Gen. McChrystal's Canned.

[Denny Crane]

W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html

W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

President Barack Obama declared Gen. Stanley McChrystal guilty of “poor judgment” Tuesday but said he won’t make a decision on the commander’s fate until he talks with him first.

McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, was summoned to Washington today for a face-to-face meeting with the president tomorrow – a meeting where he’ll have to explain why he and his aides made disparaging remarks Vice President Joe Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, ambassador Karl Eikenberry and others in the presence of a reporter for Rolling Stone.

“Gen. McChrystal is on his way here, and I am going to meet with him. Secretary Gates will meet with him as well,” Obama said Tuesday evening. “I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment, but I also want to talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."

Asked earlier in the day whether McChrystal’s job is on the line, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “everything is on the table.”

McChrystal apologized for the article Tuesday morning.

“It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” McChrystal said. “Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war, and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”

But the apology wasn’t enough to counter a flood of criticism from Washington – including harsh words from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

"I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine," Gates said in a statement. "I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world.

"Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person."

McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House.

An administration official said McChrystal was asked to attend in person rather than by secure video teleconference to “explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes about his colleagues in the piece.”

Both Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with McChrystal about the Rolling Stone piece. A spokesman for Mullen said Mullen had called McChyrstal to express “his deep disappointment with the article and with the comments expressed therein.”

(more at the link)

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GGH9H00&show_article=1

Analysis: Gen.'s remarks echo troubled Afghan war

Jun 22 03:53 PM US/Eastern
By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The war in Afghanistan appears in disarray.

The commanding general's disrespectful remarks about President Barack Obama and his team are the latest setback for a nine-year war rocked by rising casualties, declining public support, growing doubts among allies and feuding between Washington and Kabul.

Whether he fires Gen. Stanley McChrystal or lets him survive with a harsh scolding, Obama opens himself to further political attack as he struggles to keep his balance in the midst of the nation's economic woes and the environmental devastation from the Gulf oil spill.

The Republican opposition will likely seize on the McChrystal flap as evidence of Obama's weakness as commander in chief, even though the party supports the president's Afghan policy.

Liberal Democrats were already disenchanted with Obama for continuing to fight the war against daunting odds and at huge cost.

The White House would not say on Tuesday if McChrystal will be fired, but declared he had made an "enormous mistake" in the unflattering Rolling Stone magazine article and that "all options are on the table."

McChrystal's immediate boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, called the commanding general's remarks a "distraction" from the United States' "singular focus" of "fighting a war against al-Qaida and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world."

McChrystal's troubles with Obama are not new and began shortly after he was named commander in May 2009. The general sent Gates a report that concluded the Afghan mission required 40,000 more troops or the United States faced mission failure.

The assessment was leaked and deeply angered the White House that was in the midst of a protracted study of how to prosecute the war. Some said McChrystal was bullying the administration. In the end, Obama agreed to send 30,000 additional troops, giving McChrystal nearly all the resources he wanted.

(more at the link)

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

There's several things at play here.

First, Obama (like Bush) may have to fire a few generals before he hires the right one to win his war. I have no beef with that.

Second, Obama didn't give McChrystal what he asked for (40K troops, he got 30K), but the blame for the war not going as well as the SURGE in Iraq is shared between the two (Obama, McChrystal).

Third, Obama isn't looking like he commands a lot of respect from the military.

Fourth, my take is McChrystal deserves to be fired for his comments. BrianFromWA, what do you think?

 

[julius]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

There's several things at play here.

First, Obama (like Bush) may have to fire a few generals before he hires the right one to win his war. I have no beef with that.

Second, Obama didn't give McChrystal what he asked for (40K troops, he got 30K), but the blame for the war not going as well as the SURGE in Iraq is shared between the two (Obama, McChrystal).

Third, Obama isn't looking like he commands a lot of respect from the military.

It's odd to me, how yes, Bush 'served' but he served like a puss, yet he got the respect.

Fourth, my take is McChrystal deserves to be fired for his comments. BrianFromWA, what do you think?

I wonder how this would've gone over had it been during Bush's time? I ask partly because it's a loaded question, but also because I don't remember if he had generals saying shit like that. If the right crucified the Dixie Chicks as much as they did, I can only imagine they'd do the same to a General in the military.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

It's odd to me, how yes, Bush 'served' but he served like a puss, yet he got the respect.

