Military General Bashes Obama Administration

[Toome]

You perhaps need to refresh yourself on the entire Army chain of command. McChrystal is NOT at the top... Petraeus is above him...Casey is above him... Gates is above him... Obama is above him. It is grossly unprofessional for ANY military officer to publicly criticize his seniors. Mitchell did it and was appropriately busted to colonel because of it. I think that McChrystal should lose at least a star on his way to the retired list.

Fired? Yeah, probably. Retire? Yeah, maybe. Lose rank? Based on what? I'm curious not criticizing why you think he should lose a star?

 

[Mini 14]

He's going to tender his resignation. It isn't a surprise to anyone that he knows what Obama wants to do, and he isn't going to be a part of the game.

The General will fade into the sunset, as they all do, and as he has earned.

 

[Toome]

I will say this much about McChristal....he's DUTY BOUND TO RESIGN HIS COMMAND IF HE FEELS HE CANNOT ACCOMPLISH THE TASK WITH THE TOOLS GIVEN HIM BY THE PRESIDENT!!!!
THAT'S actually the bottom line right there. Duty to self, the chain of command and country.

It would not surprise me if this was his intent all along: find a way out by forcing the administration no choice but to fire him or let him retire.

 

[Big Black Dog]

This guy didn't get to be a General because he's dumb. He's smart enough to know what a sack of shit looks like when he sees one. I think he's just calling them as he sees them.

 

[Intense]

He should have resigned first, and then spoke his mind. Either way Obama will bumble through each day.

 

[maineman]

You perhaps need to refresh yourself on the entire Army chain of command. McChrystal is NOT at the top... Petraeus is above him...Casey is above him... Gates is above him... Obama is above him. It is grossly unprofessional for ANY military officer to publicly criticize his seniors. Mitchell did it and was appropriately busted to colonel because of it. I think that McChrystal should lose at least a star on his way to the retired list.

Fired? Yeah, probably. Retire? Yeah, maybe. Lose rank? Based on what? I'm curious not criticizing why you think he should lose a star?

for the same reason Billy Mitchell did.

 

[Intense]

You perhaps need to refresh yourself on the entire Army chain of command. McChrystal is NOT at the top... Petraeus is above him...Casey is above him... Gates is above him... Obama is above him. It is grossly unprofessional for ANY military officer to publicly criticize his seniors. Mitchell did it and was appropriately busted to colonel because of it. I think that McChrystal should lose at least a star on his way to the retired list.

Fired? Yeah, probably. Retire? Yeah, maybe. Lose rank? Based on what? I'm curious not criticizing why you think he should lose a star?

for the same reason Billy Mitchell did.

I like Patton styled Generals. I say give him his own show on FOX. Take the Star away????? I say add one.

 

[Immanuel]

I wonder how many people have actually read the article.

Here it is:

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

Read it. I have and personally, I don't find anything all that bad in it.

Page one has some snide comments about VP Biden:

McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

And there was the comment about the President being unprepared in the meeting with McChrystal, by the way, that comment came from an adviser, not the General himself:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

So the General was disappointed. Can you blame him?

Other than that the only thing I can find that might make the President angry was in the concluding paragraph of the story and it had nothing at all to do with anything said by the General. It was, in fact, a critique of the counterinsurgency tactics being used to fight this war and was made by the author himself:

So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.

Besides that it was pretty much six pages of biography of the man that is currently leading the war in Afghanistan and a discussion of the tactics being used.

By the way, don't tell anyone but there is actually an argument by the VP, that I actually agree with, although I am by no means qualified to give my opinion on such matters:

For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

Having read The Runaway General, I must say I don't think this is as bad as it is being made out to be and quite frankly, I think the calls for the General's head are ridiculous.

Immie

 

[jillian]

Ouch - it appears Rolling Stone is about to break open the story of the long standing infighting between the Obama White House and current leader of American forces in Afghanistan, General McChrystal...

it's amazing how selective the memory of the rightwingnuts is:

WASHINGTON -- In a broadside fired at the conduct of the war in Iraq, a senior Army strategist has accused the Bush administration of seeking to win "quickly and on the cheap" while ignoring the more critical strategic aim of creating a stable, democratic nation.

While the United States easily won the initial battles that toppled Saddam Hussein a year ago, the administration "either misunderstood or, worse, wished away" the difficulties of transforming that victory into the larger political goal, Army Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria of the U.S. Army War College writes in a new paper.

Army Strategist Criticizes Bush Administration Conduct of Iraq War

The difference is that Echevarria wasn't insubordinate. He made substantive criticism and didn't act like a frat boy in a locker room.

 

[Intense]

I wonder how many people have actually read the article.

Here it is:

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

Read it. I have and personally, I don't find anything all that bad in it.

