I agree w/ Olberman RE: McChrystal

[txlonghorn]

I guess we'll know soon enough

 

[Immanuel]

No...the military is not free to criticize and undermine what the country is trying to do while in uniform. Thems the rules. If they cannot follow the rules they shouldn't be in the military.

you're absolutely right and if he had been critical of obama, he should resign. i've read the article at least twice now, and i've found nothing attributed to mcchrystal that is critical of obama or anyone in his chain of command, unless you count biden.

fauxrage apparently isn't just for the rw loons any more.

Right, because chugging beers and sitting there while your staff makes disparaging comments about the administration to the media is professional and becoming of an officer.

Here is the section of the article regarding the Irish Pub they went to:

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

The night after his speech in Paris, McChrystal and his staff head to Kitty O'Shea's, an Irish pub catering to tourists, around the corner from the hotel. His wife, Annie, has joined him for a rare visit: Since the Iraq War began in 2003, she has seen her husband less than 30 days a year. Though it is his and Annie's 33rd wedding anniversary, McChrystal has invited his inner circle along for dinner and drinks at the "least Gucci" place his staff could find. His wife isn't surprised. "He once took me to a Jack in the Box when I was dressed in formalwear," she says with a laugh.

The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority. After arriving in Kabul last summer, Team America set about changing the culture of the International Security Assistance Force, as the NATO-led mission is known. (U.S. soldiers had taken to deriding ISAF as short for "I Suck at Fighting" or "In Sandals and Flip-Flops.") McChrystal banned alcohol on base, kicked out Burger King and other symbols of American excess, expanded the morning briefing to include thousands of officers and refashioned the command center into a Situational Awareness Room, a free-flowing information hub modeled after Mayor Mike Bloomberg's offices in New York. He also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.

By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely shitfaced. Two officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance, while McChrystal's top advisers lock arms and sing a slurred song of their own invention. "Afghanistan!" they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan song.

McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."

I don't see any disparaging remarks made by the staff (not all of whom are military by the way) in here.

Also, the disparaging remarks made by "advisers" in the rest of the article may not even have been made in front of the General except it appears the "Bite me?" joke. Which is not even funny and is in bad taste, but nothing criminal.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

No...the military is not free to criticize and undermine what the country is trying to do while in uniform. Thems the rules. If they cannot follow the rules they shouldn't be in the military.

you're absolutely right and if he had been critical of obama, he should resign. i've read the article at least twice now, and i've found nothing attributed to mcchrystal that is critical of obama or anyone in his chain of command, unless you count biden.

fauxrage apparently isn't just for the rw loons any more.

But he is responsible for his staff, which did make those comments, and presumably reflect the views of their chief.
The question is what good will firing him do on the eve of a major operation? If Obama fires him it will be a sign of weakness on Obama's part.

I actually agree with you. He is responsible for his staff. I also think that firing him would come from a position of weakness and not strength.

 

[txlonghorn]

This just posted by AP -

McChrystal has completed a closed-door meeting with President Barack Obama and has left the White House. There was no immediate word on whether Obama would fire him for his inflammatory comments in a magazine interview.

Significantly, McChrystal departed the White House before Obama convened a regularly scheduled war planning meeting there.

 

[CurveLight]

So what is this strategy and what defines victory in Astan?

 

[Claudette]

McCrystal is a walking Ego. It is also becoming painfully obvious that his battle strategy in Afganistan is not working. The man is a jerk. Obama will can him. He needs to go, he and his command who seem to think, they also, are above reproach.

LMAO MCCHRYSTALS a walking ego??? Jeeze.

Its a wonder that Ol'BO's head fits throught the doors at the WH.

However he is the CIN and McCrystals or his aides comments never should have made the RS or any other magazine.

One must show proper respect for the office even if you don't have any for the person who occupys said office. After all. He is CIN. LOL

 

[geauxtohell]

I didn't say civilian control of the military is stoopid.

You don't think it's stoopid to demand people die for Freedoms they cannot have themselves?

You know that, per article 88 of the UCMJ, that officers don't have "freedom of speech" towards the Chain of Command.

That's what I've been pointing out is so damn ridiculously stoopid.

A couple of centuries of military tradition disagree with you. Would you tolerate insubordination from your soldiers?

Why should officers be allowed to be openly insubordinate to the civilian chain of command? If they can be contemptuous, then there is no cause to relieve them. You would have guys like Doug McArthur lobbying that our policy in North Korea should be, contrary to the Truman Administration's policy, to nuke the shit out of North Korea. It would potentially prompt a situation that allowed for a military coup.

Have you really thought this through?

