Chain of Command

Posted by Grant Muioc on 10.07.2009

Obama and McChrystal, and the decision making problems of Afghanistan

Everyone in the military has a clear chain of command. It is the first part of the military culture that all recruits are exposed too. The process of learning to take commands from strangers is hard, grueling and humbling. The chain of command keeps people in combat. Leaders have to give orders and the chain of command has follows them. Someone makes the decision to sacrifice the 1st squad so the platoon can take the hill. It's not easy being the leader and most people are not cut out for it.

There is an old military saying "Make the decision before the decision makes you". It means that leaders need to act before inaction forces them to do something that they don't intend to do. Leaders are in positions to make things happen, not manage routine processes. They bring about change. They handle crisis. They are the ones who say "follow me". Leaders are the people who risk their reputations to make things happen, they do so at their peril and those of their followers.

General Stanley McChrystal is one of these people. He is a leader. He makes decisions.

President Barack Obama is also a leader. He is the legally elected President of the United States, and he is the Commander in Chief. Obama is responsible for the actions of the military and the military answer to him. He is the top of the military chain of command. Congress may have the authority to let a President go to war, but the President alone has the authority to command troops.

But power, authority and responsibility mean nothing if decisions are not being made. In war a lack of decision means a lack of direction, and aimlessly roaming around a battlefield awaiting orders is stupid and deadly.

Obama wanted a manager for the Afghan war while he contemplated a new strategy that would give him a much needed, and promised, military victory. The strategy Obama was seeking required an open hand, cultural awareness and the ability to build a democratic country. This strategy is not bad, it is actually very effective when dealing with a massive insurgency during stability and support operations. Obama's problem is that to execute such a strategy requires a great deal of security for both the military forces and the local people to be effective. Obama knows that increasing troop levels in Afghanistan will put him at political odds with a majority of liberal congress members. With debates surrounding so many of Obama's current agendas he risks dividing his base even further.

President Obama appointed General McChrystal to replace the very popular General David McKieran. McKieran was the commander of Afghanistan for years; he was also a close confidant of both General Petraeus and General Odierno. Replacing of McKieran was Obama's attempt to nullify the political popularity of the highly successful "Bush Commanders" who changed the fortunes of the Iraq War. It is well known that Petraeus recommend McKieran, and recent news stories have indicated that Petraeus (like all most popular generals) may have political ambitions that rival Obama's agenda.

Obama has completely miscalculated the political savvy of the Generals who serve him. These men have been playing military politics before Obama was a state senator. I served under both Petraeus and Odierno, they were theater commanders while I was deployed in Iraq, and they have done more for the warfighters than any politician in Washington ever could hope to do. Odierno continued to serve even after his own son lost his arm in RPG attack in Baghdad.

President Bush had his share of commanders who called the "Rumsfeld Strategy" during the initial part of the Iraq War a failure. The "Rumsfeld Strategy" was so poorly thought out that the entire plan hinged on the idea that Iraqis would greet us with open arms. They did for the most part, until everyone else in the Middle-East, the remnants of the Saddam Baath Party and Al-Qaeda decided not to play along. The undermanned operation was in jeopardy from the moment the invasion was over. Most people don't understand how few troops were actually in Iraq right after the invasion. During the first Gulf War the Americans commanded a Coalition of over 12 combat divisions that only penetrated a few hundred miles into Iraqi terrain. For Operation Iraqi Freedom the US and UK only had about five combat divisions to invade the entire country. I was on an airstrip waiting for three weeks before the invasion, our orders where cancelled at the last minute and we watched "Shock and Awe" from a TV screen during a field exercise. We were not impressed to say the least, but amazed by quickly the invasion took place and how few casualties were being taken.

The insurgency took off due to miscalculations in troop strength required to hold the terrain. The low troop counts made it possible for insurgent groups to move in and fortify portions of the country, namely Sadr City, Fallujah, Najaf and Ramadi. It took about a year for the military to realize that there is a major problem with the current strategy, and another three years before someone actually made a decision to do something about it. Casualties soared, public opinion on the war turned and the Republicans lost all momentum on linking the overall War of Terror to why we were in Iraq.

Major Generals John Batiste and Paul Eaton both retired before publically shaming Bush and the initial Iraq War strategy. They made sure that they had retirement checks before speaking out publically, because they refused to resign out of disagreement. Resigning in protest would have forfeited their retirement benefits. They took their money in hand before running to media to become talking heads that "expertly" cited the reasons for failure. They never offered solutions to those who served them in combat, just after the fact. I find it disgraceful, but I'm sure others would disagree. A real general knows how to fall on his own sword, not retire and yell from the sidelines with pension when troop's lives are on the line. I'm sure they tried their best.