And Obama is the chickenhawk, as the left liked to call Cheney (who was Secy. of Defense, he did serve).

I wonder how this would've gone over had it been during Bush's time? I ask partly because it's a loaded question, but also because I don't remember if he had generals saying shit like that. If the right crucified the Dixie Chicks as much as they did, I can only imagine they'd do the same to a General in the military.

If all the rain drops were lemon drops and gum drops, oh what a life it would be.

(It didn't happen, the military seemed to outright love Bush)

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

When you openly question your commander-in-chief, you get canned. I'd fire him.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

Denny instead of posting links to politico and breitbart you should read the article that caused the uproar, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

Great read!

My thoughts after reading it,

1. You can't help but really like McChrystal and his staff.

2. Not the right man to be leading us in Afghanistan (but is anyone?)

3. Like I said it's hard not to like him but what he did in the Pat Tillman case is unforgivable.

4. WE NEED TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. TODAY!

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

"Biden? Did you say Bite Me?"

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

Denny instead of posting links to politico and breitbart you should read the article that caused the uproar, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

Great read!

My thoughts after reading it,

1. You can't help but really like McChrystal and his staff.

2. Not the right man to be leading us in Afghanistan (but is anyone?)

3. Like I said it's hard not to like him but what he did in the Pat Tillman case is unforgivable.

4. WE NEED TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. TODAY!

I don't disagree with any of this, but Truman did fire MacArthur.

 

[MikeDC]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

I thought the political take here was pretty on the money: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/dont_blame_mcchrys...

General McChrystal certainly deserved to be fired for taking a bad situation and making it worse, but the real food for thought ought to be what would lead him down this path. If he's the best we've got (or anywhere close), and he's trying out the military career equivalent of suicide by cop, then the ultimate blame needs to fall on the administration for failing at the politics of the war.

I've pretty long thought that the politicians weren't holding up their end of the bargain when it came to the post-911 wars. When we say war is a the continuation of politics by other means, the conclusion we should reach is that our military should be an extension of our political and diplomatic force. Unfortunately, our political and diplomatic capabilities are so non-existent that our military force has been increasingly asked to become a political and diplomatic force itself.

This problem seemed evident in Iraq, where the military somewhat succeeded in creating political reconciliation in addition to winning battles, but it seems even more evident in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we had inadequate political and diplomatic elements, but they certainly appeared to be hard at work and to some effect. Look at the roles and efforts of Khalizad and Crocker in Iraq and compare them to the role and efforts of Wood and Eikenberry in Afghanistan.

To put it simply, the diplomats chosen for the key periods in Afghanistan aren't even close to our diplomatic A-Team. Wood was a latin American hand and Eikenberry wasn't even a foreign service guy, he was a general... with a narrow view of Afghanistan from his military tenure that's led to him saying disastrous stuff.

In short, if you want to get anywhere close to "winning" a COIN war, aren't you going to need all the political muscle you can get, and isn't it going to have to work extremely closely with the military. Ultimately, the leadership of such an effort needs to be political, and here you've got no strategic leadership, no real diplomats on the ground, and the shitty ones that are are not on the same page with a military trying and failing to do it all themselves.

So I guess in summary, I think the President needs to replace McChrystal, but he also needs to replace Eikenberry, get Holbrooke's head in the game, and get the career heavy hitting diplomats very involved. Really, he needed to do this from day one and now might be too late.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

Nice post, DC, but I would differ with the "increasingly asked" bit about the military.

Ike was military governor of Germany when we occupied it, and MacArthur was military governor of Japan.

 

[MARIS61]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

(It didn't happen, the military seemed to outright love Bush)

The military always warms to the most obviously ignorant when it comes to leaders.

Intelligence frightens the average grunt.

 

[toutlaw25]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

The military always warms to the most obviously ignorant when it comes to leaders.

Intelligence frightens the average grunt.

What have you done in your life that has made you so intelligent? Maybe you should make yourself part of a human shield over there when they go into Kandahar. Just saying.......

 

[barfo]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

I thought the political take here was pretty on the money: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/dont_blame_mcchrys...

