Breaking: McChrystal resigns? (UPDATE 2: KLEIN CLARIFIES: McC “OFFERED” TO RESIGN)

Posted by: ST on June 22, 2010 at 5:01 pm

According to Time’s Joe Klein, the answer is yes (via @EdDriscoll):

[Updated at 4:41 p.m.] Gen. Stanley McChrystal has submitted his resignation, Time magazine’s Joe Klein told CNN, citing an unnamed source. CNN is working to confirm Klein’s information.

[Updated at 3:30 p.m.] Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff “became aware” that the Rolling Stone story would be controversial before it was published, story author Michael Hastings told CNN Tuesday.

I “got word from (McChrystal’s) staff … that there was some concern” about possible fallout from the story, Hastings
said.

Hastings noted that there was “a lot” of material from the interviews with McChrystal that he didn’t use in the article.

[Updated at 1:41 p.m.] Waheed Omar, spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the best commander for the war in Afghanistan and hopes Obama does not replace him. Karzai and his team believe McChrystal is a man of strong integrity who has a strong understanding of the Afghan people and their culture, Omar said.

Ok, so help me out here. Assuming it’s true that Gen. McChrystal has resigned over the issue of the criticism in the Rolling Stone interview, does that mean he’ll be relieved of his duties, effective immediately? I assume that in cases of retirement there’s a timeframe after the announcement is made where the retiring officer sticks around to help his or her replacement have a smooth transition process. But in this case, considering the volatile issue at hand, is it likely that he’ll be gone ASAP?

Been reading a lot of comments about this issue today. A lot of people agree with what he said, but most say he should have said it out of uniform. Have even heard some people suggest that McChrystal fell on his sword – so to speak – for the troops. I’ve seen very few people say that he was right to disparage the CIC while still an active duty officer.

Of course, it goes without saying that the left/MSM is just as hypocritical on this issue as ever …

Update 1 – 5:25 PM: NRO’s Dan Foster posts this intriguing tidbit:

I have heard way off the record from well-placed Pentagon source that McChrystal has *not* resigned.

Hmm.

Also, I hear that today’s WH Press Briefing saw WH spoxdude Robert Fibbs in fighting form. You can watch it here.

Update 2 – 5:53 PM: A clarification from Joe Klein:

Clarification from Joe Klein: Gen. McChrystal as “offered to resign” he has NOT submitted his resignation.

Stay tuned …

RSS feed for comments on this post.

16 Responses to “Breaking: McChrystal resigns? (UPDATE 2: KLEIN CLARIFIES: McC “OFFERED” TO RESIGN)”

Comments

  1. NC Cop says:

    O will replace him with someone who wants to withdraw from Afghanistan immediately.

  2. Anthony says:

    @NC Cop:

    I wonder. Being (relatively) tough in the “good war,” as The One proclaimed it, is his only real cover from the Right and functions as his only remaining shield against the cry of “Carterism.” I think it’s more likely we have a “decent interval” situation here, as with Nixon’s abandonment of Vietnam, and that he’ll be looking for someone to stabilize the place enough so that it falls apart only well after we’re gone.

  3. Jeff says:

    read the article … McCrystal is not quoted saying anything even remotly insubordinate … it is all aides and anon sources … he has nothing to apologize about …

  4. Michael savage is saying Obama fired him.

  5. Rose says:

    Check out legalinsurrection’s take: Has Anyone — Including McChrystal — Actually Read The Rolling Stone Article?

    The Rolling Stone article, The Runaway General, is generating extreme buzz and indignation based on descriptions in the mainstream media that in the article Gen. Stanley McChrystal harshly criticized Obama and others in the administration.

    Indeed, I relied on these reports for my post, Shinseki Hero, McChrystal Bum. McChrystal has issued a groveling apology based on the article. Politicians are furious, the nutroots are having their best day since they coined the phrase “General Betray Us,” and even right-pundits are upset that McChrystal breached protocol.

    Question: Has anyone actually read the Rolling Stone article?

    Answer: Apparently not.

    Jeff, above, is right.

  6. Carlos says:

    Yahoo! has a news headline that Duh-1 has not decided to fire McChrystal – yet. All that means is that he is waiting for the moment of greatest embarrassment to very publicly humiliate the general to the greatest extent possible.

    It’s what a good CiC does, don’tcha know?

  7. DavidL says:

    For the record, a resignation becomes effective not when it is issued, but rather when it is accepted. I believe, that if accepted, the resignation goes into effect in thirty days. However there no obligation for a resignation to be accepted.

