Did White House give a dressing-down to Gen. McChrystal for publicly objecting to new strategy?

It started in London last week, when Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who heads U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, told an audience at the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that he does not support a new military strategy being floated privately by Vice President Joe Biden.

The idea, under review at the White House, is to withdraw troops from Afghanistan towns and refocus them on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where Al Qaeda forces are headquartered. The alternative strategy also envisions using more drone missile strikes and special forces ops against the terrorist network.

During his remarks in London, McChrystal predicted that such a plan was "short-sighted," that it would produce "Chaos-istan" and that he would not support it.

Now, London's Telegraph is reporting that White House advisers were "shocked and angered" by the bluntness of McChrystal's remarks and noting that the very next day President Obama summoned the general for a 25-minute, one-on-one meeting aboard Air Force One as it sat on the runway in Copenhagen after the president's unsuccessful bid to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago.

Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones told CBS on Sunday: "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."

In fact, in a series of Sunday talk show appearances, Jones, a retired Marine general and former Allied commander in Europe, carried the administration's message that the military -- perhaps conditioned by the Bush administration to expect its opinions to reign -- had better respect civilian command.

"Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command," Jones told CNN. "I think that Gen. McChrystal and the others in the chain of command will present the president with not just one option, which does, in fact, tend to have a ... enforcing function, but a range of options that the president can consider."

I think in military lingo they call that a dressing-down.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: President Obama and Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Credit: Pete Souza / White House

Click here for Twitter alerts of each Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot or on Facebook here. 

Comments

[Tony in Maine]

Senior military got used to the Bush hands-off approach. Pre-Bush, generals carried out policy made by politicians because the commander in a specific theater has a parochial view rather than a global view. Bush's management, actually lack of management, left him time to clear brush in Texas - perhaps a better use of his talents.

[GM186]

When Presidents don't listent to Generals, we loose wars.

[ConcernedJane]

God forbid we actually listen to someone who knows military strategy, not a pres and vice pres who have NO MILITARY service to speak of. It's like accepting directions for a surgery for someone who's never been to medical school. We are in big trouble in this country.

[Ashok Patel]

Old boy should have been fired from command when he shot his mouth first time.

[Charles Flemming]

It may be a "dressing down" in military lingo, but in political lingo, it's just tone deaf and stupid.

[Heather]

Amazing don't you think, that a General who disagreed publically with the President would have been hailed as a hero by the liberal left, but only during the Bush Presidency.

Now the rules are different; there is a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Now liberals have suddenly found respect for the military chain of command.

Liberals praised the whistle blowers; but they better not blow that whistle now! A democrat is in the Whitehouse!

[JackTar]

Umm, let's see. Obammy and Biden have exactly how much military experience bewteen them?

Oh yeah. NONE.

[Pete]

So when the incompetent in the White House does not respond and tell the Commander not to send it reports or requests for support for the troops under his command what is he supposed to do? A good Commander puts the interest of his troops over the dithering of an incompetent putz in the White House. McCrystal will likely resign over this. Moral in the military will further decline as they realize their lives are being put at risk with incompetence.

[Cattledogs]

Get over it Barack. Leave the hard stuff to those who understand it.

[Tom Worth]

It looks like the only thing McChrystal cares about is winning the war.
Biden, et. al., prioritize public opinion and winning the war as equals. That's why we'll lose the war.
Was it politically popular for Caesar to crush Pompey and later Antony? NO!!! But he did it anyway, because all he cared about was winning the civil wars.
Not saying it's right or wrong; just saying that it is, period.

[Robert NO longer in LA]

Do you wonder what crackpot from the Academies came up with the 'brilliant' strategy to use a few of our noble troops as BAIT, in remote outposts, without IMMEDIATE support? Does the President have any power to TERMINATE the crackpots behind this 'brilliant' strategy, no doubt devised by some REAR ECHELON MIKE FOXTROT, or perhaps it was that brilliant 'Napoleon' of Mission Accomplished, Gomer W Bush? Maybe, McChrystal is just another Westmoreland?

[Rob Troxel]

When you have an administration that has never served in uniform, you get an apeasing cowardly direction. Our enemys couldn't be happier. Obama can "talk the talk" but has never "walked the walk".

