Gen. Stanley McChrystal, shown last month with U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry, has resigned.
Charles Dharapak, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — In 1932, during a lunch in Albany with Rexford Tugwell, an adviser, Gov. Franklin Roosevelt paused to take a telephone call from Louisiana Gov. Huey Long. When the call ended, FDR referred to Long as the second-most dangerous man in America. Who, Tugwell asked, is the most dangerous? FDR answered: Douglas MacArthur.
As Army chief of staff, MacArthur had just flamboyantly conducted the violent dispersal of the bedraggled "bonus army" in Washington. Nearly 19 years later, he was to become most dangerous to himself, as another commanding general has now done. But Stanley McChrystal is no MacArthur.
MacArthur had some of the genius and much of the egomania of a former artillery captain, Napoleon. This made MacArthur insubordinate and got him cashiered by a former artillery captain, Harry Truman. Although McChrystal is a fine soldier who rendered especially distinguished service in Iraq, there is no reason to ascribe to him either egomania or insubordination. He did, however, emphatically disqualify himself from further military service, and particularly from service in Afghanistan. There the military's purely military tasks are secondary to the political and social tasks for which the military is ill-suited, and for which McChrystal is garishly so.
The American undertaking in Afghanistan is a fool's errand, and McChrystal is breathtakingly foolish. Even so, he and it were badly matched. This, even though the errand is of the president's careful devising and McChrystal was the president's choice to replace the four-star general who had been commanding there.
It may be said that McChrystal's defect is only a deficit of political acumen. Only? Again, the mission in Afghanistan is much more political than military. Counterinsurgency, as defined by McChrystal's successor, Gen. David Petraeus and tepidly embraced by Barack Obama for a year or so, does not just involve nation-building, it is nation-building.
This does not just require political acumen, it requires the wisdom of Aristotle, the leadership skills of George Washington and the analytic sophistication of Tocqueville. But, then, the grinding paradox of nation-building is this: No one with the aptitudes necessary for it would be rash or delusional enough to try it.
The McChrystal debacle comes as America's longest war is entering a surreal stage: The military is charged with a staggeringly complex task, the completion of which — if completion can even be envisioned — must involve many years. But when given the task, the military was told to begin bringing it to a close in a matter of 18 months.
- It's déjà vu all over again with...
- Robert Bennett: How I came to write a weekly...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The pros and...
- Kathleen Parker: Obnoxious attempt to...
- Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
- George F. Will: A liberal squeeze play to...
- Would repossessing federal lands help fund...
- John Florez: Let's make education's Common...
- Letter: Lee's financial bungle reflects...
37 - It's déjà vu all over again...
32 - Letter: Obama throws a curveball
31 - Thomas Sowell: Raising taxes on rich...
26 - Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
23 - Letter: Age really matters regarding...
21 - Obama and Romney should speak truth on...
21 - Kathleen Parker: Obnoxious attempt to...
18






DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments