McCain: Change Needed on Afghan Plan, Personnel
Updated at 11:05 a.m. ET
Senate leaders have promised Gen. David Petraeus a swift confirmation next week so he can assume his new role as head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, but not before questioning him about President Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011. Some are also calling for additional personnel changes in the Afghanistan team.
"The issue that will be raised in General Petraeus' confirmation hearings is exactly what is meant by withdrawal in the middle of 2011, whether that is, 'etched in stone,' as the president's spokesperson, Mr. Gibbs, stated or whether it will be conditions-based," Sen. John McCain said yesterday in a press conference. "We feel very strongly that it needs to be condition- based, because if you tell the enemy when you are leaving, then obviously it has an adverse effect on your ability to succeed. So that is a major concern. And there's still a great deal of ambiguity about that issue."
McCain reiterated his concern this morning on ABC's "Good Morning America. (Watch the video below)
"We cannot tell the enemy when you are leaving in warfare and expect your strategy to be able to prevail," he said. "That's just a fundamental of warfare."
McCain also said he told the president that he should make further personnel changes."We need a new team over there as well, perhaps at the embassy and other areas," he said. "The relationship between civil and military is not what it should be."
During yesterday's press conference, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) backed up McCain's assertions.
Continue »McChrystal Dismissal Sends Zero-Tolerence Message
In relieving Gen. Stanley McChrystal of command in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama said he wasn't acting "out of any sense of personal insult" for the critical comments attributed to McChrystal and unnamed aides in the new issue of Rolling Stone.
"The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general," the president said in a Rose Garden statement.
In his view, "it undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system." In other words, as Commander-in-Chief, he demands respect and not a hint of insubordinate language, much less conduct.
Ironically, parts of Mr. Obama's 8-minute statement sounded more like a lavish tribute to Gen. McChrystal, not an explanation of why he was being fired.
Continue »Petraeus Pick Wins Approval on Capitol Hill
Congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle reacted positively to President Barack Obama's decision for a change in command in the Afghanistan war.
"I have great respect for General McChrystal and the job he's done in Afghanistan and elsewhere in service of our country, but I respect the decision of our Commander-in-Chief," said House minority leader John Boehner in a statement.
Most Republicans echoed that statement in a rare show of support for the president. Many said that while understandable, it's unfortunate that the respected General Stanley McChrystal had to resign after showing disrespect for the president in a Rolling Stone article.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said at a press conference this afternoon that the president "had no other choice" to successfully preserve the chain of command with civilian control over the military. "We lost a good general, but the president, in my view, had no other choice, because to keep him there would have blurred a line that served this country very well for a very long time."
The other area of rare agreement on Capitol Hill was praise for Mr. Obama's choice of Gen. David Petraeus to take over as the top commander in Afghanistan. Lawmakers have great respect for the general after he successfully led the "surge" in Iraq.
Continue »What Happened in the Oval Office?
But we're told their one-on-one meeting lasted for about 30 minutes. So here's the question the White House isn't answering: if the president was already thinking about McChrystal's replacement, what did the two men discuss for half an hour?
Did McChrystal make an argument to keep his job? Was the president reluctant to fire him?
So far, at least, the usual suspects among White House officialdom aren't saying. And maybe they don't know. They weren't in the room.
It wasn't until after his meeting with McChrystal that the president called in his top National Security advisers: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, National Security Adviser James Jones and Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. The president told them that he intended to appoint General Petraeus to take over in Afghanistan.
David Petraeus Brings Experience to the Job
President Obama today replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus, one of the few generals believed to be capable of smoothly taking over the war in Afghanistan.
The war effort was complicated this week by the release of a shocking article in Rolling Stone magazine in which McChrystal and his staff members made a number of derisive comments about the Obama administration. By putting Petraeus in charge, however, Mr. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a war strategy that Petraeus played a central role in shaping.
"This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy," the president said.
The 57-year-old general, as the head of U.S. Central Command, was McChrystal's boss and oversaw both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Before taking that role, he served as the top coalition commander in Iraq, where he won wide praise for overseeing the "surge" strategy. The strategy was perceived as a success as violence fell in Iraq and the U.S. was able to develop its plans for leaving the country.
Petraeus also critically brings with him key relationships with political and Pakistani leaders, the Atlantic's Max Fisher reports.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) today hailed Petraeus as a "tried and true field commander and the architect of modern counterinsurgency strategy."
Petraeus' high-profile career has made him one of the most well known generals of his generation and a recipient of widespread praise. He has been considered a strong candidate to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some have speculated that he will run for president.
Continue »In Afghanistan, a New General But An Old Strategy
In announcing that he was replacing General Stanley McChrystal with General David Petraeus as the top commander in Afghanistan, President Obama made clear that while there would be a different man at the top, the war strategy would remain exactly the same.
"This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy," the president said in the Rose Garden, stressing that Petraeus, as the commander of U.S. Central Command, "supported and helped design the strategy we have in place."
Mr. Obama pointedly stated that he was removing McChrystal because derogatory comments by the general and his staff - conduct that he said "does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general" - and not because of "any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy."
But it's important to realize that the most important part of the Rolling Stone article that brought down McChrystal may not have been the incendiary quotes but rather the complaints from the military rank and file that the strategy isn't working.
Policies about limiting civilian casualties have soldiers complaining they can't effectively fight; one showed author Michael Hastings a card with regulations including "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force."
Said the soldier: "You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"
Continue »McChrystal: I Resigned to See the Mission Succeed
Gen. Stanley McChrystal arrives at the White House in Washington on Wednesday.
(Credit: CBS)Gen. Stanley McChrystal was ousted by President Obama on Wednesday as the top U.S. general in Afghanistan.
Following Mr. Obama's Rose Garden remarks announcing the move, McChrystal released a statement saying he still "strongly" supports the mission in Afghanistan and that he resigned "out of respect for this commitment" and "a desire to see the mission succeed."
The full statement is below:
This morning the President accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support the President's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment -- and a desire to see the mission succeed -- that I tendered my resignation.
It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation's finest.
More Coverage:
McChrystal Relieved of Duty; Petraeus TappedWatch Obama's Statement
David Petraeus Brings Experience to the Job
What Happened in the Oval Office
In Afghanistan, a New General -- But An Old Strategy
Bob Schieffer and Bill Plante React to the Announcement
McChrystal Statement: I Resigned to See the Mission Succeed
McChrystal Situation Imperils War Funding Bill
Washington Unplugged: McChrystal Fallout Shakes Up Administration
Is McChrystal "Damaged Goods"?
Pictures: General McChrystal and President Obama
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan
McChrystal Situation Imperils War Funding Bill
Passing an emergency war funding bill to pay for President Obama's 17,000 troop increase and continued efforts in Afghanistan was never going to be easy in the House. Liberals are weary of war, fiscal hawks are concerned about deficits and Republicans are increasingly willing to vote against troop funding if Democrats lard up the bills with measure that have nothing to do with war.
Democratic aides say that Gen. Stanley McChrystal made things a little more complicated. That funding is to pay for the execution of McChrystal's strategy. For his vision. One leadership aide said that the shocking profile of McChrystal in Rolling Stone raised serious questions about McChrystal's judgment and leadership at a time when they are struggling to get Democratic votes for the money. Now, the general has been relieved of duty and replaced by Gen. David Petraeus.
One Democratic aide said that deciding on the best way forward is complicated by members' belief that Republicans will just say no to everything so Democrats have to find ways to pass things with just Democratic votes. The aide said "it's like putting together a puzzle without a picture."
When asked what needs to happen for Republicans to support the bill, House minority leader John Boehner said this morning that he's "hopeful that the Democrat majority in Congress bring a clean supplemental to the floor of the House so that members can cast their votes."
60 Minutes: Stanley McChrystal
Democratic leadership aides said that they are still looking at a number of options to try to pass a supplemental bill that Defense Secretary Robert Gates says is needed by the July 4th recess:
Continue »McChrystal Has Already Lost His Reputation
Aides to Gen. Stanley McChrystal say he wants to keep his job because he can't stomach the thought of abandoning the mission in mid race.
He met with Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen this morning for 30 minutes and is waiting to be summoned to the White House. We won't know his fate for a few more hours, but whether or not he loses his command he has already lost something just as valuable to him - his reputation as a good soldier.
Inside the military, there is nothing unusual about exasperation with civilian leadership, which always has larger objectives than the battle in front of them, but displaying contempt runs counter to everything an officer is taught from the day he shows up at West Point.
Should McChrystal be Fired? Pundits Weigh In
Updated at 11:45 a.m. ET
Condemnation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's derisive remarks about the Obama administration in Rolling Stone can be found on just about every corner of the Internet. But while some political pundits say McChrystal must go out of simple, clear respect for the chain of command, others say the general's insubordinate remarks reveal deeper problems with the war in Afghanistan that President Obama is responsible for.
McChrystal's job as top commander in Afghanistan is in peril after he and his staff made a number of insulting comments about President Obama and other high ranking members that appeared in a Rolling Stone article.
Steve Clemons, publisher of the blog the Washington Note blog writes at the Huffington Post that Mr. Obama must fire McChrystal to show that "pugnacious disdain" for leaders must be dealt with respectably in the military.
Dan McLaughlin at the conservative blog RedState.com agrees that McChystral unquestionably must go.
"A military man who wants to open both barrels in public against the political leadership has a time-honored way to do that: resign his commission and enter politics," he writes. "As Harry Truman understood when he fired Douglas MacArthur - then a national hero - at great political cost, a president who doesn't show the generals who is boss is no longer running anything."
Robert Haddick at Small Wars Journal writes, "To allow McChrystal to apologize and stay on would set a bad precedent, send the wrong signal regarding civil-military relations to the rest of the military, and would cause great uproar among Obama's civilian staff."
Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, on the other hand, says that while McChrystal may be at fault for expressing his frustrations to the magazine, Mr. Obama is to blame for the feuding factions of leadership over the Afghanistan strategy.
Continue »