| Tuesday, June
22, 2010
The big news is the McChrystal affair. The left
is already calling it the equivalent of the Truman-MacArthur imbroglio.
Liberal spokespeople
are calling for McChrystal's resignation. I have also heard
populist voices demanding that McChrystal be dismissed and disgraced,
complete with stripping him of his medals and insignia and publicly breaking
his sword for his "disrespect" for the President.
I am just reading the Rolling Stone article that caused all this
controversy. I am not a regular Rolling Stone reader (they did have a couple
of good reviews of my books many years ago, but I didn't find the
publication much to my liking) and it's not easy reading. As I understand
it, the President has ordered the Commanding General of the Afghan War to
come to the White House and "explain" his remarks in Rolling Stone; and the
General has made some sort of apology for those remarks. We may expect a lot
more on this in the next few days.
I wonder why there is any crisis at all. I find it hard to believe that
General McChrystal did not know that Rolling Stone is a populist somewhat
left of center** publication, and that he said anything
to their reporters that he didn't expect to find, with typical spin, all
over the popular press. He certainly could not have expected anything
sympathetic to the military in that publication. It's hard to know what he
thought he was doing, but it's also hard to see what it is he is supposed to
have done. He has not disobeyed any orders. He has implemented the insane
Rules of Engagement imposed by the White House and their Ambassador. He has
apparently said that Obama was "unprepared", which is hardly news; did
anyone think Obama was prepared to assume command? What did he do to prepare
himself? I wouldn't have thought that saying anything unflattering about the
President to Rolling Stone would be a good idea for a commanding general,
even if what was said is manifestly true. It's lese majeste at best, and
although McChrystal is unlikely to lose his head for maiestas as he would
have in the times of Tiberius, it may "cost" him his job. Saying that the
Emperor has no clothes doesn't always have a happy ending outside of fairy
tales.
Of course that's not inevitable. At the moment, McChrystal is restrained
by both law and tradition from being really critical of the President's
handling of the war, and the silly Rules of Engagement that have been
imposed, and the less than brilliant leadership of the civilian overseers of
our expeditionary wars. If the President dismisses him, those restraints are
gone. You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, but it's a bit hard to
see how the President comes off well here.
In the Truman-MacArthur controversy there were serious issues at stake,
not just civilian command authority -- after all, no one including MacArthur
questioned that -- but what place the Korean War had in the American Cold
War strategy, and whether conscript soldiers could be sent into a war that
we did not intend to win. "There is no substitute for Victory." MacArthur
thundered. When America goes to war, she goes to war. Don't Tread on Me.
Truman worried about the risk of nuclear war, about just what would be
the cost of China actually entering the war rather than maintaining the
fiction of a "volunteer" expeditionary force, of expanding the war to
include naval operations, Japan, Formosa (at the time recognized by the US
as the Republic of China and the only legitimate government of China); of
driving Mao and Stalin into a closer alliance. Was Containment a legitimate
strategy, or must the US undertake to roll back Communism? How far should we
back Generalissimo Chiang? Recall that Madame Chiang, a Christian, was quite
popular among many in the US.
These issues are debatable even now that the Cold War has ended with the
collapse of the USSR and the conversion of the People's Republic of China
from a totalitarian regime of irrational Maoists into an authoritarian
gerontologic oligarchy reminiscent of Franco's Spain -- economic but not
political freedom.
Return to the crisis caused by a general's off handed remarks about the
President's state of preparedness. Why is this a crisis at all? It did not
need to be one: the President created it by summoning McChrystal to the
White House. Where is this going? Is it a crisis that must not be wasted?
One result of the McChrystal incident is to distract us from the upcoming
Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Kagan; from the oil spill; from the
coming collapse of the health care system as more and more employers realize
that they cannot afford ObamaCare; from the executive action of implementing
ObamaCare in 2010, not in 2014; from the $20 billion dollar slush fund to be
handed out by political appointees; from the myriad issues that caused
Thomas Sowell to wonder if we are not already on
The Slippery Slope to Tyranny.
Another result may be an actual meaningful debate on the simple question
of Why Are We In Afghanistan?
Many years ago I was asked in a televised debate what should be be
strategy for Viet Nam. I said "Win it and get out." Allard Lowenstein said
to me, "But Jerry, your friends in the Administration want to lose it and
stay in." Of course McNamara and his people were hardly my friends, as
Allard knew; but it was a fair observation. Obama decided to stay in but
send fewer troops than McChrystal asked for. Why?
As we come closer to November, expect many more incidents and crises that
must not be wasted. And see below.
=====================
Bob Null, RIP
A very old friend, twenty times the Vice President of the Los Angeles
Science Fantasy Society (LASFS), and nearly always present at meetings. He
was getting radiation treatments at the Kaiser Sunset facility where I went,
and for some years those had gone well, but lately things had not been going
so well. We were old friends but not close friends, fellow survivors who
exchanged greetings and good will. For many years he gave LASFS the benefit
of his steady judgment and quiet competence. Farewell.
==============
Waiving the Jones Act.
No fewer than twelve nations along with the U.N.
offered assistance to the U.S. following the blowout: Canada, Croatia,
France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, the
Republic of Korea, Spain, and Sweden. It's not accurate to say that all
were turned down, because some apparently received no answer at all.
