Gen. Stanley McChrystal should be fired

[bigrebnc1775]

And what does it matter if a person didn't serve? Does that make their opinion any less valid?

Yes it matters. When a person that has never been in the military try's to give their opinion on how the military works they tend to forget they have no exprince and think the way civillians do. the military way is lost in the mind of someone who has never served.

I've never served and I don't TRY anything! I'll give you my opinion!

I pointed out how Obama defined terrorism and the mission and I don't need to have served when I have working eyes ears and a brain to put it all together!

Yes you will have needed to serve to understand the working of the military. Sure you can give your opinion but it will not be a good opinion that will work for military standards

 

[bodecea]

The General knows that he is taking orders from a Usurper, a man who is not qualified to be President under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and the General know that Obama doesn't respect the military. Before the election how much real time did Obama (a community organizer) spend with the military compared to Palin?

Ah...here's the Right Wing that wants to run this country.

 

[bodecea]

If McChrystal should be fired, it's should be for the fact he voted for the "thug in Chief" and helped in electing this wannabe "dictator" on us American people.

Some more of the Right Wing philosophy that wants to run this country.

 

[bodecea]

Yes its unprecedented for the top US military commander to critize the commander and chief and the VP. However, when the commander and chief is a community activist with sound liberal credentials who places horrendous rules of engagement, balks at what his generals request and probably places more red-tape then ever on the General, you would be pissed also. He see Obama demanding US military to bring a knife to a gun fight and he is mad as hell about it!

Then you have to deal with the biggest dumb ass on the planet in Biden. The left feared Palin being a heart-beat away from the Presidency, but Biden is 10 fold worse. He is incompetent and clueless. These two idoits are pulling the strings and placating the left, instead of listing to Generals who are students of war! Biden and Obama no nothing about war (I will admit I don't either, but I am not saying I do, so that Red Herring won't work).

I feel for McChrystal. He is a warrior fighting demonic barbarians (yes I see the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Islamo facists as MONSTERS), but he is held on a short leash by Quakers.

And yet....somehow, it's the right thing to do now. Because........

 

[LibocalypseNow]

lol! These phony Hopey Changey butt-sniffers would be calling this General a "Whistle Blower Hero" if a Republican were in the White House. So don't believe a word of their pathetic spin. This General was just being honest about this inept Community Organizer President. Hopey Changey will now retaliate. It really is that simple in the end. McChrystal should accept this firing with honor & dignity. He'll be much better off getting off that ship anyway. Their ship is sinking rapidly. Go in peace General,we got your back.

 

[B. Kidd]

McChrystal is in an unenviable position. He was asked a question and every time he gave an answer the response was "wrong answer". So he kept giving answers to get the right one. which is of course the wrong one. And now the policy is failing of its own internal contradictions and he's naturally frustrated. And he will be the scapegoat here.

There's gotta be a story behind the story of McChrystal's comments. That story, whatever it is, may not come out for another 30 years (like the story of McNamara and Johnson discussing and admitting to each other that neither one of them no longer knew what we were doing in Vietnam, while still in Vietnam.)
What makes me think there is some hidden story behind this breaking news, is McChrystal seems too smart to just set himself up as a scapegoat. There's got to be some other hidden agenda behind his actions, whatever it may be.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is a shame that he is actively undermining the morale of those fighting in Afghanistan.

As if you really give a fuck about U.S. troops. Enough of your feigned patriotism.

First you "predict" what people would have done if this General said the same about Bush...then you tell us what our own feelings and intent are....Are you really God, slumming our message board?

Should I goggle "gen shalikashvili + Bodeca's cheerleading for his sticking his finger in Bushs eye"?

Hmmm?

 

[Jarhead]

Yes its unprecedented for the top US military commander to critize the commander and chief and the VP. However, when the commander and chief is a community activist with sound liberal credentials who places horrendous rules of engagement, balks at what his generals request and probably places more red-tape then ever on the General, you would be pissed also. He see Obama demanding US military to bring a knife to a gun fight and he is mad as hell about it!

Then you have to deal with the biggest dumb ass on the planet in Biden. The left feared Palin being a heart-beat away from the Presidency, but Biden is 10 fold worse. He is incompetent and clueless. These two idoits are pulling the strings and placating the left, instead of listing to Generals who are students of war! Biden and Obama no nothing about war (I will admit I don't either, but I am not saying I do, so that Red Herring won't work).