Bush listened to the commanders who spoke up. Petraeus and Odierno offered a solution on how to win the war. They dumped Rumsfeld, the Rumsfeld strategy and offered up the "Surge". The "Surge" was a massive influx of fresh troops to augment the skeleton force mandated by Rumsfeld (and approved by Bush). This time period was turned the tide of the Iraq War, an event that Obama himself during the election praised- even after he voted against the idea in congress.

Obama sought out his own highly popular military commander in McChrystal. Obama picked the wrong man. McChrystal is not a manager. McChrystal is a leader. Managers maintain the status quo, while leaders implement change. Great military leaders make decisions in the absence of guidance. They know what needs to be done to achieve victory. McChrystal severed in Iraq when it was at its worst, he did not retire and collect a pension for the rest of life in protest. He stepped up and began to make changes in the way the US operates in that country.

McChrystal is the man responsible for killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most dangerous terrorist leader to ever operate in Iraq. Zarqawi was the "Keyser Söze" of Iraq for years; he was responsible for thousands of deaths both Iraqi and Coalition. McChrystal's unit found him, killed him, and McChrystal himself identified the body. How was he thanked by the liberals in Congress? They investigated his unit for "harsh interrogation tactics", punished his Soldiers and ran his name through the mud.

McChrystal has the responsibility to publically challenge the President of the United States. He has a duty to his troops to do what is in their best interest, not Obama's. The media says that McChrystal should simply "salute and drive on", but the reality is that it's hard to follow orders when they don't exist. The whole argument of simply "saluting and driving on" cost us thousands of troops in Iraq so why the hell should that apply for Afghanistan. Leaders like McChrystal have already identified the problems in Afghanistan, Obama's current strategy and have given the solution to make it work…why is Obama not listening to him? I don't believe that history repeats itself, but I do believe that men in power have giant fucking egos.

Reports last week indicated that Obama had spoken to McChrystal once since he took command, had not read his report published six months ago and was not engaged in any discussions for the Afghan War. McChrystal in the absence of guidance made a decision to go public. Obviously it was the right one because he still has a job and Obama is now meeting with people at the Pentagon instead of listening to his unqualified "advisors" or czars.

The ball is Obama's court. He can fire his own handpicked commander, a wildly popular and proven warrior who had given him a solution to the Afghan problem. He can force him to resign and appoint some guy who will simply manage the war until Obama decides what to do next. Obama can even change the strategy. He can pull every warfighter out of theater if he wishes, and most people in the military will applaud the act. Afghanistan is not strategically important and there are few reasons to stay and attempt to build a country. Obama's own Vice President knows that the US can achieve marginal success with air bombs and drones if that success is simply targeting terrorist camps.

The problem is Obama knows that politically it will ruin him. The Republicans will spin the withdrawal into another defeat to add to Obama's growing list failed plans. The only thing that McChrystal wants it more troops to meet the President's current plan. If Obama is not willing to change his plans then he needs to give the commander more troops. Bush's policy towards Afghanistan was to contain and destroy, and keep destroying until the military runs out of bombs and bullets and it worked. Casualties in Afghanistan under Bush's strategy for seven years combined totaled 530. Obama in 9 months has already reached 239. Bush fired Rumsfeld when casualties in Iraq were reaching over 900 annually, and replaced him with Gates who adopted the "Surge". This year, the Iraq War has only cost us the lives of 128 service members. Obama and the liberals in congress still contend that the "Surge" did not work; I ask how that is possible? I remember watching the media keep a running scorecard of dead Soldiers and Marines as the measure of success. Where is that scorecard now? I think it's disgusting to be honest but they did it and they don't do it now. Why is that?

We have paid a heavy price already and we continue to pay. Every president, Republican and Democrat, for the last thirty years has been castrated on Middle-East foreign policy because of political ideology. They are told that they are causing too much damage to innocent people and we should not be there. They are asked why you are not doing more to stop our embassies from being attacked. How could you let the World Trade Center be bombed twice? Why did you let 9/11 happen? Why are we taking so long to attack the people who caused 9/11? We can't allow Iraq to have WMD's. Why are you invading Iraq? Why are you bombing these people? Why have you not caught Bin-Laden? Why are you interrogating people for information on Bin-Laden?

I don't blame Obama for being confused. I don't blame anyone for being confused at this point.

Americans don't want to lose their young men and women for nothing. They value their volunteers who give their lives for something that is just an idea, for our safety, or for someone else's freedom.

The only person in all of this who does not appear to be confused is General McChrystal, he has a plan and he is making decisions before the decisions makes him. We should support him until Obama decides to make his. Then, I dare say, we should support Obama. He is the Commander in Chief.