from General Stanley
McChrystal's criticism of senior administration officials has been fast
and furious, leading many pundits to call for President Obama to
That's apparently a possibility, as White House
spokesman Robert Gibbs told
reporters today that "all options are
on the table" for McChrystal's face-to-face meeting with Obama on
Wednesday. But the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan also has his
defenders. Here are the cases against firing McChrystal.
Be Blow to Crucial War Efforts The Washington Post's Greg Jaffe and Ernesto
Londoño write, "relieving McChrystal of his command on the
eve of a major offensive in Kandahar, which White House and Pentagon
officials have said is the most critical of the war, would be a major
blow to the war effort, said military experts. ... If White House
officials are contemplating ousting McChrystal, they are likely to
consider the damage that would do to the relationships McChrystal has
built with senior Afghan and Pakistani officials."
Mission Failure' Former McChrystal adviser Andrew Exum suggests, "Shaking up the command in Kabul
for the third consecutive summer would throw operations into temporary
disarray. A new commander -- Jim Mattis, anyone? -- might not feel
comfortable with all of his subordinates or staff and seek to change
them, which would be his right as the commander but not so great in
terms of continuity. Most crucially, the relationship between the
president of Afghanistan and the new commander would have to be
re-built. If you think the strategy in Afghanistan is the correct one,
then, you are risking mission failure by replacing the commander and his
staff at this stage in the conflict. You are in effect arguing that
healthy civilian-military relations are more important than winning in
- Would Damage U.S. Relationship with Karzai A
civilian adviser to the NATO force in Afghanistan tells Wired, "It would be a travesty
if we fired McChrystal and kept Eikenberry. ... [McChrystal is the] only
one with any sort of relationship with [Afghan president Hamid]
Karzai." Karzai has since come out in support of McChrystal.
Delay July 2011 Draw-Down Plan Liberal blogger Spencer Ackerman notes,
"Firing him carries its risks. There's only a year to go before the July
2011 date to begin the transition to Afghan security responsibility and
the Kandahar tide is starting to rise. It'll be hard to fire McChrystal
without ripping the entire Afghanistan strategy up, and I've gotten no
indication from the White House that it's interested in doing that."
Were Inappropriate but Maybe Right House Minority Whip Eric Cantor suggests,
"Obviously a General and his top brass don't make statements like these
without being frustrated, so I hope that the President's meeting with
General McChrystal will include a frank discussion about what is
happening on the ground, and whether the resources and the plan are
there to defeat terrorists and accomplish our mission in Afghanistan. Without question, the
article in Rolling Stone raises a
lot of concerns, but our top priority
must be to ensure that our forces in Afghanistan have what they need in
order to successfully execute their mission and win the war there."
His Job Performance, Not PR Performance The New York Daily News' Andrew Bacevich writes,
"The general needs to button his lip and attend to his assigned duties.
The same goes for his subordinates. For the moment, that should
suffice." However, Obama should take a hard look at McChrystal's
efficacy in Afghanistan and only then consider canning him. "In his
original strategic assessment, McChrystal stated unequivocally that
within a year it would be apparent whether his approach was working.
Given the stakes involved, it makes sense to allow him that year."
- Rude but Not Insubordinate Foreign Policy's Kori Schake writes,
"McChrystal also didn't commit treason, which is what the political
backlash makes it sound like. He didn't disobey an order. He didn't go
outside his chain of command to undercut the president. He didn't say
he knew better than his elected leadership what needed to be done. He
didn't even criticize the president other than to say he'd looked
uncomfortable the first time he met the military leadership. This is not
'his MacArthur moment,' as commentators are suggesting."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
mfisher at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.