  8. linda says:

    After reading the Rolling Stones article, I think Obama and McChystal must have gone to the same grammar school. Such gentlemen we have in charge….and Obama upset…

  9. KCK says:

    An army general can be replaced instantly by his assistant commander. Everyone is expendable in the military.

    Will Obama appoint a political character to replace the general? God help us.

  10. NC Cop says:

    “I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor — showed poor judgment,” the president said in his first comments on the matter,

    Oh man, I nearly spit soda all over my screen when I read that one.

    Did Obama seriously just criticize someone for THEIR poor judgment? Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?!?!

    Anthony, very interesting thoughts! You may very well be right!

  11. Great White Rat says:

    @Anthony:

    I’m not sure I agree here. I don’t think this administration cares one bit whether he has (as you aptly put it) “cover from the Right”. Remember, there is one thing, and one thing only, that enters into the Alinskyite’s calculus: how to get and retain power.

    Obama isn’t so stupid as to think that the Right will give him and his party even grudging support. Even if he is, Axelrod and the thugs around him aren’t.

    The midterm elections are just over 4 months away and the Dems’ prospects aren’t good right now. Republicans are energized, more independents are turning against him daily, and the Democrats – the ones who aren’t already in the lifeboats with David Obey – are either discouraged or saddled with jokes like Alvin Greene.

    So his only hopes are (1) to reinvigorate his own far-left base, and (2) to get a good turnout from all the youthful first-time voters who bought his act two years ago. And neither of those groups will be motivated if he tries the “decent interval” approach you mention – they want surrender to the Taliban NOW.

    If the political environment were different – if we didn’t have uncontrolled gushers of black oil in the Gulf and red ink in DC, and if the economy hadn’t (predictably) flatlined – then the approach you outlined would make a lot of sense. But as it is, no one – left, center, or right – is happy with him now, so he’s got to get at least one of them back, and quickly.

  12. Gen’l McChrystal spoke his piece
    Conservatives have been teased
    The war’s going bad
    And he is so sad
    But his retirement skids have been greased

  13. Anthony says:

    Actually, it appears McChrystal is in violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ:

    “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    The comment about Biden alone would qualify. Again, I don’t disagree with their attitudes toward Obama, Biden, et al., but to express that before a journalist knowing that it would be published (and to allow your staff to do so) is unacceptable for civil-military relations in the United States. Obama should fire him or ask for his resignation, but it appears he won’t.

    Source: Chuck DeVore.

    PS: Why is the Secretary of Transportation, a very minor position, granted protection under this article along with the much more important cabinet officers? This looks odd to me. Why not Education or Commerce?

    @GWR:

    I’m not sure I agree here. I don’t think this administration cares one bit whether he has (as you aptly put it) “cover from the Right”. Remember, there is one thing, and one thing only, that enters into the Alinskyite’s calculus: how to get and retain power.

    You’re probably right. I was thinking of when Obama was first doing his Afghanistan calculus, back in ’09 and even further back during the campaign. Now, with 18 months passed, he’s probably written off anyone to the Right of Bernie Sanders.

  14. Tex says:

    If he does resign, I hope he decides to run for President in 2012. It would be justice served if McChrystal ran against Obama in 2012 and won. That’s assuming the Democrats would be stupid enough to nominate Obama again as their Presidential candidate for 2012.

  15. Kate says:

    Great thought Tex….but, this dust up and probable resignation reminds me of MacArthur and Korea, which was a bigger issue on how to run the war and not “personalities”. MacArthur probably had a bigger ego than Obama and that was the root of the problem. Could we have a little role reversal here? Are Obama’s ego and egotistical power grabbing advisers more afraid of words spoken by the aides of McCrystal/McCrystal than the actual outcomes and achievements he has made in Afghanistan?

    This from the supposed CIC….I pray for the troops who remain loyal to their COUNTRY and are not influenced by political hacks such as Obama and his ilk. If they want this to become worse than Vietnam in order to create yet another crisis that they can use, God Help our men and women in Uniform.

  16. Carlos says:

    Kate, we were losing planes and pilots in ‘Nam in the 1950s, when DD Eisenhower was running the show. He was hardly a political hack.

    That said, however, I think (from what I’ve read on the subject) that the good former general was caught up in the political aspects of his advisors and didn’t know how to disentangle himself from that.

    After that, with Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, we had a series of incompetents who hadn’t a clue about how to win a war, and finally turned tail.

    And that about sums up how both Iraq and Afghanistan have been run from day 1. Both were winnable wars and, IMHO, noble causes. It’s too bad people in D.C. seem to think proximity to that place makes one an expert on all things. Kinda like attending Hawvud makes one think one is exceptionally intelligent. The arrogance of the arrogancia knows no bounds.