Perspective

Some things aren't worth reading (I've written some of them) and others are.

This one... yeah. A definite read.

Leadership is the art of leaders and often involves long periods of silence.

Mouthing off about your boss is juvenile, water-cooler, office politics. And I, for one, would never follow such an individual into harms way. A general who is unable to abide the direction of his civilian superiors has but one option - resign.

As POGGE made very clear, in past times a general who had so clearly verbalized his objection to his clear subordinate position, and had been discovered doing so, would have drawn his blade and fallen on his own sword.

General Stanley McChrystal, United States Army, has several superiors, but his ultimate boss is the person sitting in the Oval Office of the White House. He has but one duty to that person after he has presented his advice to that person - obey his orders. If he objects, he has the right to say so, directly. If that objection is overruled, he is duty bound to step aside and not assume the position he was requested fill or accept his instructions, salute and get on with it - without complaint.

McChrystal, however, did none of that. McChrystal was not just insubordinate; he vented his own personal disapproval of his superior, while still serving him, to his subordinates. That is a heinous and unforgivable crime in any military organization.

Most of McChrystal's offending comments in the Rolling Stone article were those repeated by his staff and cannot be attributed by the article's author to McChrystal's direct answers. But the fact that subordinates feel comfortable enough to repeat McChrystal's words and the context in which they were spoken suggests that McChrystal lacks the necessary leadership skills to lead anything larger than a reserve section (10 person squad) in any form of combat.

McChrystal's worst crime is the downward infection of his own subordinates. They are bound by traditional loyalty to their commander. If their commander is dissing his boss, they assume the same posture and the infection moves out of the staff organization into the line formations. The idiocy of it all is that it actually ended up on the pages of a globally-consumed publication.

You can't push poor judgment and blatant disloyalty further out into the light than by doing that.

The fact that it was so much more than a passing comment demonstrates, not just arrogance, but a false sense of superiority and invincibility which calls into question the man's ability to recognize, not just his own weakness in any area, but that of his command. Such a blindness leads to unit failures which, instead of solving at his own level with innovation, motivation and strong leadership, he declares inevitable and blames those above him. Read it in any fashion you wish to interpret it, but that is simply poor leadership and it needs to be corrected before it spreads further downwards.

McChrystal's poorly aimed and badly timed comments have probably already caused the career destruction of most of his command staff who had incorrectly presumed that he possessed a cloak of invincibility to superior civilian authority which allowed him to vent his insubordinate opinions in their presence.

Leadership at military command levels is always difficult. Sometimes a leader is asked to perform seemingly impossible tasks with too few resources. Often a leader finds her/himself saddled with orders which, on the surface, appear ridiculous. In the end, however, it is the job of a military leader to provide the necessary inspiration to subordinates and demonstrate the loyalty to one's superiors to execute those orders with innovation and adaptability. Failure is assumed personally and only transfers to a higher level if the superior commander reaches down and takes the cloak.

That's staff school stuff and McChrystal knows it. His barrack-room performance, clearly done to create some kind of impression on his staff, had no place under the multiple stars on his epaulets. Along with the comfort and authority which accompanies a general officer of his status comes the obligation to instill loyalty in his staff. Sometimes that means keeping silent on matters with which he disagrees. It always means demonstrating to subordinates a professional loyalty to one's superiors. Failure to do so quickly shatters the discipline of a command and encourages individuals to act outside their orders based on a disdain for their commanders at all levels, the example having been provided by the theatre commander.

That may work for John Wayne in a war movie, but it regularly leads to disaster in a real combat organization and diminishes the professionalism required to carry off the often obscene job of war-fighting.

McChrystal demonstrated all the maturity of command of a newly-minted corporal. Corporals can occasionally bitch over a beer about the insanity of their distant superiors; Generals enjoy no such luxury. Clearly, if he cannot accept the responsibility to set the proper example from his superior level of command, that responsibility should be removed lest he further damages his subordinates.

"We have shot an amazing number of people...

...but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat," said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties."

~ New York Times, Friday, March 26, 2010

h/t Chris Floyd at Empire Burlesque

General Stanley McChrystal sends his regrets ...

Another NATO airstrike, another 33 dead civilians. AP :

"NATO forces confirmed in a statement that its planes fired Sunday on a group of vehicles that it believed contained insurgents who were about to attack its forces, only to discover later that women and children were in the cars.

The strike hit three minibuses that were driving down a major road in the mountainous province. There were 42 people in the vehicles, all civilians, Bashary said.

"We are extremely saddened by the tragic loss of innocent lives," NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said.

McChrystal also sent along his regrets six days ago when 12 civilians including 6 children were killed by two NATO-fired rockets which missed their intended target by 300 meters, and still more regrets were forthcoming the following day for five more civilians killed in another NATO airstrike.

McClatchy's reports that this is all just "a trial run" for "the next big combat mission" in Kandahar this summer, described by ISAF officials as "the big prize for both the Taliban and the coalition":

"Coalition officers describe the Marjah operation, now into its second week, as a "confidence builder" for Kandahar now that extra troops for Afghanistan have been committed."

And just what is the point of this "confidence builder" for "the big prize" again?

Journalist and historian Gareth Porter at The Real News Network :

"In my view this offensive has to be viewed as more of an effort to shape public opinion in the United States than to shape the politics of the future of Afghanistan."

It's propaganda, explains Porter, designed to sell the American people on the idea that when the inevitable negotiations with the Taliban for US withdrawal are held in 16 to 18 months, it will look at home as if the US is negotiating from a position of strength.

Saving US face - that's what all these civilians and soldiers are dying for now.
.