I feel for McChrystal. He is a warrior fighting demonic barbarians (yes I see the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Islamo facists as MONSTERS), but he is held on a short leash by Quakers.

And yet....somehow, it's the right thing to do now. Because........

Nope. Not the right thing to do now. Never the right thing to do.
Unless, of course, the General believed that his CiC was creating a dangerous situation for the men and women under his command.
And lets be real here folks. If there were ever a war time President that may allow his ideology cloud his military judgement, it is President Obama.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Frank, serious question. Of course I've asked it several other times and you seem to disappear.
In which service branch did you enlist? Army? Navy? Marine Corp? Air Force? Coast Guard? National Guard?
Simple question, simple answer. I'll demonstrate.
I enlisted in the United States Navy in February 1967. See how simple that was.

And what does it matter if a person didn't serve? Does that make their opinion any less valid?

Yes it matters. When a person that has never been in the military try's to give their opinion on how the military works they tend to forget they have no exprince and think the way civillians do. the military way is lost in the mind of someone who has never served.

And that would include Obama? But I disagree with you, anyone can learn military strategy and protocols without serving.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes it matters. When a person that has never been in the military try's to give their opinion on how the military works they tend to forget they have no exprince and think the way civillians do. the military way is lost in the mind of someone who has never served.

I've never served and I don't TRY anything! I'll give you my opinion!

I pointed out how Obama defined terrorism and the mission and I don't need to have served when I have working eyes ears and a brain to put it all together!

Yes you will have needed to serve to understand the working of the military. Sure you can give your opinion but it will not be a good opinion that will work for military standards

First of all, I'm commenting of public statements that Obama's made on terrorism and strategy. I'm not discussing combined arms strategy and tactics or weapon calibers or counterbattery fire or anything else for which I am fundamentally ignorant.

But that does not mean I have to keep my mouth shut if I disagree with something that he's directed the military to do.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes it matters. When a person that has never been in the military try's to give their opinion on how the military works they tend to forget they have no exprince and think the way civillians do. the military way is lost in the mind of someone who has never served.

I've never served and I don't TRY anything! I'll give you my opinion!

I pointed out how Obama defined terrorism and the mission and I don't need to have served when I have working eyes ears and a brain to put it all together!

Yes you will have needed to serve to understand the working of the military. Sure you can give your opinion but it will not be a good opinion that will work for military standards

As one who has served, I disagree. Understanding the working of the military does not require mlitary experience. It requires intelligence and an open mind.
Understanding the mindset of an idividual in the mlitary, requires miitary experience.

 

[ConHog]

Yes its unprecedented for the top US military commander to critize the commander and chief and the VP. However, when the commander and chief is a community activist with sound liberal credentials who places horrendous rules of engagement, balks at what his generals request and probably places more red-tape then ever on the General, you would be pissed also. He see Obama demanding US military to bring a knife to a gun fight and he is mad as hell about it!

Then you have to deal with the biggest dumb ass on the planet in Biden. The left feared Palin being a heart-beat away from the Presidency, but Biden is 10 fold worse. He is incompetent and clueless. These two idoits are pulling the strings and placating the left, instead of listing to Generals who are students of war! Biden and Obama no nothing about war (I will admit I don't either, but I am not saying I do, so that Red Herring won't work).

I feel for McChrystal. He is a warrior fighting demonic barbarians (yes I see the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Islamo facists as MONSTERS), but he is held on a short leash by Quakers.

And yet....somehow, it's the right thing to do now. Because........

Nope. Not the right thing to do now. Never the right thing to do.
Unless, of course, the General believed that his CiC was creating a dangerous situation for the men and women under his command.
And lets be real here folks. If there were ever a war time President that may allow his ideology cloud his military judgement, it is President Obama.

Sorry to quote you Jarhead , but I didn't feel like digging for GHocks quote.

Hey softie, it is NEVER wrong for a solider to question his commanding officer if he feels an order is unsafe or illegal. Nor is it unprecedented for a theater commander to disagree with the CinC. Now Obama would be fully within his right to do as many of his predecessors have done and fire this theater commander fir disagreeing with him, but the General did nothing wrong. Now if he had disobeyed an order, that's another matter entirely. More proof that those who have never served shouldn't comment on how the military operates.

 

[Jarhead]

And yet....somehow, it's the right thing to do now. Because........

