Blog Them Out of the Stone Age

Sometimes it helps to actually read (or in this case view) the source.

I’ve learned that the IISS speech was probably arranged weeks ago and it’s hard to believe he did not so much as mention it to Stavridis or Petraeus, nor, in the wake of the leaked report, that you couldn’t have seen questions about the COIN v counter-terrorism option coming from a mile away.  I wouldn’t know if word of the impending speech got kicked up as far as the Secretary of Defense or the White House, but given the sensitivity of the matter — coming so soon after McChrystal’s statement on 60 Minutes re talking with Obama only once since taking command of ISAF — it seems likely that it received clearance even at that level.

That being the case, McChrystal’s presentation would have been out of bounds only had he been instructed either a) to cancel his IISS presentation or b) stay away from the AfPak strategy issue by saying something to the effect that, “I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment until the strategy review is complete.”

Reading through the transcript of McChrystal’s speech, it seems benign enough.  The Q&A (available only on video) inevitably required him to choose his words on the spot.

In response to a FOX News question about what had been discussed in the previous day’s VTC conference, McChrystal naturally declined to say, but did say that “the process of going through a very detailed policy-level debate is incredibly important and incredibly healthy,” that “the President led that [the meeting] very effectively,” and that would lead to “a clear decision so that we can move forward” and that “once he [the President] makes that decision in consultation with our allies then we will be in a much stronger position.”

In reply to a question that began as a criticism of McChrystal’s “political masters,” McChrystal replied, “I’m certainly not going to circumvent any political leadership . . . because at the end of the day they’re who I work for, and I’m proud to do that.”  He then reiterated his belief that the healthier the strategic debate, the better the outcome would be, adding that whatever outcome comes out, “we’ll execute as best we can.”

A reporter from the Guardian then asked point blank what McChrystal thought would be the consequences if his request for more troops were denied.  Given that his report to the SecDef was common knowledge, it’s hard to imagine him dodging the question–that would have seemed highly disingenuous.  Yet McChrystal starts off by saying that any decision would be based “not just on resources but also on what are our goals” and that the key was aligning the two — pretty unexceptionable.  Then, without elaborating further, he turned to the next question.

Two subsequent questions pressed him on the matter of time , McChrystal agreed that time was important and that other parties (to include the bad guys) were making decisions already.  But he repeated that a thorough strategic policy review was also important, and well worth the time it was taking.

In response to another question, McChrystal said that in no way had he been pressured not to offer an appraisal his superiors didn’t want to hear, and that not only had his superiors encouraged him to be as blunt as he could be, “they have demanded that.”  He grinned and added, “Now they may ultimately disagree with me and crush me someday, but I doubt it…. I’m just kidding.”

To a particularly tendentious question that was in effect an invitation to criticize the Obama administration, McChrystal replied, “I won’t even touch that.”

At no point in the Q&A did anyone mention Vice President Biden or allude directly to the Biden option.  Many of the questions dealt with such things as the possible role/response of Iran, the legitimacy of the Afghan election, the element of the Taliban that was most dangerous (the questioner told McChrystal what he  regarded as the most dangerous element, then asked if McChrystal agreed), how one might best cut off the flow of Taliban recruits (“jobs,” McChrystal replied), etc.

Having watched the whole Q&A, I was impressed by the general’s poise, his articulateness, his praise for the efforts of the coalition forces, and his repeated endorsement of the Obama administration’s strategy review process.

A Douglas MacArthur type McChrystal decidedly is not.

On the whole, the brouhaha about this from the press seems contrived, and I suspect the Telegraph item is highly contrived.  It’s possible some White House advisers voiced displeasure at McChrystal’s presentation, but I doubt they were very high level, and I further doubt that they had actually bothered to read/watch his address, much less watch the Q&A.

And btw, a reference in his speech  to “Chaos-istan” — which the Telegraph claims was a reference to the Biden proposal — clearly was not.  The Biden proposal fell under the heading of “others say that we should conduct a counterterrorist-focused battle, given that this really started after 9/11 and Al-Qaeda’s strikes,” which he offered in a neutral way among a menu of possible courses of action.