Good to see both of you this morning.
The president faced a criticism of leadership. So, he took a four-star general head-on and reasserted civilian control over the military.
Candy, was this a necessary decision for the president?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I tell you, John, the truth is that up to a couple of hours prior to the decision becoming known, I thought it could go either way. But then when I listened to the president in the Rose Garden, it occurred to me he probably had very little choice. We're now hearing from Barbara Starr that Secretary Gates of Pentagon argued that McChrystal should stay on.
But as the president presented it, to me, the most forceful argument he made is: we need to have a team that's working in unison and when you look at -- back at the things that General McChrystal and some of his aides said in that "Rolling Stone" article, it's hard to imagine General McChrystal calling up Ambassador Holbrooke or calling up national security adviser Jim Jones and talking to them without what was said about them in that article coming up. It just didn't seem possible to move forward. Not because McChrystal maybe had even lost the president's confidence, but it's hard to keep together a cohesive team given what was said.
ROBERTS: But, David, what's your take on this? Particularly the point that Secretary of Defense Gates didn't want McChrystal to go, saying that he was vital to the war effort. And if you're talking about, you know, wanting a team that acts in unison, you got Karl Eikenberry complaining about Richard Holbrooke, and Jim Jones saying, well, don't worry because Holbrooke will be gone and then Hillary Clinton steps in to say, no, no, he's my guy, I want him to stay?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, John, I think the president did have a choice and I thought he would probably keep McChrystal. I understand why Bob Gates argued what he did. But this is ultimately a presidential decision. And if you've lost faith, if you've lost confidence and you're commander in the field, then the president has every right to replace him.
And I'm sure that this infuriated -- the McChrystal article had infuriated the people around the president and the White House. This is -- you know, in this White House, discipline and team loyalties are extremely high values. So, I'm sure they were angry and what they did and having said all that, I think they came up with an ingenious solution, one that serves the country well because the emphasis now should be on General Petraeus and he is, of course -- McChrystal is a good general who made indiscretions. Petraeus is a great general.
And if there's anybody who's going to stop the dysfunctionality -- and by the way, that dysfunctionality and to talk to people with great trust and candor, that was gone before this incident. So, I think Petraeus is not only going to be helpful in the war, but I think he will also be helpful on making -- creating a better functioning team.
ROBERTS: Candy, do you think that this McChrystal episode is illustrative of something bigger, and there's might be growing tensions between the military leadership and the civilian administration to an increasing degree? I mean, there are military people who are in the White House. But you got a president who didn't serve military time and a lot of people in the White House who didn't do service in the armed forces.
And might there be some sort of friction between those two?
CROWLEY: There's always friction, I think, between civilian leadership and the military. And I think you heard some of it reading it in the "Rolling Stone" article. I don't think it has much to do with the president's lack of service.
Sorry, I think that the country moved past that in some ways. They are still obviously in the military. It still is a larger deal. But I do think, John, that one of the larger problems that we have been talking about and that was evident in that article is the rank and file soldiers.
Those on the ground in Afghanistan who really were giving it to McChrystal in one of the vignettes in the article about how the strategy wasn't working, about how they didn't like the restrictions on what they could and could not do in this counterinsurgency effort. So they have a real problem in the field. And that's where the administration, I think, has a problem rather than the top rank of the military in the White House.
ROBERTS: David, for General Petraeus, this is at least a sideways move from CentCom commander. Obviously he's -- is a loyal soldier, he is a terrific general, and he will do whatever the president asks him to do.
But do you think the president made some kind of commitment to him saying, general, I want you to go back to Afghanistan and here is what I will do when you come back?
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: I'm not sure. I doubt it was explicit, John. But I do think that the -- General Petraeus is technically taking a step backwards in his career pattern and taking one for the team here.
He's doing this because he believes in the war and he believes -- actually believes in this president and I think - but I think he is doing this with some sacrifice to himself and to his family. So that - I think of all the people here deserve praise is General Petraeus being willing to take this.
But let me add to what Candy said. I do think, John, that there could be -- potential for friction in the future between even as good a general as General Petraeus and the White House. Because the White House is looking at this through a political lens. They would like to get those troops out of there in time for the general election and, you know, they are very committed. They are not -- very committed to bringing the troops down.
When General Petraeus testified last week, he put a qualifier on when the troops were going to come out. That was the conditions on the ground. So -- if this war continues to go badly there may be a differences between the -- military and the White House on the further prosecution of the word. We will have to wait and see. Hopefully we won't get to that point.
ROBERTS: And we will see how sharp the questioning is during the confirmation hearings next week. David Gergen and Candy Crowley, as always, thank you so much.
GERGEN: Thank you.
Transcript from CNN's American Morning