Page one has some snide comments about VP Biden:

McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

And there was the comment about the President being unprepared in the meeting with McChrystal, by the way, that comment came from an adviser, not the General himself:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

So the General was disappointed. Can you blame him?

Other than that the only thing I can find that might make the President angry was in the concluding paragraph of the story and it had nothing at all to do with anything said by the General. It was, in fact, a critique of the counterinsurgency tactics being used to fight this war and was made by the author himself:

So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.

Besides that it was pretty much six pages of biography of the man that is currently leading the war in Afghanistan and a discussion of the tactics being used.

By the way, don't tell anyone but there is actually an argument by the VP, that I actually agree with, although I am by no means qualified to give my opinion on such matters:

For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

Having read The Runaway General, I must say I don't think this is as bad as it is being made out to be and quite frankly, I think the calls for the General's head are ridiculous.

Immie

I can't believe he even drinks Bud Light Lime! WTF!!!!! That changes everything. Oh the shame of it!!!

 

[Intense]

Ouch - it appears Rolling Stone is about to break open the story of the long standing infighting between the Obama White House and current leader of American forces in Afghanistan, General McChrystal...

it's amazing how selective the memory of the rightwingnuts is:

WASHINGTON -- In a broadside fired at the conduct of the war in Iraq, a senior Army strategist has accused the Bush administration of seeking to win "quickly and on the cheap" while ignoring the more critical strategic aim of creating a stable, democratic nation.

While the United States easily won the initial battles that toppled Saddam Hussein a year ago, the administration "either misunderstood or, worse, wished away" the difficulties of transforming that victory into the larger political goal, Army Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria of the U.S. Army War College writes in a new paper.

Army Strategist Criticizes Bush Administration Conduct of Iraq War

The difference is that Echevarria wasn't insubordinate. He made substantive criticism and didn't act like a frat boy in a locker room.

There are lines that shouldn't be crossed, regardless of what goes on around you. If he crossed that line, it was a mistake. The acceptable route would be to resign and explain why.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not so sure that Dr. Antulio J. Echevarria II was outside the lines with his article. The synopsis follows below of the article "Toward an American Way of War" at
Toward an American Way of War He also later became Director of the Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army War College

Brief Synopsis

The author examines the principal characteristics and ideas associated with the American way of war, past and present. He argues that Americans do not have a way of war, but rather a way of battle. LTC Echevarria contends that moving from a way of battle to a way of war will require some fundamental thinking about the roles of the grammar and logic of war, about the nature of U.S. civil-military relations, and about the practical resources necessary to translate military victory into strategic success.

 

[Intense]

I am not so sure that Dr. Antulio J. Echevarria II was outside the lines with his article. The synopsis follows below of the article "Toward an American Way of War" at
Toward an American Way of War He also later became Director of the Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army War College

Brief Synopsis

The author examines the principal characteristics and ideas associated with the American way of war, past and present. He argues that Americans do not have a way of war, but rather a way of battle. LTC Echevarria contends that moving from a way of battle to a way of war will require some fundamental thinking about the roles of the grammar and logic of war, about the nature of U.S. civil-military relations, and about the practical resources necessary to translate military victory into strategic success.

I was referring to General McChrystal, in relation to the chain of command.

 

[Immanuel]

I wonder how many people have actually read the article.

Here it is:

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

Read it. I have and personally, I don't find anything all that bad in it.

Page one has some snide comments about VP Biden:

McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

And there was the comment about the President being unprepared in the meeting with McChrystal, by the way, that comment came from an adviser, not the General himself:



So the General was disappointed. Can you blame him?

Other than that the only thing I can find that might make the President angry was in the concluding paragraph of the story and it had nothing at all to do with anything said by the General. It was, in fact, a critique of the counterinsurgency tactics being used to fight this war and was made by the author himself:



Besides that it was pretty much six pages of biography of the man that is currently leading the war in Afghanistan and a discussion of the tactics being used.

By the way, don't tell anyone but there is actually an argument by the VP, that I actually agree with, although I am by no means qualified to give my opinion on such matters:

For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

Having read The Runaway General, I must say I don't think this is as bad as it is being made out to be and quite frankly, I think the calls for the General's head are ridiculous.

Immie

I can't believe he even drinks Bud Light Lime! WTF!!!!! That changes everything. Oh the shame of it!!!

I have not tried it. Is it that bad?

Immie

 

[Coyote]

Respect has to be earned....you cannot vote in respect for someone...it just doesn't work that way.
Personally I would like to see Obama fired. He's proven time and again that he just doesn't measure up as a leader. Sorry if that upsets some of you who voted for him but...that's the way the cookie is crumbling.

it doesn't upset me. he's still got an almost 50% approval rating.

but now you know how i felt for 8 years watching the stupidest president i've seen in my lifetime.

stuff happens.