Linky no worky!

General McChrystal certainly deserved to be fired for taking a bad situation and making it worse, but the real food for thought ought to be what would lead him down this path. If he's the best we've got (or anywhere close), and he's trying out the military career equivalent of suicide by cop, then the ultimate blame needs to fall on the administration for failing at the politics of the war.

From what I've read, it doesn't sound like McChrystal did this on purpose at all. He was just dumb enough to let a RS reporter hang around with him and his aides and wasn't careful what he/they said. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of sending a message. "Biden? Bite me" is not a carefully scripted message.

So I'd conclude that the problem here is that the general aint too smart. He might know war but he doesn't know people or politics. Which means he shouldn't have been in that position to start with, and that does reflect badly on Obama. Hopefully he will correct that mistake now.

barfo

 

[Paxil]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

As someone who served 8 years in the military... I can't fathom a military person not respecting their chain of command.

 

[HailBlazers]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

Yea and nobody here can fathom what McChrystal and Obama are actually going through, no matter what the politico's think they know

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

The military always warms to the most obviously ignorant when it comes to leaders.

Intelligence frightens the average grunt.

Just like the strength of character of the military scares liberals into wetting their undies.

 

[crandc]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

I can't take a stand on whether Obama should fire McChrystal or accept his resignation - in fact I oppose the war, period, so I'm not the one to ask. I think they should all be fired and the troops brought home; if Afghanistan can't stand on its own after 10 years, will 11 make a difference? What the hell are the aims of the war anyway? Al-Qaeda is no longer there. The country is no closer to stability, etc.

But McChrystal did not simply have a few too many at some party and flap his lips. He knew he was with a reporter and was on the record.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, which he surely knew, says any officer in wartime who ridicules the President, Vice President, various others including head of state of wartime ally, is subject to court martial.

All I can say is, what was this guy thinking? If he had policy issues, there are channels to go through.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

bad move by obama. if any negatives happen in afghanistan now, this resignation would seem petty in the scope of things. if he had refused and put the country over his ego or some kind of "chain of command", it probably would have put him in a better position.

 

[MikeDC]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

Linky no worky!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/dont_blame_mcchrystal_blame_ob.html#more

I think this is it, although it seems to be changed. I don't agree with the part that McChrystal shouldn't get fired... he should, but I think the rest of the mess needs to be looked at too, which the article gets at.

From what I've read, it doesn't sound like McChrystal did this on purpose at all. He was just dumb enough to let a RS reporter hang around with him and his aides and wasn't careful what he/they said. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of sending a message. "Biden? Bite me" is not a carefully scripted message.

So I'd conclude that the problem here is that the general aint too smart. He might know war but he doesn't know people or politics. Which means he shouldn't have been in that position to start with, and that does reflect badly on Obama. Hopefully he will correct that mistake now.

barfo

If you're smart enough to conclude a guy like that isn't very smart, you're smarter than anyone else. If it wasn't intentional, what it more likely shows is how limited the benefits of being smart are when you get into group dynamics. Generally speaking the problem here isn't the comments themselves (the comment on Biden, for example, isn't even obviously disrespectful of Biden, it could simply be a joke). The problem is it shows either a lack of discipline (can't/won't keep their mouths shut) or competence (didn't have the sense to tell the reporter what was off the record and what wasn't) or both on the part of his staff. His public affairs officer (who was the first guy who got fired) could have prevented everything, probably, by simply pointing out anything said at certain events was understood to be off the record. Maybe he thought it went without saying after this much fighting. I dunno...

 

[BrianFromWA]

Re: W.H. signals Gen. McChrystal's job on the line

Kind of echo what many are saying in here:

First, if you criticize the President publicly while in uniform, plan on being fired/relieved/etc. IMHO, though, that doesn't extend to his friends, lackeys in the administration, Congress, etc. Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell aren't in my chain of command, the President is. Rahm Emanuel and Karl Rove aren't in my chain of command. Either is O'Reilly or Olbermann. We're citizens and voters also.

