It seems that all persons with blue eyes are descended from a single common ancestor. Before that moment, which occurred in a lone genetic mutation between six and ten thousand years ago, all human eyes were brown.
The McChrystal decision
A few new and interesting tidbits on the decision process:
(1) it was made quickly, in near-record time for the usually Hamlet-like Obama
(2) Secretary of Defense Gates initially advised against it, because he believed that McChrystal was vital to the war effort
(3) Obama’s audience with McChrystal lasted a mere 30 minutes
(4) although ostensibly the decision as to who would replace McChrystal was not made till after the firing/resignation, Petraeus was already waiting in the White House Situation Room
I offer the further observation that it is deeply ironic that Obama has chosen General Petraeus in order to implement an Afghan equivalent of the surge that Senator Obama criticized so heavily and so long in Iraq (including disapproval of Petraeus’s decisions)—despite, and even long after, its success there. When it was politically expedient, Petraeus was no good. Now that Obama needs him—well, politics makes strange bedfellows.
One wonders…
…whether environmental activists are really as upset about the consequences of the oil spill as they say they are. They’re certainly not acting like it.
Reflections on the Rolling Stone McChrystal article
Well, I’ve read the article that may be the undoing of General McChrystal’s military career, and perhaps even the Afghan war itself [I wrote that sentence before I saw the breaking news that McChrystal is gone and Petraeus has been named to replace him, a good choice, IMHO]. Who would have thought Rolling Stone would make history of this sort?
Not I. And perhaps not even McChrystal and his staff—although if not, they were tremendously naive and foolish.
And apparently not Michael Hastings, the man who wrote the piece, who professes in an interview of his own with Newsweek that he failed to see the brouhaha coming:
I’m actually shocked by the response. Because usually we end up ignoring Afghanistan, so I’m quite surprised it’s creating such a stir. I knew I had some decent material to work with, but I’m surprised at the level of involvement.
Well, having now read the article itself rather than just summaries of it, color me unsurprised at the flurry of attention (or course, hindsight is 20/20). I also see no reason to revise anything I wrote yesterday, the gist of which was that (1) it’s no surprise that McChrystal and staff were annoyed at Obama; but (2) it’s a big and very unfortunate surprise that they so openly voiced their dissatisfaction in front of a reporter of any sort, much less this one.
It seems, according to the Hastings interview, that McChrystal and staff only signed on for a two-day exposure to him, but that, due to (of all things) the Iceland volcano, the relationship ended up stretching into a month-long stay. It seems they let down their guard and began to forget—even though they never should have—that he was a reporter, and that everything they did and said was fodder for the mill of his particular sensibility. If so, this was an error of major proportions on their part. But perhaps, instead, the access and exposure was a deliberate attempt to get the word out, come what may.
A few more observations on the piece itself: it’s written in the modern style in which liberal use of the f-word telegraph’s the writer’s toughness and grit (and no, it’s not just the military who are cussing freely, it’s the author himself in his more descriptive moments, such as this one, that occurs very early in the article, and gives you an idea of its macho tone):
McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you’ve fucked up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice.
There’s actually a great deal more in the piece than the revelations about McChrystal and the Obama administration and its representatives, although that’s all we seem to hear about. There’s a lot of griping about the rules of engagement in this war, an important and valid controversy in any asymmetrical conflict in which we fight against a clandestine group infiltrated among the general population of a country.
Hastings throws in some gratuitous observations that are meant, I would guess, to be uncritically accepted by his generally liberal readership. For example, he writes, “A few days later, [McChrystal] echoed the [Bush’s] Mission Accomplished gaffe by insisting that major combat operations in Iraq were over”—when in fact they were over; Hastings makes no attempt to distinguish between major combat operations against Saddam Hussein’s military forces (which in fact was the aspect of the war to which Bush and McChrystal were referring) and the very different insurgency struggle which formed subsequently.
In other portions of his piece, Hastings makes it clear that he does not believe counter-insurgency operations can succeed in Afghanistan, and refers to their having been based at least in part on our failed policies in Vietnam. What he ignores is what many people ignore—the revisionist history of that war, which I’ve written about in a series of posts that can be found here—that indicate that the war against the Vietnamese insurgency was actually won on the battlefield but lost in the arena of public opinion in this country, shaped in part by a hostile press.
