Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on October 5, 2009

Gen. Stanley McChrystal's honest bluntness on Afghanistan has angered the White House

Pres. Obama should have met with Gen. Stanley McChrystal about Afghanistan more than just once since June and longer than the 30-minute meeting POTUS granted Gen. McChrystal in Denmark… you simply can’t vote “present” on a war when you’re the Commander in Chief. Washington Post weighs in on that weird, last-minute, awkward meeting on the tarmac in Copenhagen a few days ago:

…The previously unannounced meeting between Obama and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal took place aboard Air Force One after it landed in Copenhagen Friday morning. McChrystal, who had been in London for a speech, was whisked to Denmark at Obama’s request, White House aides said.

The relationship between the two men is increasingly under scrutiny as Obama weighs whether to accept McChrystal’s recommendations for a major increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan. National security officials say Obama will decide this month, after a series of top-level briefings that began last week.

Until Friday, Obama had talked with McChrystal only from a distance, and had met him only once. Aides called the private meeting “productive” and went out of their way to say how fond Obama is of the man he chose to lead the war.

Obama likes McChrystal “very much personally,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. He added that Obama “got a chance, as I said earlier, to meet and talk with his wife, somebody who obviously is, along with General McChrystal, making personal sacrifices in this whole endeavor.”

Things, however, have changed in the past couple of days. It’s no longer the rosy picture painted in the snippet above. As noted by American Pundit, “Obama is interested in politics and imagery. McChrystal is interested in getting results and protecting the country.”

From the UK Telegraph: Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan:

By Alex Spillius
October 5, 2009

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.

Gen James Jones, the national security adviser, yesterday did little to allay the impression the meeting had been awkward.

Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: “I wasn’t there so I can’t answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views.”

An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.

When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”

He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second “principals meeting” on the issue last week.

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.

A military expert said: “They still have working relationship but all in all it’s not great for now.” Some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.

Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements.”

He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to “pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy”.

Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general’s recommendations.

The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: “You can’t hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn.”

As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.

They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban.

“They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong,” said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defence.

Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June.

From Mudville Gazette, The Secret Planners Club:

Seriously, I can think of several alternatives to General McChrystal’s plan for carrying out the administration’s Afghan strategy, but certainly none I’d want my name associated with in any way, shape, or form. In D.C., no one in the administration (or the Pentagon) is willing to have their name associated with any alternative plan, but apparently many are willing to whisper to reporters that there is one and Biden thinks it’s great.

Just something to think about.

From Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian: Obama ‘furious’ at McChrystal – for telling the truth:

This administration has dithered for 9 months about what to do in Afghanistan. They sent McChrystal there to ascertain what was needed to stabilize the country so that our troops could start coming home. McChrystal has now finished that analysis and told them many things they prefer not to hear – including the need for a massive number of troops to battle a growing insurgency – growing while they have been twiddling their thumbs for months.

From Michelle Malkin:

Yes, Dear Leader furious at General McChrystal for showing… leadership.

Related reading:
Registan.net: HIGs are Pigs
Are You Freaking Stupid?: General McChrystal given a stern talking to for daring to point out the truth and not Obama’s version. and Afghanistan has become a war run by Obama’s political needs, not the military. Places politics above soldiers lives. and Obama before: Afghanistan the “war that must be won”, Obama now: Meh, not so much
The Weekly Standard: Obama Insider: McChrystal Too Honest in Military Assessments
California Conservative: President Obama: Worse Than Jimmy Carter?
Neoavatara: Obama V. McChrystal
Publius, Big Government: Coburn: Senate Votes to Prioritize Pork Over National Defense
American Elephants: One of These Things Doesn’t Go With The Other, One of These things Just Doesn’t Belong.
Flopping Aces: 8 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Fiercest Battle Since Wanat
The American Pundit: Report: Obama Mad That McChrystal Is Showing Leadership
Mommy: Sarah Palin:”We Must Do What It Takes to Prevail” in Afghanistan

Categories: Bless Our Troops, Government, Social and Political Climate
Tags: Afghanistan, Air Force One, airport tarmac, anti-military, Copenhagen, Democrat, Denmark, Gen. James Jones, Gen. McChrystal, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, liberal, military, Olympics, political, politics, Pres. Obama, Taliban, troops, war, White House