The culprit here appears to be the Merchant Marine
Act of 1920, AKA the Jones Act, which requires that all commercial vessels
operating in U.S. waters be American-owned, constructed, and crewed. (A
quick read of the act suggests that it was intended only in reference to
merchant bottoms, but such laws usually are interpreted in the broadest
manner possible.)
Both Dutch and Belgian companies experienced in oil
spill cleanup offered their services only to be turned down. Using
specialist vessels, the Belgians and Dutch could clean the spill in three
to four months. Only a half-dozen such ships exist, none owned by U.S.
companies.
http://www.americanthinker.com/
2010/06/barack_and_bureaucracy.html
President Obama had the opportunity to waive the
Jones Act as President Bush did after Katrina.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/21/
robert-bluey-gulf-spill-katrina-jones-act-waive-obama/
Why didn't he?
Lawrence
It's a good question. Could it be that no one thought of it?
I can't believe that union politics ruled in a situation of this gravity.
Why didn't the President suspend the Jones Act for this crisis? I really
can't think why not.
=======================
Jerry,
Many of your readers may know this, but some may
not. All members of the military are subject to the uniform code of
military justice or UCMJ. Article 88 prohibits contempt toward officials.
Specifically "Commisioned officers may not use contemptuous words against
the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or
the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or
possession". On the face of it the General is guilty.
I think he is being truthful and that is
observations are correct, but he was not allowed to say them. At this
point I think his only option will be to resign.
Jim Cook
First, it is not established that
the General said anything at all; we only know what a not always reliable
source says that he said. Leave that. Assume the Rolling Stone article is
perfectly factual. It then has to be established that to say the President
was unprepared is contemptuous, and that saying so in a bar in an informal
and theoretically off the record meeting is to "use contemptuous words"
within the meaning of the Act. Would it be contemptuous to say that the
President is clean and articulate? I presume that proving 'contempt'
has to be done by a General Court Martial, not by the press or by the White
House. I doubt very seriously if any such Court will be convened; certainly
the question of whether or not the President was prepared and how he prepared
himself would come up in any such trial.
Of course the President has the constitutional authority to
relieve McChrystal of his command. And McChrystal has the option of
resigning.
The problem is that the President was and still is
unprepared for this war. He is also ambiguous about it. He doesn't want to
be there and he doesn't know how to get out. He was unwilling simply to cut
and run -- which he undoubtedly wanted to do the day after his inauguration
-- because of the consequences. He sent in enough troops to keep us
there without disaster, but not enough to win. He put unprepared and unfit
people in charge of framing the Rules of Engagement and the general tactics
of the war. He let Nuts have control of vital aspects of the War. He
remained less than knowledgeable about many of the important aspects of the
war or of this kind of war, but did not compensate by allowing those who do
know something of war be in charge of it. He doesn't know if the war is
winnable or not.
Were I McChrystal I would probably go to the meeting with
the President, resign, and come out of the meeting with the message "He's
still not prepared." At least I'd dream of it. Whether or not I'd do it is
another matter. I once asked Charles Beckwith why he led the mission into
Iran, given that he knew there were insufficient resources to accomplish the
mission, and it was likely to lead to disaster without a miracle. He said,
"Son, when the President of the United States stands you up in front of his
desk and says 'You are the best man to lead this mission. Your resignation
is not accepted,' you shut up and soldier." The resulting events in the
Iranian desert were not as big a disaster as it could have been, but
it wasn't very good outcome either.
The President would probably very much like to dismiss
McChrystal and use him as an excuse to cut and run, but if he dismisses
McChrystal the general is free to comment on the President's preparedness.
It will be interesting to see what happens. I sure don't know. In the time
of Tiberius Caesar maiestas was a capital crime, and many of the Senators
and many of the equestrian order died of it. We have not come to that in our
Republic. McChrystal can be glad of that.
================
Note that the UCMJ protected Bremer from the truth. Bremer
was arrogantly incompetent. He deserved contempt. An eyewitness says
Bremer walked into the
palace they were working from for the first time and told General Sanchez
"you're out of here, leave". Bremer was a foul mouthed ass.
This is pretty apparent from Bremer's book, which makes it
clear that this inept proconsul had no clue as the effects of his actions.
Perhaps the world would be a different place if someone had treated him with
the contempt he deserved then demanded a Court Martial, with the defense
that the contempt was deserved. Why Bush sent this monumental incompetent
isn't known; he was apparently selected by the State Department.
============
"We who preach and write
books ... write while we make progress. We learn something new every day. We
dictate at the same time as we explore. We speak as we are still knocking
for understanding". Augustine of Hippo
=======================
** "Left of Center" is a term used by the popular
press, and usually is thought of as more or less synonymous with "liberal
socialist." It's a very imprecise term. Many years ago I wrote my PhD
dissertation on the unreality of the "left-right" political spectrum and its
lack of utility in serious political discourse. Instead I offered the
"Pournelle Axis". I explained all that in an article written for one or
another of my anthologies, and sharpened with the help of Jim Baen's
editorial skills. The result was a column which Jim liked enough to publish
in several places along with his comments.
You can find it here.
The political spectrum has changed in some ways since I wrote that.
Tuesday TOP
Current Mail
|