No one can possibly be happy with the Hastings article, with the possible exception of Hastings himself—who is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame and may try to segue it into more of the same—the editors of Rolling Stone, and Hillary Clinton, the single politician who comes off with praise in the Hastings piece. Even President Obama is probably highly displeased. The article not only exposes him to ridicule, it forces him into a situation in which he must make a decision (even failing to let McChrystal go is a decision of sorts), and in which none of the possible choices seems like a good one at this critical juncture in the Afghan conflict [NOTE: again, with the news of Petraeus’s appointment, I think Obama made the best decision possible, actually. Maybe it will even turn out to be a good one, and the whole thing a fortuitous opportunity to improve the Afghan situation—unless Petraeus is hobbled in the same way McChrystal was. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that he will be far more savvy about PR and press relations. Ever since Vietnam, these considerations have become nearly as important as the conduct of a war itself, since the military should always assume the press is hostile to the endeavor.]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a cynical comment found at Gateway Pundit:
Obama picked Gen. Petraeus to destroy his career, and make it so that he can’t run in 2012.
I don’t think that was Obama’s primary motivation. I think he made this choice in an attempt to get out of a bad situation and also possibly retrieve something of value in Afghanistan. After all, to a certain extent, Obama “owns” the Afghan conflict now.
But if Petraeus’s mission does not succeed (and there’s a good chance it will not), it would certainly have the added perk (from Obama’s point of view) of hurting Petraeus’s chances of a successful run for office in 2012, if he has that in mind. But I’m not at all sure he has that in mind.]
[ADDENDUM II: Jules Crittenden has some trenchant observations on the subject. As does Gerard Vanderleun.]
Beware the lame-duck Congress: is cap and trade dead?
There have been so many issues coming up fast and furious lately that the mind reels.
But remember cap and trade? This administration does. Here’s my new PJ article speculating on what they might do about it.
A heartfelt thanks
My semi-annual week of asking for donations has ended, and I want to thank everyone who contributed. It’s a cliche, but it bears repeating: no matter how small or large, every amount is deeply appreciated.
In these difficult financial times in particular, I know it’s not always easy. If you weren’t able to donate this time, maybe next time. Or maybe never, and that’s okay too. I appreciate every reader and commenter here. After all, without you, what would this blog be?
Many, many thanks.
How to get Obama’s attention: insult him
Funny thing, isn’t it, how quickly McChrystal was summoned for a White House audience for his insubordination, whereas back when the president was mulling over the Afghanistan troop request, McChrystal could barely get a word with his commander-in-chief?
The following is from a report in September of 2009 (note, also, the contrast with Bush):
General McChrystal has not spoken with Mr. Obama since submitting his grim assessment of the war a month ago and has spoken with him only once in the 100 days since he took command of all American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The lack of direct communication has generated criticism and fueled suspicions of strains between the White House and Kabul.
Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made a point of speaking with his Iraq commander roughly once a week at the height of the war there, a habit that forged a close working relationship between them even if it effectively bypassed the normal chain of command. Mr. Obama’s aides said he relied on General McChrystal’s advice but did not feel the need to duplicate Mr. Bush’s personal engagement with battlefield generals.
The imperious presidency. Whatever happened to “dialogue?” I guess that’s just for enemies.
[ADDENDUM: Stars and Stripes reminds us that McChrystal was Obama’s “hand-picked” general.]
Loose lips: the McChrystal article
General Stanley McChrystal, top guy in Afghanistan, was summoned to the White House with some splainin to do after an incendiary piece appeared in Rolling Stone in which the general and his aides criticized the US ambassador to Afghanistan, as well as President Obama and much of his administration, for its handling of Afghanistan.
I’m no fan of Obama. Nor do I have a military background. And yet even I know that what McChrystal did (or allowed to have done) in this piece is a no-no. Perhaps offering such public criticism is marginally acceptable once a military officer has retired, but certainly not while in the thick of things. Even afterwards, it can be controversial.
There are military codes of behavior and there are informal military traditions, and neither of them encompasses public criticism of a commander-in-chief, no matter what the disagreement. McChrystal could not have been so naive as to know that he did not risk being fired from his command and even further embarrassed and/or disciplined as a result, and blaming it on a civilian press aide (who already been fired as a result of the article) just doesn’t wash.
Disclaimer: I have not yet had time to read the Rolling Stone piece, just summaries and excerpts, although I certainly plan to read it later today. So I don’t know how many of the statements came directly from McChrystal and how many from his underlings. But it almost doesn’t matter; the article was written with his approval.
While I’m sure it was mega-frustrating to deal with Obama and his staff, McChrystal needed to approach this some other way. One wonders why he did not. Was he purposely falling on his sword, sacrificing a career that seemed increasingly worthless under the circumstances, in order to get the truth out about this administration (one he voted for, by the way)?