Nope. Not the right thing to do now. Never the right thing to do.
Unless, of course, the General believed that his CiC was creating a dangerous situation for the men and women under his command.
And lets be real here folks. If there were ever a war time President that may allow his ideology cloud his military judgement, it is President Obama.

Sorry to quote you Jarhead , but I didn't feel like digging for GHocks quote.

Hey softie, it is NEVER wrong for a solider to question his commanding officer if he feels an order is unsafe or illegal. Nor is it unprecedented for a theater commander to disagree with the CinC. Now Obama would be fully within his right to do as many of his predecessors have done and fire this theater commander fir disagreeing with him, but the General did nothing wrong. Now if he had disobeyed an order, that's another matter entirely. More proof that those who have never served shouldn't comment on how the military operates.

I feel it was poor judgement to use a magazine to express his sentiments.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Community Organizer is doing a peacock strut. It's all for show. He can't fire this guy. McChrystal knows too much. If he's fired he will then be allowed to speak freely & openly about how truly inept this Administration really is. This is all show for the Community Organizer. McChrystal wil come out of this fine. You heard it here first.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've never served and I don't TRY anything! I'll give you my opinion!

I pointed out how Obama defined terrorism and the mission and I don't need to have served when I have working eyes ears and a brain to put it all together!

Yes you will have needed to serve to understand the working of the military. Sure you can give your opinion but it will not be a good opinion that will work for military standards

As one who has served, I disagree. Understanding the working of the military does not require mlitary experience. It requires intelligence and an open mind.
Understanding the mindset of an idividual in the mlitary, requires miitary experience.

OK close enough.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes you will have needed to serve to understand the working of the military. Sure you can give your opinion but it will not be a good opinion that will work for military standards

As one who has served, I disagree. Understanding the working of the military does not require mlitary experience. It requires intelligence and an open mind.
Understanding the mindset of an idividual in the mlitary, requires miitary experience.

OK close enough.

I believe I understood your point, but I felt the need to clarify it.

The problem we have this time around s our CiC has the intelligence, but by no means does he hae an open mind.

And that will prove to be very dangerous as the conflict continues.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I was hoping for something I could latch on to and create some kind of useful comment on this thread, but I didn't find anything.

So, out of the chute, I'll just give you what my opinion is. McChrystal is neither a hero nor an insubordinate lout. He should not continue to hold his job either for Obama or for himself. I think he was very much faced with a set of facts that have clarified themselves over the last 9 or 10 months that gave him every reason to believe he was the next in a line that started with Douglas MacArthur and continued to William Westmoreland, a General in a low-intensity conflict where the pols in Washington wanted to do everything they could to neither win nor lose the war. Well, definitely not lose, but only win if it just happens not if we have to do anything unseemly to actually win.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about here, please review the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg. I'm referring to the list of things "we would not do" (i.e. Mine Haiphong Harbor, bomb North Vietnam, invade the North etc) "unless it appears likely we will lose the next election."

We again have a government populated by people with that mindset. McChrystal has to know this now. No four star general is dumb enough to blatantly rip on the POTUS and his entire government in front of Rolling Stone "accidentally" especially not one who is known for how smart they are. This was a stratagem. The one part of the stratagem that is obvious is that Gen. McChrystal thinks it is much better to end up like Doug MacArthur than William Westmoreland (the commander in Vietnam for those of you that don't know).

Given that he has said the things he has, it seems obvious that he thinks the entire civilian chain of command, with a couple of exceptions, are a collection of jokes, to be ridiculed as idiots. Whether or not this is actually the case doesn't really matter. The fact he thinks so matters a lot. If he is not fired, he must resign. (Hopefully he'll be able to resign instead of being fired, but the asshats in charge are petty enough to fire him in a pissing contest moment).

(And, since it has become an issue on this thread, yes I have served. Five years in the Infantry.)

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nope. Not the right thing to do now. Never the right thing to do.
Unless, of course, the General believed that his CiC was creating a dangerous situation for the men and women under his command.
And lets be real here folks. If there were ever a war time President that may allow his ideology cloud his military judgement, it is President Obama.

Sorry to quote you Jarhead , but I didn't feel like digging for GHocks quote.

