EMAIL DETAILS

Obama Should Decide, Now, What to do About
McChrystal<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/obama-should-decide-now-what-to-do-about-mcchrystal/58545/>
POLITICS <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/> JUN 22 2010, 4:08 PM
ET Comments
(20)<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/obama-should-decide-now-what-to-do-about-mcchrystal/58545/#disqus_thread>
President Obama will probably speak about Gen. Stanley McChrystal's Rolling
Stone article later in the day, and I expect him to signal two things: 1)
that McChrystal's judgment was poor and that Obama is disappointed in him.
And 2) what's most important is winning the war, and that question will
override any other questions pertaining to a magazine article.

The buzz today inside Washington is that the White House is deliberately
letting McChrystal twist in the wind for a day as a way of showing
displeasure. I don't think this is true. Nothing about this incident is more
harmful to the war effort than the notion that the President and his general
are out of sync. The quicker they get in sync, the better it will be from
the standpoints of our coalition allies and our soldiers. Strategic
communication matters, and this sort of indecision projects weakness in a
way that tangibly harms American interests right now. (McChrystal might
submit his resignation, pro forma, by the way.)

It's clear that Obama's war cabinet (I'm told this includes Vice President
Biden) is quietly advising him NOT to fire McChrystal. Sec. Gates's
statement makes clear that Gates does not believe McChrystal committed a
firing offense. He pivots very quickly to the need to demonstrate "unity"
and talks about "going forward," as if McChrystal's comments were part of a
larger pattern. Whether Obama thinks the article stems from malevolence or
from staff frustrations compounded by McChrystal's lack of political
sophistication, I don't know.

Predictably, many Congressional skeptics of the war effort are calling for
POTUS to fire McChrystal; many supporters are making a distinction between
publicly differing over strategy and complaining/mocking the commander in
chief. I'm not sure that's a very good distinction to make, however, because
the latter could in some circumstances be more harmful than the former.
--
Eric D. Schwerin
Rosemont Seneca Partners
(202) 333-1880
eschwerin@rosemontseneca.co