McChrystal Says He's Talked With Obama Once Since Taking Afghanistan Command

[bodecea]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

it worked out great in nam....

Didn't it, tho?

 

[Si modo]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

It appears the mentality in this thread is no civilian is allowed to speak about this. So unless you are/were military, your input means nothing, and you agreed. So, you need to shut up if you have no experience serving in the military.

 

[bodecea]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

It appears the mentality in this thread is no civilian is allowed to speak about this. So unless you are/were military, your input means nothing, and you agreed. So, you need to shut up if you have no experience serving in the military.

21 Years as a Naval Aviator. And you?

 

[Si modo]

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

It appears the mentality in this thread is no civilian is allowed to speak about this. So unless you are/were military, your input means nothing, and you agreed. So, you need to shut up if you have no experience serving in the military.

21 Years as a Naval Aviator. And you?

How dishonest of you - asked and answered and you even commented on it. Your bullshit is once again exposed.

I didn't ask you and I don't care. I am not of the idiotic mentality that only ones who have done military service are allowed opinions about the military.

Nor am I of the idiotic mentality of getting in a pissing contest with another over nothing about that poster that can be confirmed. That's YOUR style - pissing contests - and I have no doubt that you are more capable of pissing farther than I can. You will always win pissing contests with me.

 

[maineman]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

It appears the mentality in this thread is no civilian is allowed to speak about this. So unless you are/were military, your input means nothing, and you agreed. So, you need to shut up if you have no experience serving in the military.

no one is saying that your input means nothing... it is when you act as if those of us who HAVE served don't know what the hell we're talking about ... only then do we think you need to stfu. THe fact of the matter is: the chain of command is a HUGE deal in the military. It is drummed into your head from day one and jumping the chain up OR down is frowned upon. The president needs to talk frequently with his Secretary of Defense, who talks frequently to his chiefs of staff and major area commanders...and sometimes he talks with theater commanders along with the service chiefs and major area commanders. Even Gates would not routinely call McChrystal without Casey being present...or at least aware before the fact.
This entire argument that Obama is somehow negligent because he does not pick up the red phone and talk to McChrystal about how things are going this morning in Afghanistan is simply ridiculous and it seems that the only folks who are putting forth that argument are people who never served in the military.

 

[Si modo]

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

It appears the mentality in this thread is no civilian is allowed to speak about this. So unless you are/were military, your input means nothing, and you agreed. So, you need to shut up if you have no experience serving in the military.

no one is saying that your input means nothing... it is when you act as if those of us who HAVE served don't know what the hell we're talking about ... only then do we think you need to stfu. THe fact of the matter is: the chain of command is a HUGE deal in the military. It is drummed into your head from day one and jumping the chain up OR down is frowned upon. The president needs to talk frequently with his Secretary of Defense, who talks frequently to his chiefs of staff and major area commanders...and sometimes he talks with theater commanders along with the service chiefs and major area commanders. Even Gates would not routinely call McChrystal without Casey being present...or at least aware before the fact.
This entire argument that Obama is somehow negligent because he does not pick up the red phone and talk to McChrystal about how things are going this morning in Afghanistan is simply ridiculous and it seems that the only folks who are putting forth that argument are people who never served in the military.

Irrespective of whether one thinks I have an idea of what the chain of command is or not, the chain of command does not preclude BHO from consulting the commander of the NATO theater. It's an irrelevant argument.

 

[maineman]

It appears the mentality in this thread is no civilian is allowed to speak about this. So unless you are/were military, your input means nothing, and you agreed. So, you need to shut up if you have no experience serving in the military.

no one is saying that your input means nothing... it is when you act as if those of us who HAVE served don't know what the hell we're talking about ... only then do we think you need to stfu. THe fact of the matter is: the chain of command is a HUGE deal in the military. It is drummed into your head from day one and jumping the chain up OR down is frowned upon. The president needs to talk frequently with his Secretary of Defense, who talks frequently to his chiefs of staff and major area commanders...and sometimes he talks with theater commanders along with the service chiefs and major area commanders. Even Gates would not routinely call McChrystal without Casey being present...or at least aware before the fact.
This entire argument that Obama is somehow negligent because he does not pick up the red phone and talk to McChrystal about how things are going this morning in Afghanistan is simply ridiculous and it seems that the only folks who are putting forth that argument are people who never served in the military.