Hey softie, it is NEVER wrong for a solider to question his commanding officer if he feels an order is unsafe or illegal. Nor is it unprecedented for a theater commander to disagree with the CinC. Now Obama would be fully within his right to do as many of his predecessors have done and fire this theater commander fir disagreeing with him, but the General did nothing wrong. Now if he had disobeyed an order, that's another matter entirely. More proof that those who have never served shouldn't comment on how the military operates.

I feel it was poor judgement to use a magazine to express his sentiments.

It sure seems like that on the surface doesn't it?

I can only assume, because everyone seems to go on and on about how smart he is, that he did it for a reason. I'm not clear why this was the best vehicle in his mind, but I'm pretty sure we're going to find out pretty soon.

 

[Jarhead]

I was hoping for something I could latch on to and create some kind of useful comment on this thread, but I didn't find anything.

So, out of the chute, I'll just give you what my opinion is. McChrystal is neither a hero nor an insubordinate lout. He should not continue to hold his job either for Obama or for himself. I think he was very much faced with a set of facts that have clarified themselves over the last 9 or 10 months that gave him every reason to believe he was the next in a line that started with Douglas MacArthur and continued to William Westmoreland, a General in a low-intensity conflict where the pols in Washington wanted to do everything they could to neither win nor lose the war. Well, definitely not lose, but only win if it just happens not if we have to do anything unseemly to actually win.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about here, please review the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg. I'm referring to the list of things "we would not do" (i.e. Mine Haiphong Harbor, bomb North Vietnam, invade the North etc) "unless it appears likely we will lose the next election."

We again have a government populated by people with that mindset. McChrystal has to know this now. No four star general is dumb enough to blatantly rip on the POTUS and his entire government in front of Rolling Stone "accidentally" especially not one who is known for how smart they are. This was a stratagem. The one part of the stratagem that is obvious is that Gen. McChrystal thinks it is much better to end up like Doug MacArthur than William Westmoreland (the commander in Vietnam for those of you that don't know).

Given that he has said the things he has, it seems obvious that he thinks the entire civilian chain of command, with a couple of exceptions, are a collection of jokes, to be ridiculed as idiots. Whether or not this is actually the case doesn't really matter. The fact he thinks so matters a lot. If he is not fired, he must resign. (Hopefully he'll be able to resign instead of being fired, but the asshats in charge are petty enough to fire him in a pissing contest moment).

(And, since it has become an issue on this thread, yes I have served. Five years in the Infantry.)

Well wrtitten but my post #88 is a short version of it.

In a nutshell, McChrystal does not want the blood of my brothers on his hands.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I was hoping for something I could latch on to and create some kind of useful comment on this thread, but I didn't find anything.

So, out of the chute, I'll just give you what my opinion is. McChrystal is neither a hero nor an insubordinate lout. He should not continue to hold his job either for Obama or for himself. I think he was very much faced with a set of facts that have clarified themselves over the last 9 or 10 months that gave him every reason to believe he was the next in a line that started with Douglas MacArthur and continued to William Westmoreland, a General in a low-intensity conflict where the pols in Washington wanted to do everything they could to neither win nor lose the war. Well, definitely not lose, but only win if it just happens not if we have to do anything unseemly to actually win.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about here, please review the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg. I'm referring to the list of things "we would not do" (i.e. Mine Haiphong Harbor, bomb North Vietnam, invade the North etc) "unless it appears likely we will lose the next election."

We again have a government populated by people with that mindset. McChrystal has to know this now. No four star general is dumb enough to blatantly rip on the POTUS and his entire government in front of Rolling Stone "accidentally" especially not one who is known for how smart they are. This was a stratagem. The one part of the stratagem that is obvious is that Gen. McChrystal thinks it is much better to end up like Doug MacArthur than William Westmoreland (the commander in Vietnam for those of you that don't know).

Given that he has said the things he has, it seems obvious that he thinks the entire civilian chain of command, with a couple of exceptions, are a collection of jokes, to be ridiculed as idiots. Whether or not this is actually the case doesn't really matter. The fact he thinks so matters a lot. If he is not fired, he must resign. (Hopefully he'll be able to resign instead of being fired, but the asshats in charge are petty enough to fire him in a pissing contest moment).

(And, since it has become an issue on this thread, yes I have served. Five years in the Infantry.)

Well wrtitten but my post #88 is a short version of it.

In a nutshell, McChrystal does not want the blood of my brothers on his hands.

I'm always good for the longer version of stuff ...