on himself and his career in order to do it, which is more than I can say for some of his superiors, military and civilian. Whether he turns out to have been right or wrong, it is quite refreshing to see a man aggressively and unapologetically pursue victory. Almost forgot what that looks like.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.