 

[gautama]

I know people are going to go nuts since Olberman said it, but he stated Obama should not accept General McChrystal's resignation.

GEN McChrystal has set a poor example and this will be a stain on his record and will keep him from being Chief Of The Staff of the Army or CJCOS.

However, he's been given virtually carte blanche to craft his Afghanistan strategy. Time is too limited and A-stan is too complicated to put a new guy in there.

More importantly, it will turn into a giant political football and will (once again) put the White House at odds with the senior rank and file (before people go nuts on this, keep in mind how many people Rumsfeld fired and Bush brought in a retired General to run the Army) and hand ammunition to the people that want to create the perception that Obama is soft.

In the meantime, Admiral Mullen needs to screw down the officer corps. It's pretty sad when the Generals have to be told to behave.

This will probably be the first time I agree with GoToHell, one of the more ardent followers of the Black Racist MARXIST Palestinian Guardian and Muslim PC Protector Obami Salaami, the EXPOSED MONUMENTAL FRAUD's soon to be possible conclusion.

However, when GoToHell publicly mourns this instance of a General "misbehaving", this GoToHell is exhibiting the usual Liberrhoid Hypocrisy since I'd bet the National Debt that he joined in the criticism of Dubya by those generals no doubt with much "righteous" indignation when LEFTY POLITICS were the primary cause...... and NOT the fact that one shouldn't screw around with the chain of command.

 

[Ravi]

No it won't. If he resigns his commission as a General Officer in the United States military, he's essentially saying "I am no longer an officer in the military".

There hasn't been any UCMJ charges against him, it won't change his honorable discharge, nor should it.

This might have been asked, but Obama can refuse to accept his resignation but he can't force the General to stay on if he doesn't want to.

McChrystal doesn't want to resign though, IMO, so if Obama told him he didn't have to, I think he would go back to A-stan.

If Obama didn't accept his resignation and told McCristal to go back to work and McCristal refused by resigning I think that would have some bearing on his discharge.

It won't and it shouldn't. This isn't something that changes 20+ years of honorable service.

I'm going to have to go with Del on this one.

 

[geauxtohell]

McCrystal is a walking Ego. It is also becoming painfully obvious that his battle strategy in Afganistan is not working. The man is a jerk. Obama will can him. He needs to go, he and his command who seem to think, they also, are above reproach.

LMAO MCCHRYSTALS a walking ego??? Jeeze.

Its a wonder that Ol'BO's head fits throught the doors at the WH.

However he is the CIN and McCrystals or his aides comments never should have made the RS or any other magazine.

One must show proper respect for the office even if you don't have any for the person who occupys said office. After all. He is CIN. LOL

McChrystal's ego is obviously a problem and it's been allowed to permeate his staff. He's surrounded himself with people who act in an unprofessional manner.

There is probably no better example of selfless service from a General than from George C. Marshall. Marshall got the importance of the military subordinating itself to the civilian command and not becoming a political organization. He even refused to vote.

That's why he, no doubt, supported canning McArthur.

 

[geauxtohell]

I know people are going to go nuts since Olberman said it, but he stated Obama should not accept General McChrystal's resignation.

GEN McChrystal has set a poor example and this will be a stain on his record and will keep him from being Chief Of The Staff of the Army or CJCOS.

However, he's been given virtually carte blanche to craft his Afghanistan strategy. Time is too limited and A-stan is too complicated to put a new guy in there.

More importantly, it will turn into a giant political football and will (once again) put the White House at odds with the senior rank and file (before people go nuts on this, keep in mind how many people Rumsfeld fired and Bush brought in a retired General to run the Army) and hand ammunition to the people that want to create the perception that Obama is soft.

In the meantime, Admiral Mullen needs to screw down the officer corps. It's pretty sad when the Generals have to be told to behave.

This will probably be the first time I agree with GoToHell, one of the more ardent followers of the Black Racist MARXIST Palestinian Guardian and Muslim PC Protector Obami Salaami, the EXPOSED MONUMENTAL FRAUD's soon to be possible conclusion.

However, when GoToHell publicly mourns this instance of a General "misbehaving", this GoToHell is exhibiting the usual Liberrhoid Hypocrisy since I'd bet the National Debt that he joined in the criticism of Dubya by those generals no doubt with much "righteous" indignation when LEFTY POLITICS were the primary cause...... and NOT the fact that one shouldn't screw around with the chain of command.

You lost that bet. I don't support any General on active duty undermining the chain of command. There is a big difference between a retired General giving their opinion on matters of military importance and active duty officers being openly contemptuous towards the civilian chain of command.