Irrespective of whether one thinks I have an idea of what the chain of command is or not, the chain of command does not preclude BHO from consulting the commander of the NATO theater. It's an irrelevant argument.

you are wrong. And he would certainly not do so without the missing links in the chain of command present.

and tell me WHY he would need to consult the theater commander? do you think he does not trust Gates and Casey?

 

[bodecea]

It appears the mentality in this thread is no civilian is allowed to speak about this. So unless you are/were military, your input means nothing, and you agreed. So, you need to shut up if you have no experience serving in the military.

21 Years as a Naval Aviator. And you?

How dishonest of you - asked and answered and you even commented on it. Your bullshit is once again exposed.

I didn't ask you and I don't care.

Oh dear...who'd being dishonest now?

I am not of the idiotic mentality that only ones who have done military service are allowed opinions about the military.

Nor am I of the idiotic mentality of getting in a pissing contest with another over nothing about that poster that can be confirmed. That's YOUR style - pissing contests - and I have no doubt that you are more capable of pissing farther than I can. You will always win pissing contests with me.

And, of course, you label all conversations with me "pissing contests." That's always a convenient out, isn't it?

 

[Si modo]

no one is saying that your input means nothing... it is when you act as if those of us who HAVE served don't know what the hell we're talking about ... only then do we think you need to stfu. THe fact of the matter is: the chain of command is a HUGE deal in the military. It is drummed into your head from day one and jumping the chain up OR down is frowned upon. The president needs to talk frequently with his Secretary of Defense, who talks frequently to his chiefs of staff and major area commanders...and sometimes he talks with theater commanders along with the service chiefs and major area commanders. Even Gates would not routinely call McChrystal without Casey being present...or at least aware before the fact.
This entire argument that Obama is somehow negligent because he does not pick up the red phone and talk to McChrystal about how things are going this morning in Afghanistan is simply ridiculous and it seems that the only folks who are putting forth that argument are people who never served in the military.

Irrespective of whether one thinks I have an idea of what the chain of command is or not, the chain of command does not preclude BHO from consulting the commander of the NATO theater. It's an irrelevant argument.

you are wrong. And he would certainly not do so without the missing links in the chain of command present. ...

Of course not, and I have never suggested that he NOT have them present. I wonder why you would think that.

.... and tell me WHY he would need to consult the theater commander? do you think he does not trust Gates and Casey?

It has nothing to do with trusting Gates or Casey. It has to do with getting a thorough understanding of the situation. And, I have no need to take any anonymous poster puffing up about their experiences being the only relevant input; I can go with the comments of officers who have said the same - that they are also stunned that BHO has not consulted but once with McChrystal.

 

[Polk]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

In fact, these people are the same one generally complaining that there is too much micromanagement.

 

[maineman]

Irrespective of whether one thinks I have an idea of what the chain of command is or not, the chain of command does not preclude BHO from consulting the commander of the NATO theater. It's an irrelevant argument.

you are wrong. And he would certainly not do so without the missing links in the chain of command present. ...

Of course not, and I have never suggested that he NOT have them present. I wonder why you would think that.

.... and tell me WHY he would need to consult the theater commander? do you think he does not trust Gates and Casey?

It has nothing to do with trusting Gates or Casey. It has to do with getting a thorough understanding of the situation. And, I have no need to take any anonymous poster puffing up about their experiences being the only relevant input; I can go with the comments of officers who have said the same - that they are also stunned that BHO has not consulted but once with McChrystal.

Asa retired officer, I must disagree with those officers who suggested that a president needs to routinely talk to theater commanders. If I were the secretary of defense, I would be insulted by such a suggestion.

 

[Si modo]

Well, luckily Gates is Sec'y of Defense and he had no issues even with a Lt. Col. regularly conferring with the executive office during the last administration.