That's fine...but Bush was a leader of men....and his strategies proved correct....even Obama admitted as much.
A 50% approval rating will NOT earn you ONE IOTA of respect from the boots on the ground in A'stan and Iraq.....that's how shit happens. Giving your troops the tools they need to take the fight to the enemy are what earns respect...leading your men BY EXAMPLE is what earns you respect....not playing political bullshit games to suck up to the left wing Code Pink fucks.

No. Not initially. Not for a long time in fact, until "the surge" - his strategies (the idea that it would be a quick in and out), the fact that he did not supply enough troops or equipment despite requests from his generals, and a totally inadequate and antiquated hospital system for returning wounded - does not indicate to me a "leader of men" but somebody who planned very poorly and was damn lucky he didn't do worse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not so sure that Dr. Antulio J. Echevarria II was outside the lines with his article. The synopsis follows below of the article "Toward an American Way of War" at
Toward an American Way of War He also later became Director of the Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army War College

Brief Synopsis

The author examines the principal characteristics and ideas associated with the American way of war, past and present. He argues that Americans do not have a way of war, but rather a way of battle. LTC Echevarria contends that moving from a way of battle to a way of war will require some fundamental thinking about the roles of the grammar and logic of war, about the nature of U.S. civil-military relations, and about the practical resources necessary to translate military victory into strategic success.

I was referring to General McChrystal, in relation to the chain of command.

My error, Intense, and I apologize. Yes, I agree that General M has to resign and retire at his actual rank of two stars instead of what he could have received as four stars. That is an appropriate reprimand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

it doesn't upset me. he's still got an almost 50% approval rating.

but now you know how i felt for 8 years watching the stupidest president i've seen in my lifetime.

stuff happens.

That's fine...but Bush was a leader of men....and his strategies proved correct....even Obama admitted as much.
A 50% approval rating will NOT earn you ONE IOTA of respect from the boots on the ground in A'stan and Iraq.....that's how shit happens. Giving your troops the tools they need to take the fight to the enemy are what earns respect...leading your men BY EXAMPLE is what earns you respect....not playing political bullshit games to suck up to the left wing Code Pink fucks.

No. Not initially. Not for a long time in fact, until "the surge" - his strategies (the idea that it would be a quick in and out), the fact that he did not supply enough troops or equipment despite requests from his generals, and a totally inadequate and antiquated hospital system for returning wounded - does not indicate to me a "leader of men" but somebody who planned very poorly and was damn lucky he didn't do worse.

When he and Rumsfeld not only ignored Shinseki's advice, I knew that we were headed for quagmire. The surge finally helped because there were about the same number of boots on the ground, including the mercs and hired gunman, that the general had called for.

 

[Foxfyre]

The beleagered general has had his 30 minutes at the White House and has left the premises even as other military high ranks arrive for a summit on Afghanistan scheduled I think about now (11 o'cock or so Central.) That does not bode well for the general.

I believe he is out.

 

[Intense]

I wonder how many people have actually read the article.

Here it is:

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

Read it. I have and personally, I don't find anything all that bad in it.

Page one has some snide comments about VP Biden:



And there was the comment about the President being unprepared in the meeting with McChrystal, by the way, that comment came from an adviser, not the General himself:



So the General was disappointed. Can you blame him?

Other than that the only thing I can find that might make the President angry was in the concluding paragraph of the story and it had nothing at all to do with anything said by the General. It was, in fact, a critique of the counterinsurgency tactics being used to fight this war and was made by the author himself:



Besides that it was pretty much six pages of biography of the man that is currently leading the war in Afghanistan and a discussion of the tactics being used.

By the way, don't tell anyone but there is actually an argument by the VP, that I actually agree with, although I am by no means qualified to give my opinion on such matters:



Having read The Runaway General, I must say I don't think this is as bad as it is being made out to be and quite frankly, I think the calls for the General's head are ridiculous.

Immie

I can't believe he even drinks Bud Light Lime! WTF!!!!! That changes everything. Oh the shame of it!!!

I have not tried it. Is it that bad?

Immie

Corona Wanna be, like Miller. The whole lost point was a slice of fresh lime.

 

[MaggieMae]

This guy didn't get to be a General because he's dumb. He's smart enough to know what a sack of shit looks like when he sees one. I think he's just calling them as he sees them.

Sorry, he has zero excuse for his and his staff's behavior. McChrystal has gotten EVERYTHING he asked for to proceed with the planned insurgency and it's no one's fault but his own if some of the missions have turned out badly. To me, they all sound like made a lame attempt at passing the buck by blaming the civilians, who are not on the ground acting as field officers. The blame game certainly is familiar these days.