[Mark Gordon]

This is the biggest weakness of Democrats....war. They absolutely cannot fathom the resources required to win. They are very good at social engineering expiriments and keeping people in jobs by taxing people so there is enough government jobs for them, but they cannot win in a wartime scenario. Proven time and agoin.

It will happen here as well. By letting the limp-wristed opnions reign, they have effectively tossed Afghanistan to the wolves.

Niiiiice.....you can expect some more planes to crash into some buildings here in the U.S. soon...or, who knows? Maybe even a crude nuclear device coming to a city near you!

Enjoy burying the dead of America people.....you voted these 'tards into power.

[Curtis Lacy]

Here we go again, down the path taken in Iraq, where Petraeus and Odierno had to struggle against the civilians (Cheney/Rumsfeld) to obtain approval for their plan for changing the emphasis in Iraq to providing security for the civilians, then forming alliances with local chieftains. Their policy reversed the headlong plunge into failure which the civilians had been running for about four years. Now the civilian (Biden) is interposing his opinions again. Fair enough, but if experience is any guide, the military should be given a full, fair, courteous hearing, not a dressing down. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[John Colwell]

Obama never ran as much as a lemonade stand. Biden's genious speaks for itself. And here we have a highly decorated, career general who is on the ground in Afghanistan calling for help and being ignored by these two bozos.

The lives of our young men and women are being put in jeopardy while these clowns try to figure out which way the political wind is blowing. It's a disgrace.

[michael]

Cheney and Rumsfeld would have canned this General for such insubordination, just as they canned Eric Shinseki. Even though General Shinseki was absolutely right, the truth has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

[Okpulot Taha]

Barack Obama needs a fierce dressing down from our military; Obama has not a single clue about military strategy.

Amongst the most critical mistakes America made in Vietnam is "taking a hill" then moving on rather than securing. Obama is promoting the same failed policy as in Vietnam, our "Bungle in the Jungle".

Obama is setting a policy which will have our military off on a high loss wild goose chase. Obama will have our military boys and girls being led around and led into devastating ambush type attacks.

Obama is playing right into the hands of our enemies.

This is Vietnam, deja vu.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

[B.K.M.]

You cannot cast an allegation based on your opinion, "I think... they call that a dressing down." Your statement of personal opinion bears no facts on the story.

Since the General is not alleged to have done anything wrong, he is not being "dressed down."

Jones' comments also seemed to imply that McCrystal was being disrepectful of his commander. There are no facts to substantiate such an allegation. The General has provided his assessment of the situation and his advice. Jones' admits it is not only right, but best to consider the advice coming from the field rather than unilaterally enforce the White House's political agenda.

The thing at stake here is the Afghan people. If McCrystal is ignored, this administration may forsake Afghan security to pursue its enemies in Pakistan and Iran at the cost of the Afghan people. It may be logical, but it's inhuman and Biden is neither the Commander in Chief nor is he recognized as a brilliant military strategist.

[che]

Obama was 150% right. Who is McChrystal to leak reports. The military reports to the President. Obama should fire him.

[DaveZ]

Can anybody say, "MacAuthur"? as in MacAuthur vs Truman?

[Shalom Freedman]

McChrystal has reported his military assessment of what is required in order for the U.S. to do the job in Afghanistan. He is as I understand it considered a soldier of extraordinary ability and integrity. He is now being rebuked for political reasons. This does not seem at all fair.

[K A]

Well its too bad yet again that a politician who's sole military experience comes from reading Tom Clancy novels (Biden) thinks he knows how to run a war for us..

[stewart]

If the general doesnt like it he can always do the honorable thing and resign, after all thats what a few hundred senior officers did during the previous administartion over torture, rendition, and other issues that have come under severe condemnation upheld by the fact and the law.
God Bless Joe Biden!

[Chris]

In the photo accompanying the article, McCrystal gives the appearance of being unrespectful and in fact, perhaps full of hatred towards the President he supposedly serves. Is it possible, McCrystal's background has touches of White Supremcy mixed with Right-Wing Evangelical Christianity? Perhaps, despite his history and skill with Special Forces Operations, he is not a man whose intelligence and judgement is subtle enough to deal with a very ambiguous and complex situation without any simple answers or simplistic solution..........

[Mir]

Well what did you expect from the known liar and political general McChrystal? He should have been forcibly retired after the Tillman debacle.