Second, the policy of the President is his policy. If you cannot in good conscience take it, make it yours and follow it, you shouldn't be there. It's one thing to say in meetings/planning sessions/whatever that you don't want to do Plan X b/c it has a high chance of failure. Once the boss says "I hear you, but we're doing plan X anyway", you have to either get totally behind it and work your butt off to make it happen, or you tender your resignation and get someone who can get behind it and try to make it work. Additionally, you don't get to say "This plan's dumb, and if my Plan Y would've been implemented, we'd be winning...but nooooooo". Once you walk out of that planning session, any orders you pass on have your name at the bottom, not the President's.

Three, we're trained in the military to answer questions from the press like this: "Sir/Ma'am, I can't really answer that for you, but Lieutenant Jones, our Public Affairs Officer, would be happy to talk to you. Would you like his number?" Giving a reporter access like that (while still active-duty) is poor judgment.

Fourth, I don't know the whole story, and it seems as if the General did make some critical remarks. But it also seems as if the President fired the General b/c he was angry, not because of poor performance in the field. If the quotes had all been printed, embarrassing and angering the commander-in-chief, but they'd all been from the general's aides and friends and family, would he still have been fired?

Fifth, I think it's kind of ironic that people are bringing up the court-martial/being relieved possibility as deserved b/c criticizing your chain of command is against regulations, but not caring as much about that when it's a deserter who thinks he can quit b/c it's not a lawful war, or someone enlisting under false pretenses of prior drug use, or someone committing acts also against the UCMJ like, say, sodomy.

All in all, it saddens me a bit about the firing because it seems awfully petty from the Commander-in-Chief, but I absolutely agree with his right to do so. If you're going to talk to a reporter, especially in disparaging ways about your boss, you can't complain about the consequences. If McChrystal was doing a poor job, why wasn't he fired before? And if he's doing a good job in a bad situation, he's one of the first. Are you really going to fire the guy who's doing good things for you b/c he hurt your friends' feelings? Or does anyone think that the General is openly critical and mocking of the President, and is only trying to further his own agenda to take his boss's place in 2 years (as it was with MacArthur)?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_mcchrystal

McChrystal out; Petraeus picked for Afghanistan

By JENNIFER LOVEN and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers
14 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama sacked his loose-lipped Afghanistan commander Wednesday, a seismic shift for the military order in wartime, and chose the familiar, admired — and tightly disciplined — Gen. David Petraeus to replace him.

Petraeus, architect of the Iraq war turnaround, was once again to take hands-on leadership of a troubled war effort.

Obama said bluntly that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's scornful remarks about administration officials in interviews for a magazine article represent conduct that "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

He fired the commander after summoning him from Afghanistan for a face to face meeting in the Oval Office and named Petraeus, the Central Command chief who was McChrystal's direct boss, to step in.

By pairing those announcements, Obama sought to move on from the firestorm that was renewing debate over his revamped Afghanistan policy. It was meant to assure Afghans, U.S. allies and a restive American electorate that a firm hand is running the war.

Expressing praise for McChrystal yet certainty he had to go, Obama said he did not make the decision over any disagreement in policy or "out of any sense of personal insult." Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said: "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president."

He urged the Senate to confirm Petraeus swiftly and emphasized the Afghanistan strategy he announced in December was not shifting with McChrystal's departure.

"This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy," Obama said. The president delivered the same message in a phone call to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the White House said, and Karzai told Obama he would work toward a smooth transition.

As Obama was speaking in the Rose Garden, McChrystal released a statement saying that he resigned out of "a desire to see the mission succeed" and expressing support for the war strategy.

With lawmakers of both parties praising the choice of Petraeus, the White House is confident he will be confirmed before Congress adjourns at the end of next week.

Obama hit several grace notes about McChrystal and his service after their meeting, saying he made the decision to sack him "with considerable regret." And yet, he said the job in Afghanistan cannot be done now under McChrystal's leadership, asserting that the critical remarks from the general and his inner circle in Rolling Stone displayed conduct that doesn't live up to the standards for a command-level officer.

"I welcome debate among my team, but I won't tolerate division," Obama said. He had delivered that same message — that there must be no more backbiting — to his full war cabinet in a Situation Room session, said a senior administration official.

The announcement came as June became the deadliest month for the U.S.-dominated international coalition in Afghanistan.

NATO announced eight more international troop deaths Wednesday for a total of 76 this month, one more than in the deadliest month previously, in July 2009. Forty-six of those killed this month were Americans. The U.S. has 90,800 troops in Afghanistan.

Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystal's military career is over, saying the nation should be grateful "for his remarkable career in uniform" as if that has drawn to a close. McChrystal left the White House after the meeting and returned to his military quarters at Washington's Fort McNair.

Petraeus, who attended a formal Afghanistan war meeting at the White House on Wednesday, has had overarching responsibility for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq as head of Central Command. He was to vacate the Central Command post after his expected confirmation, giving Obama another key opening to fill. The Afghanistan job is actually a step down from his current post but one that filled Obama's pre-eminent need.

Petraeus is the nation's best-known military man, having risen to prominence as the commander who turned around the Iraq war in 2007, applying a counterinsurgency strategy that has been adapted for Afghanistan.

He has a reputation for rigorous discipline. He keeps a punishing pace — spending more than 300 days on the road last year.

He briefly collapsed during Senate testimony last week, apparently from dehydration. It was a rare glimpse of weakness for a man known as among the military's most driven.

In the hearing last week, Petraeus told Congress he would recommend delaying Obama's prescribed pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011. He said security and political conditions in Afghanistan must be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.

Waheed Omar, spokesman for Karzai, said Petraeus "will also be a trusted partner." Karzai had been a lonely voice in speaking out in support of McChrystal. But Omar said of Petraeus: "He is the most informed person and the most obvious choice for this job" now that McChrystal is out.

The day unfolded with a secretive series of meetings.

McChrystal arrived in Washington off the long flight from Kabul in the early morning and went first to the Pentagon to see top brass. Then came his half hour alone with the president. Obama huddled afterward with Biden, Gates, Mullen and just a few others to plot the next step, and the group settled on Petraeus because he represents the "greatest continuity in operational understanding" and knows Afghanistan, said the senior administration official.

Obama then sat down with Petraeus to offer him the job.

In the magazine article, McChrystal called the period last fall when the president was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said the president appeared ready to hand him an "unsellable" position. McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan.

He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed. And he was quoted mocking Biden.

If not insubordination, the remarks — as well as even sharper commentary about Obama and his White House from several in McChrystal's inner circle — were at the least an extraordinary challenge from a military leader.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expected to hold a hearing by Tuesday on Petraeus' confirmation.

___
Associated Press writers Julie Pace, Pauline Jelinek, Kimberly Dozier and Anne Flaherty in Washington and Deb Riechmann in Kabul, Afghanistan, contributed to this report.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama finally found someone's ass to kick!

 

[BrianFromWA]

can't disapprove of his choice of replacement, but they're right...it is a step down for Petraeus. The replacement general at CentCom will be Petraeus' superior. That'll be an interesting chain of command.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe Patraeus will run for president in 2012 as a republican.

 

[barfo]

can't disapprove of his choice of replacement, but they're right...it is a step down for Petraeus. The replacement general at CentCom will be Petraeus' superior. That'll be an interesting chain of command.

What is the nature of the duties of Petraeus' old job, Brian? Is it mostly political, strategic, operational, or what?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Maybe Patraeus will run for president in 2012 as a republican.

I guess if he wins the war in Afghanistan in the next few months, he'd be in good position to do that.
Otherwise, pretty hard to run for office when you are on active duty abroad. And I doubt the country would look favorably on his doing a Palin.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama set a hard deadline to withdraw troops in 2011. If you believe him.

Patraeus can retire if he wants to, nobody will hold it against him.

 

[barfo]

Obama set a hard deadline to withdraw troops in 2011. If you believe him.

I don't, particularly. Stuff happens, and certainly a lot of stuff happens in Afghanistan.

Patraeus can retire if he wants to, nobody will hold it against him.

I think they would. Retiring from leading a war to run for office? Not going to look good at all.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

It's a strategic, rather than tactical post. They don't actually have units at the ready to command, but they generally come up with the plans and facilitate and direct the component commanders (Army, Navy, AF, Marines) having a joint strategy. CENTCOM developed OEF/OIF, for instance. They are the last level of operational chain of command before SecDef and President. So, while it's a good bet that the PResident is conferring a ton with the commander of forces Afghanistan, technically his orders come from CENTCOM.