Op-Ed Columnist - General McChrystal and the Culture of Exposure - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist (David Brooks)- General McChrystal and the Culture of Exposure - NYTimes.com:

David Brooks' take on the sacking of Gen. McChrystal and the media culture of exposure. The underbelly of public and military service has become the target for media. Do Americans win or lose as a result?

Public servants should understand the salacious nature of today'smedia and not get caught in the trap. We can blame the media if we choose to for the sacking of Gen. McChrystal, but smart people ought to know better than vent to reporters, on or off the record.

"The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain.

The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see."

The President Chose the Correct Course

As I blogged yesterday, any President cannot let stand the remarks made by a general [McChrystal in this instance] and his top aides as reported in Rolling Stone magazine. Whatever a magazine's sentiment, anti or pro war/policy in Afghanistan, personal derogatory remarks published and not rebutted as false cannot be allowed to stand by a Commander-in-Chief.

The response to this episode should be professional by people in active or retired military status whether they agree with TeamObama's politics or not. We cannot allow the bedrock Constitutional principle of civilian control of our military erode regardless of our political leanings.

The President acted properly and his statement is correct:

"I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with Gen. McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general, it undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of ourdemocratic system and it erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan."

McChrystal Apologizes for Remarks in Magazine - NYTimes.com

McChrystal Apologizes for Remarks in Magazine - NYTimes.com

Assuming real fire is causing this smoke in the Rolling Stone story, the aesthetic General McChrystal soon will be relieved from his command of the Afghan effort.

TeamObama or any President cannot tolerate this public display of 'attitude' from a top commander in the field. General McChrystal has crossed a line. Whether he's right or wrong makes no difference, a President cannot tolerate and a sage general should never make such remarks.

Nevertheless, with these attitudes out in the open, TeamObama's Afghan policies will gather yet more detractors. In any event, my guess is the military was already not in the TeamObama camp. None of this bodes well for him and his policies

I wonder what Secretary of Defense Gates will say and do? He cannot support McChrystal and remain Secretary.

Update 6/22/10

Gates' initial statement:

"I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of “Rolling Stone” magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person."

Iraq - Exit Strategy - Washington - Military Forces - New York Times

Iraq - Exit Strategy - Washington - Military Forces - New York Times:

This is a fairly long, but insightful, piece about the changes that are needed in how U.S. Army officers think and behave. It's worth a read if you have a military background or are interested in the behaviors of our senior officer corps. When I was in the Army before and during the Viet Nam war as a junior officer, I expected ( and usually found) those senior to me to have more wartime and combat experience than I did, and looked to them for guidance.

Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Junior officers have more tough combat and insurgency experience from their Iraq tours than many senior officers and have begun to question their moral and political fiber. A perfect instance of that is Rumsfeld insisting, and the Bush team agreeing, over the advice of his generals to go to war with too few trained troops on the ground. Some junior officers are questioning why the generals did not stand their ground if they were convinced of the need.

The author suggests, and I agree, that the Army must change behavior in the officer corps and how promotions are decided if we are to successfully adapt to the radical Islamic terror threat. We are in a 'long war' here and I want our military to be the best it can possibly be.

I think the problem may not be as pronounced in the Special Forces/Operations elements of the Army, but" mainstream Army" may need far more versatility and substance.

"Today, President Bush maintains that the nation is in a war against terrorism — what Pentagon officials call “the long war” — in which civilization itself is at stake. Yet six years into this war, the armed forces — not just the Army, but also the Air Force, Navy and Marines — have changed almost nothing about the way their promotional systems and their entire bureaucracies operate. On the lower end of the scale, things have changed — but for the worse. West Point cadets are obligated to stay in the Army for five years after graduating. In a typical year, about a quarter to a third of them decide not to sign on for another term. In 2003, when the class of 1998 faced that decision, only 18 percent quit the force: memories of 9/11 were still vivid; the war in Afghanistan seemed a success; and war in Iraq was under way. Duty called, and it seemed a good time to be an Army officer. But last year, when the 905 officers from the class of 2001 had to make their choice to stay or leave, 44 percent quit the Army. It was the service’s highest loss rate in three decades."