 

[Article 15]

Well, luckily Gates is Sec'y of Defense and he had no issues even with a Lt. Col. regularly conferring with the executive office during the last administration.

You're one of those people who just can't handle being wrong about something, aren't you?

 

[Si modo]

Well, luckily Gates is Sec'y of Defense and he had no issues even with a Lt. Col. regularly conferring with the executive office during the last administration.

You're one of those people who just can't handle being wrong about something, aren't you?

Unfortunately for you, the topic of the thread is not my person. Do you have a point or do you want just to stick with the often used, but no less ineffective, 'I'm right, you're wrong' argument? Because, along with being a boring argument, it is a nonsensical one.

 

[Article 15]

Well, luckily Gates is Sec'y of Defense and he had no issues even with a Lt. Col. regularly conferring with the executive office during the last administration.

You're one of those people who just can't handle being wrong about something, aren't you?

Unfortunately for you, the topic of the thread is not my person. Do you have a point or do you want to just stick with the often used, but no less effective, 'I'm right, you're wrong' argument? Because, along with being a boring argument, it is a nonsensical one.

lol ...

You've been whacked around so many times in this thread that you are beginning to remind of a pin-ball, so why bother continuing? You know where I stand ... I stated it long ago in this very thread. I'm making the observation that you don't know when to quit.

 

[Si modo]

You're one of those people who just can't handle being wrong about something, aren't you?

Unfortunately for you, the topic of the thread is not my person. Do you have a point or do you want to just stick with the often used, but no less effective, 'I'm right, you're wrong' argument? Because, along with being a boring argument, it is a nonsensical one.

lol ...

You've been whacked around so many times in this thread that you are beginning to remind of a pin-ball, so why bother continuing? You know where I stand ... I stated it long ago in this very thread. I'm making the observation that you don't know when to quit.

I suppose I am the topic to you. Oh well. I prefer to discuss the actual topic with those willing or able to focus on it. Or is this your bizarre way of disputing this:

Well, luckily Gates is Sec'y of Defense and he had no issues even with a Lt. Col. regularly conferring with the executive office during the last administration.

 

[maineman]

who is this LtCol that you speak of? his Aide?

 

[geauxtohell]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

It appears the mentality in this thread is no civilian is allowed to speak about this. So unless you are/were military, your input means nothing, and you agreed. So, you need to shut up if you have no experience serving in the military.

I certainly don't think that, and never said that.

 

[geauxtohell]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Gates and/or Petreaus asked President Obama not to pester the guy on the ground?

I mean, it briefs well that the President talks regularly to the guy on the ground, but that in itself can be disruptive and tends to cause miss-communication and misunderstandings among the chain of command. Petreaus would personally know about this due to his role in Iraq under Bush.

Complete speculation on my part (which puts it on par with all the other speculation, but just a thought.

I find it strange that people have automatically assumed that this is all due to malfeasance.

Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.

In fact, these people are the same one generally complaining that there is too much micromanagement.

Yeah, I pointed that out in another thread and got a bizarre response.

Either the "war is being over-managed by politicians" or "the politicians don't give a shit about what is going on over there".

You can't have it both ways.

 

[geauxtohell]

you are wrong. And he would certainly not do so without the missing links in the chain of command present. ...

Of course not, and I have never suggested that he NOT have them present. I wonder why you would think that.

.... and tell me WHY he would need to consult the theater commander? do you think he does not trust Gates and Casey?

It has nothing to do with trusting Gates or Casey. It has to do with getting a thorough understanding of the situation. And, I have no need to take any anonymous poster puffing up about their experiences being the only relevant input; I can go with the comments of officers who have said the same - that they are also stunned that BHO has not consulted but once with McChrystal.

Asa retired officer, I must disagree with those officers who suggested that a president needs to routinely talk to theater commanders. If I were the secretary of defense, I would be insulted by such a suggestion.

I haven't noticed many officers that feel that the President needs to bug the guy on the ground.

I think this issue is just being pimped. It reminds me of being a platoon leader and working for that company commander who had to bug you every five minutes on the fucking radio.

Just get out of my way, and let me accomplish my mission. Sir.