This issue is much larger than simply Afghanistan. If you've never been an officer, you might not get it.

I think Obama is is within his right to relieve the General (meaning that I think the comments and attitude justify McChrystal being relieved, not simply that any officer who serves does so at the pleasure of the President). I just don't think he should.

BTW, are you capable of posting in a manner that is devoid of hyperbole that makes you look like a fucking idiot?

 

[del]

McCrystal is a walking Ego. It is also becoming painfully obvious that his battle strategy in Afganistan is not working. The man is a jerk. Obama will can him. He needs to go, he and his command who seem to think, they also, are above reproach.

LMAO MCCHRYSTALS a walking ego??? Jeeze.

Its a wonder that Ol'BO's head fits throught the doors at the WH.

However he is the CIN and McCrystals or his aides comments never should have made the RS or any other magazine.

One must show proper respect for the office even if you don't have any for the person who occupys said office. After all. He is CIN. LOL

McChrystal's ego is obviously a problem and it's been allowed to permeate his staff. He's surrounded himself with people who act in an unprofessional manner.

There is probably no better example of selfless service from a General than from George C. Marshall. Marshall got the importance of the military subordinating itself to the civilian command and not becoming a political organization. He even refused to vote.

That's why he, no doubt, supported canning McArthur.

i greatly admire marshall, but i have to point out that he and macarthur were enemies of long standing. macarthur gave him a fitrep stating that marshall was incapable of commanding a regiment when he was at C&GS
school. this doesn't change the fact that marshall was right, just a little side note.

 

[CurveLight]

I have to disagree with this line of your argument.

There are good reasons for not allowing the criticism of those above you. First of all, you (the General in this case) may not have all the facts and by making such statements may jeopardize the mission... his mission.

I was actually surprised that the article discusses a "bitch session" that the General allowed to go on. The article discussed a meeting the general had with some of the soldiers in the field at a memorial for a fallen soldier and the general actually allowed them to vent their frustrations.

It is not that the men and women who are fighting our battles for us do not have the Freedom of Speech. It is that they are limited in that freedom when it comes to matters of the military and it should be limited in this case.

Immie

Soldiers under the UCMJ do not have Freedom of Speech and I see no legit reasons to take it from them then demand they give their lives for something that they don't have themselves. It's simply a method of dehumanizing Americans to prevent Policy makers from being held accountable. It shuts our Troops up so damn much they can't even follow the UCMJ. Who knows why?

Again, they know this when they sign on. No one is forced to serve anymore.

You know that, per article 88 of the UCMJ, that officers don't have "freedom of speech" towards the Chain of Command.

That's what I've been pointing out is so damn ridiculously stoopid.

A couple of centuries of military tradition disagree with you. Would you tolerate insubordination from your soldiers?

Why should officers be allowed to be openly insubordinate to the civilian chain of command? If they can be contemptuous, then there is no cause to relieve them. You would have guys like Doug McArthur lobbying that our policy in North Korea should be, contrary to the Truman Administration's policy, to nuke the shit out of North Korea. It would potentially prompt a situation that allowed for a military coup.

Have you really thought this through?

I've thought it through enough to know that when fear is your sounding board it's time to re-evaluate the path to your conclusion.

 

[DavidS]

I disagree completely. McChrystal should be relieved of his command effective immediately and allowed the chance to retire with honor and full benefits of a man of his rank. If he does not have confidence in his president that he can carry out the mission his president has given him effectively, he needs to step aside ASAP and let someone else who feels they can carry it out do so. In this country, thank g-d, the civilian government rules the military and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a parent sending my sons and daughters off to a war under the command of a general that doesn't seem to be confident in our current strategy.

McChrystal should resign. Immediately.

 

[geauxtohell]

i greatly admire marshall, but i have to point out that he and macarthur were enemies of long standing. macarthur gave him a fitrep stating that marshall was incapable of commanding a regiment when he was at C&GS
school. this doesn't change the fact that marshall was right, just a little side note.

I greatly admire Marshall too. He was a man of the highest integrity. In consideration of that, I doubt he recommend MacArthur be terminated due to a personal squabble. If anything, I would suspect he gave Mac some latitude due to that.

However, when a general starts trying to influence American foreign policy (and when it's completely insane), they need to go.

That was probably the most justified firing of a General that I can think of and, as it will be today, Truman's opponents used it to make political hay.

To MacArthur's credit, he did "fade away" and didn't do much to facilitate attacking Truman.