Was he driven temporarily insane by dealing with a president who seemed to understand nothing about the conduct of war, and who endlessly pondered, Hamlet-like, while McChrystal’s urgent requests for more troops went unanswered? Or did Rolling Stone end up slipping him and/or his aides a dram of sodium pentathol to make them talk?
[ADDENDUM: Here’s an interesting take on the matter from Blackfive.]
And now for something completely different
[Hat tip (literally): Vanderleun at American Digest.]
It’s not easy to look good in a hat, although it helps to be beautiful to begin with, and to have classic features and well-defined cheekbones. Hats used to be part of most people’s regular prescribed attire, fancy ones for the rich and caps and scarfs and wimplish things for the laborers and peasants.
No more. The hat has mostly disappeared, except for the ubiquitous baseball cap, sometimes word backwards, and the balaclava for ski outings and other bitterly cold days.
But every year the decorative and ceremonial hat makes a reappearance at the Ascot horse races in England. And not just a revival, an outburst of enthusiastic creativity and commentary, all the more exuberant for having been so long pent-up.
Here’s a site devoted to some of the more memorable from this year’s event. I reproduce a few below:
Steyn on anti-Semitism
This Mark Steyn piece is well worth reading. In it, he offers an excellent description of that widespread, long-lasting, multi-faceted, over-determined, much-explained yet ultimately mysterious phenomenon: anti-Semitism.
Wherever a Jew is, whatever a Jew is, he should be something else somewhere else. And then he can be hated for that, too.
Is Rahm on the way out?
Richard Fernandez speculates on the news that Rahm Emanuel is planning to leave the White House by the end of the year.
As with most administrations, the true story of the inner workings of Obama’s has yet to be told, and perhaps will only be learned after the fact, if then. But his seems especially opaque and cryptic, and we are left reading tea leaves, much like the old Kremlinologists.
Here’s Fernandez’s re-write of, if not the truth, then the message Rahm wants to convey:
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is threatening to leave his job later this year unless Barack Obama gets real. Rahm has made a lot of personal sacrifices to join the White House. He gave up being a congressman, Chicago deep dish pizza and being a father to his children for what? To be blamed as abrasive when the midterm disaster unfolds. No way he’s taking the fall for that. But just to show the boss he’s not scared, not a rat ”” not until the last moment anyway ”” he’ll stay until the midterm disaster makes it absolutely clear that all his warnings about futzing around have come true. And just in case you think Emanuel is yellow, remember that’s he willing to take on Richard Daley. And think on this. When all you inner circlers are walking the streets in DC rattling pencil cups and looking for a job, Rahm’s going to be mayor of the Windy City.
And here’s the original Telegraph story on which Fernandez is elaborating. It underlines earlier reports of a rift between Emanuel the Semi-Outsider and the highly influential Gang of Three, Jarrett, Gibbs, and Axelrod, who seem to have consolidated their already-formidable power.
One of the points the Telegraph article makes is that Rahm has engendered “frustration among Mr Obama’s closest advisers that he failed to deliver a smooth ride for the president’s legislative programme that his background promised.” Speaking of wanting miracles! If that statement is true (and we do need to take it all with a grain of salt), it is unbelievable that Rahm was expected to whip the Democrats into line on these votes any more than he already had. He would had to have sent all the recalcitrant Democrats dead fish, and put a horse’s head in each of their beds, to have accomplished that daunting feat.
What an odd notion—that it’s all about discipline and that Bush just had better discipline. Could it not instead be that, for the main part, Bush’s proposals were actually less extreme— and more popular with the Republicans in Congress, their constituents, and the American people as a whole—so that those who voted for them didn’t risk being thrown out on their ears as a result?
Obama rubber, Bush glue
Isn’t it interesting how those defending Obama seem to have come down for the most part to the repetition of a single assertion: “Bush did it, too!”
Their statement isn’t even necessarily true, although sometimes it is. Nor is the scale usually equivalent, such as with the example of the extent of Obama’s and Bush’s respective deficit spending. But it’s deeply ironic, is it not, that nearly all they’re left with is comparison to the man most Obama supporters consider to be the worst president in history, both an evil knave and a stupid fool.
Gone is the great orator. Gone the transformative uniter and the three-D chess player. Gone, too, the fixer of oceans and the engenderer of leg thrills, the closer of terrorist prisons and the withdrawerer from wars.
They are left with the single comeback: “bounces off Obama and sticks to Bush.” It was old even during the campaign, and yet it worked back then. But now, Obama’s teflon coating has worn thin—and Bush’s adhesive qualities seem to have faded away, leaving him to enjoy his retirement down in Dallas and Crawford, where two grateful towns are no longer missing their village idiot.