The Leftmedia reported this week that “The One” was unhappy with his commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. Shortly after the publication of a leaked report warning of a high potential for failure without additional forces, the general publicly disclosed his request to the commander in chief for 40,000 additional troops. Gen McChrystal currently leads 68,000 U.S. as well as 100,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan.
In advocating his position — actually, the president’s position announced by Obama in March — Gen. McChrystal flatly rejected a diametrically opposed half-measure favored by many leftists, including Vice President Joseph Biden. That alternative favors a significantly scaled-back presence composed of unmanned aerial vehicles and Special Operations forces, a move McChrystal characterized as leading to “Chaos-istan” — this state is also known as “Democrat-istan,” but we digress. The general further highlighted the folly of this option metaphorically, remarking, “You can’t hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn.”
Of course, liberals immediately launched the Newspeak juggernaut to undermine both McChrystal and his request. Tactics included hauling out the usual “experts” to comment on the “constitutionality” of the general’s “insubordination,” and of course the inevitable comparison to Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his high-visibility firing by President Harry Truman during the Korean conflict. Unfortunately, logic and an objective understanding of history have never been a strong suit for Dim-o-crats, as evidenced by their failure to appreciate the substantial disconnect deriving from the MacArthur-McChrystal comparison.
In the former case, MacArthur disobeyed a direct order by the president to sue for a negotiated peace, instead issuing his own call for victory and public announcement that U.S. forces could easily defeat opposing forces in battle. Truman promptly removed the general for blatantly disobeying orders and challenging authority. In contrast, if anything, Gen. McChrystal’s remarks simply detailed conditions necessary to satisfy the administration’s policy mandated when he assumed command in Afghanistan.
For our part, we believe Gen. McChrystal understands the score very well in Afghanistan. Having weighed the options, he took a calculated gamble to use the media to place the onus on Obama to follow through with his stipulated policy. Gen. McChrystal and, more importantly, his troops lose that gamble only if he receives just enough support from the Obama administration not to get the job done. Of course, that would never happen — right?