 

[Immanuel]

I disagree completely. McChrystal should be relieved of his command effective immediately and allowed the chance to retire with honor and full benefits of a man of his rank. If he does not have confidence in his president that he can carry out the mission his president has given him effectively, he needs to step aside ASAP and let someone else who feels they can carry it out do so. In this country, thank g-d, the civilian government rules the military and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a parent sending my sons and daughters off to a war under the command of a general that doesn't seem to be confident in our current strategy.

McChrystal should resign. Immediately.

I would have to say it is safe to assume that you have not read the article. General McChrystal gave no indication whatsoever that he did not have confidence in the President or the Mission in Afghanistan. In fact, according to the article, he is the major proponent of the tactics being used.

I have to say, that if the President accepts the resignation or fires the general it is going to be a smear on the President rather than the General. It will tell me that the President let the media do his thinking for him, because nothing in the RS article is terribly critical of the President except for the comment of one adviser that claims that in the first one on one meeting between the President and the General, that the President didn't even seem to know who the general was. The only other criticism of the President was really a criticism of the tactics being used and that came from the author of the article himself in the articles conclusion and appears to be as much of a criticism of the General as it does of the President.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

I've thought it through enough to know that when fear is your sounding board it's time to re-evaluate the path to your conclusion.

What fear? It's pretty simple, if you are a commissioned officer, don't violate the UCMJ and you won't have to live in fear.

I mean, you could further argue that we should chuck all laws because people follow them out of fear, but that is equally ridiculous.

 

[geauxtohell]

I would have to say it is safe to assume that you have not read the article. General McChrystal gave no indication whatsoever that he did not have confidence in the President or the Mission in Afghanistan. In fact, according to the article, he is the major proponent of the tactics being used.

I have to say, that if the President accepts the resignation or fires the general it is going to be a smear on the President rather than the General. It will tell me that the President let the media do his thinking for him, because nothing in the RS article is terribly critical of the President except for the comment of one adviser that claims that in the first one on one meeting between the President and the General, that the President didn't even seem to know who the general was. The only other criticism of the President was really a criticism of the tactics being used and that came from the author of the article himself in the articles conclusion and appears to be as much of a criticism of the General as it does of the President.

Immie

He should be a proponent of the tactics. They are his fucking war plan.

I don't really get the animosity of McChrystal and his staff towards the White House. They've basically been given the keys to the car on Afghanistan. It's ridiculous.

Perhaps there is something there, either way it was completely inappropriate of the General and his staff to act in the matter that they did.

I just don't think it should be a hanging crime. I also agree with you that firing the General will make the President look bad, however, in the end I trust he will act in accordance to what the SECDEF and Joint Chiefs advised him to do and not the "media" or his "ego" as your sqawkbox will tell you (if he does terminate him).

I think this should serve as an ultimatum to McChrystal to get to fucking work and stop bitching. The next incident should be the one he is relieved for.

 

[geauxtohell]

I disagree completely. McChrystal should be relieved of his command effective immediately and allowed the chance to retire with honor and full benefits of a man of his rank. If he does not have confidence in his president that he can carry out the mission his president has given him effectively, he needs to step aside ASAP and let someone else who feels they can carry it out do so. In this country, thank g-d, the civilian government rules the military and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a parent sending my sons and daughters off to a war under the command of a general that doesn't seem to be confident in our current strategy.

McChrystal should resign. Immediately.

I agree with most everything you've said, just not your conclusion.

As far as what was said and what was not said, General McChrystal has less latitude to say publically make statements about the President than anyone else in Afghanistan. If a Private called the President a "moron"(which McChrystal didn't do) he would be lined out and back to duty. The top commander even hinting that there is a rift is something that can't be tolerated. He carries a higher burden. In exchange for that, he get's the ear of the President.

McChrystal is also responsible for the command climate he perpetuates and that includes his blatantly contemptuous staff.

 

[VaYank5150]

I know people are going to go nuts since Olberman said it, but he stated Obama should not accept General McChrystal's resignation.

GEN McChrystal has set a poor example and this will be a stain on his record and will keep him from being Chief Of The Staff of the Army or CJCOS.

However, he's been given virtually carte blanche to craft his Afghanistan strategy. Time is too limited and A-stan is too complicated to put a new guy in there.

More importantly, it will turn into a giant political football and will (once again) put the White House at odds with the senior rank and file (before people go nuts on this, keep in mind how many people Rumsfeld fired and Bush brought in a retired General to run the Army) and hand ammunition to the people that want to create the perception that Obama is soft.

In the meantime, Admiral Mullen needs to screw down the officer corps. It's pretty sad when the Generals have to be told to behave.

We cannot "win" in Afghanistan, just as we cannot "win" in Iraq. The players may change, but the results will remain the same. Bye, bye McChrystal.