General McChrystal’s Comments: MacArthur, Part II?

Anyone see that movie, Charlie Wilson’s War? The only question I have is how is it that a coke-sniffing alkie like U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX) — who was obviously seduced by his gal-pal Texas socialite and all-around redneck do-gooder, Joanne Herring (played by Julia Roberts) — could’ve have had such a deleterious affect on U.S. foreign policy?

If it hadn’t been for this dynamic duo seductively swaying the CIA and the U.S. gov’t to back the Mujaheddin — who were the forerunners of today’s Taliban/Al Quaeda team — we could’ve supported and used the Soviets as a proxy force to contain the same radical islamic fundamentalism that we’re currently spending billions of dollars and thousands of American lives per year to destroy!

Next time around, can we keep the rednecks and gunuts out of the debate, as well as government and foreign policy decision making? Thank you very much.

Baduk, even the Soviet Union at the time was not a terrorist state. They, just like us, were concerned about the proliferation of radical fundamentalists encroaching on their borders, which is why they invaded Afghanistan in the first place in a vain attempt to set up a secular puppet government. (Think about their war against Chechnya — it’s more about separatism. The Russians rightly so, saw the threat of extremist fundamentalism among the Chechnyans, and sought to contain it.)

Also, Congressman Wilson was about as much a spook as John “McNasty” McCain was. He had no charter or authorization to operate in Afghanistan beyond his role as a Congressman. Also, he had no authority to manipulate U.S. foreign policy into supporting the Mujahaddeen by cadging for Stinger missiles, but he did so anyway, mostly to appease his gal-pal, Joanne Herring, who had him by the balls.

And what does having graduated from Sailor U. have to do with anything? Hell, Jimmy Carter graduated from Sailor U., and what a tactical genius he turned out to be! (Cf. Operation Eagle Claw:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw)

Baduk, while I certainly can appreciate your stance against communism, which indicates you are a product of 70-80′s Korean public school education, it is not helpful in this discourse to put the Soviet Union and its unique relationship with its neighbors and the U.S. during the Cold War in the same bag as North Korea. I never said let the Soviet Union have the entire Middle East, but hindsight being 20/20, it was a big mistake to allow a cowboy like Charlie Wilson to singlehandedly set U.S. policy vis-a-vis the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets. Had it not been for him and his influence, the U.S. would’ve stayed out of it and remained neutral by not selling sensitive arms to the Mujahedeen, i.e., stingers.

And your instincts are wrong baduk — I served four years in the U.S. Army as an 11-bravo infantryman, got out as an E-5 team leader, so I know more about the military than your average civilian who has never served a day in their life.

Also, don’t tell me I’m not qualified to talk about something when you don’t know one thing about me. We’re not even talking about USNA — the fact is that just b/c someone like Jimmy Carter graduated from some officer-producing program, like “sailor U.” did not make him an expert in military matters. You need to go back and read about his presidency and see what a military genius he was. (Apparently you know nothing about him or Operation Eagle Claw to comment intelligently, so instead you indulge in ad hominem attacks.)

Also, former military members, while their service is appreciated, have not one more iota of a right to discuss or have opinions on military matters than lifetime civilians. Our nation is founded on the idea that the civilian leadership must, for the sake of national security and the preservation of democracy, rule the military. It’s dangerous and foolish to think that foreign policy involving the military must be dictated by the military.

Agree with you 100%. The bit between Baduk and I is just a Korean thing — since practically every Korean-born guy has to serve in the ROK Army, we’re always giving each other shit about our military service or lack thereof. That said, you don’t need to have played football to understand the game or become a true afficionado of it — it certainly helps, but then again there are many different levels of appreciation as well as analysis.

You start telling me how to use our military as an instrument of foreign policy, and there is an excellent chance that some guy in a bow tie at an ivy league schoo,l who has no physical courage is the better one to listen to.

As far as the history of warfare is concerned, hopefully there are those rare Ivy Leaguers and Ivory-towered pundits who have superior abilities to form the bigger picture and more nuanced views of all the who, what, where, when why’s and how’s related to the history of using military force to resolve conflicts — even though they’ve never served a day in uniform in their lives.

The fact is however, since studying “war” is considered a relatively esoteric subject and somewhat passe by academia — especially since the 60′s — and also due to the fact that think-tank jobs have to compete for the best and the brightest advanced degree holders in public policy — who may or may not have any background or specialization in the study of warfare — being an expert in the study of “war” does not carry with it much incentive for most civilians — except for those who served in the military.

Having said that, the military still serves as a training ground for all types of apprenticeships in warfare, and it is not surprising to find that most of us who have served or are serving, also have an abiding interest in the military, defense issues, and military history as it were — not b/c such subjects translate to high-paying jobs in the civilian world — but simply b/c it is a way of understanding the world we live in.

“Because he is far more likely to know history and political science. He is far more likely to understand the power of and correct use of diplomacy. He is less likely to be driven by anger and reckless aggression. Like it or not, the very aggression that makes men good soldiers often makes them bad leaders and decision makers.

I agree with you 100% on this issue as well, which is why I firmly support the canning of McC, whose ignominious loss of command at ISAF can be as much attributed to his loose lips as the fact that he purposely shut out the State Department in Afghanistan with the wrongheaded belief that the military could conduct the full spectrum of COIN ops without the assistance of the U.S. diplomatic corps, particularly our appointed ambassador to the region, Karl Eikenberry, whom he apparently had no compunction about cold shouldering and waylaying. That said, it doesn’t hurt our academics in Ivory Towers, especially those who go into public policy and defense planning, to have some background or experience in the military, just as it is important for our military to have as much contact with academia as possible — especially in the social sciences and our pundits on military issues. Why? Because as Thudydides said:

“A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.”