Gen. McChrystal allies, Rolling Stone disagree over article's ground rules

[LuckyDan]

Does it even matter?

BO has lost the general he picked and replaced him with the one he shunned.

Patreus is the hero here. McChrsystal is the pawn. And BO is the Fool.

Sorry but he is not the fool here. He was the victim and he handled it. That really pisses you apologists off, doesn't it.

"Victim." Perfect!

I should have, but did not, forsee the "victim" card - what the fuck else does the left offer but the coveted spot of victimhood?

BO has a case! He should sue!

 

[editec]

There's no such thing as "off the record"

Reporting isn't a game like tag.

There's no time outs, there's no alli alli infrees, there's no free base

The General knew that.

It's foolish to imagine otherwise.

The General choose to end his career with a splash.

Perhaps, he thought he was throwing himself on a sword to save the nation.

Perhaps his motives more more selfish than that.

But to imagine that the Rolling Stone betrayed him is preposterous.

I don't know about that. I think what happened is he got caught being naive. We're talking about a SF guy that isn't used to being around the media. One would think a General would know better, but obviously not.

Obviously you don't know about that.

That's why I told you about that.

There is no "off the record" rule in journalism.

Everything you say to a reporter is on the record.

Everything you say to anybody is on the record.

If you want something off the record, don't say it.

 

[Sarah G]

Does it even matter?

BO has lost the general he picked and replaced him with the one he shunned.

Patreus is the hero here. McChrsystal is the pawn. And BO is the Fool.

Sorry but he is not the fool here. He was the victim and he handled it. That really pisses you apologists off, doesn't it.

"Victim." Perfect!

I should have, but did not, forsee the "victim" card - what the fuck else does the left offer but the coveted spot of victimhood?

BO has a case! He should sue!

Of course he won't sue, he took pity on the so called gino and didn't have him court marshalled. Obama handled it, swift justice.

I do believe the general thought he'd have more support than he did. Much like neocons always always think. The general was extraordinarilly stupid and he looked it taking his walk of shame.

 

[ConHog]

There's no such thing as "off the record"

Reporting isn't a game like tag.

There's no time outs, there's no alli alli infrees, there's no free base

The General knew that.

It's foolish to imagine otherwise.

The General choose to end his career with a splash.

Perhaps, he thought he was throwing himself on a sword to save the nation.

Perhaps his motives more more selfish than that.

But to imagine that the Rolling Stone betrayed him is preposterous.

I don't know about that. I think what happened is he got caught being naive. We're talking about a SF guy that isn't used to being around the media. One would think a General would know better, but obviously not.

Obviously you don't know about that.

That's why I told you about that.

There is no "off the record" rule in journalism.

Everything you say to a reporter is on the record.

Everything you say to anybody is on the record.

If you want something off the record, don't say it.

There certainly is an "off the record rule" the RS people are even saying hey we didn't use stuff that they said "this is off the record"

 

[ConHog]

Sorry but he is not the fool here. He was the victim and he handled it. That really pisses you apologists off, doesn't it.

"Victim." Perfect!

I should have, but did not, forsee the "victim" card - what the fuck else does the left offer but the coveted spot of victimhood?

BO has a case! He should sue!

Of course he won't sue, he took pity on the so called gino and didn't have him court marshalled. Obama handled it, swift justice.

I do believe the general thought he'd have more support than he did. Much like neocons always always think. The general was extraordinarilly stupid and he looked it taking his walk of shame.

He won't have him court marshaled because he didn't violate the UCMJ you moron. For one thing, they would have a hard time even proving that was him that said anything, for another, none of that rises to the level of insubordination. Insubordination is refusing to obey orders, not being mouthy.

 

[georgephillip]

"Americans don't flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks...We persist and we persevere." So said Obama when announcing the recent change in personnel but not in policy.

Policy that relies on routinely committing atrocities against civilians that pose no threat to the US homeland.

McChrystal should have been relieved for running death squads in Iraq and for flinching from his responsibility to examine recurring patterns of misinformation regarding US attacks against Afghan civilians.

But that might give the impression that the American Empire requires killing civilians for money and flinching from difficult truths.

 

[Toome]

I have a deep-seeded distrust of the news media that dates back to Grenada when they just made shit up and reported it. Ever since then, I've seen news reports that either weren't fully researched, or weren't fully confirmed, or were written in such a manner to give a view rather than report the facts. Rarely have I ever seen a truly objective, well-researched news report.

ConHog and editec are right: the General should have known that there's no such thing as "off the record" even when you "agree" to it. Hell, if I learned that lesson almost 30 years ago when I was a wet-nosed lieutenant, you'd think a seasoned four-star general would, too.

 

[Toome]

Sorry but he is not the fool here. He was the victim and he handled it. That really pisses you apologists off, doesn't it.

"Victim." Perfect!

I should have, but did not, forsee the "victim" card - what the fuck else does the left offer but the coveted spot of victimhood?

BO has a case! He should sue!

Of course he won't sue, he took pity on the so called gino and didn't have him court marshalled. Obama handled it, swift justice.

I do believe the general thought he'd have more support than he did. Much like neocons always always think. The general was extraordinarilly stupid and he looked it taking his walk of shame.

You seem to just have it out for anyone who serves in the military. Of course, that's your right, and you certainly have a right to express your disdain. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise or change your mind.

However, you seem to lack complete understanding of who Stanley McChrystal is. Throughout his career, he's had the tough jobs. He's held ten commands during his career, the majority of them with the "HOOAH" units: the 82nd Airborne Division, 7th Special Forces Group, 75th Ranger Regiment, JSOC, CENTCOM and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. What all of this means in layman's terms is that McChrystal has been conditioned throughout his career to take on the toughest jobs, handle the biggest challenges and to succeed. He has no tolerance for defeat or defeatist attitudes. If John Rambo were a real person and had an Army career (the original David Morrell character not the Sylvester Stallone fantasy figure), then Stanley McChrystal would be the result. Mission-oriented, results-driven, totally committed to victory and no tolerance for the squeamish, the hesitant or those who cater to gloom and doom. It would be no surprise that he'd be very opinionated and that those opinions would get him in trouble.

I'm not defending him. He definitely screwed up; no doubt about that. But the published words in the Rolling Stone article don't subtract any of his accomplishments as a warrior.

The point you may not understand is that we may have lost the one person with the greatest understanding of what it takes to win in Afghanistan. That's a real shame, and I'm hoping that there's someone else who will be able to take on the challenge. However, it is clear in my mind that Obama has politicized the position and that subsequent generals may focus more on the political aspects rather than the military aspects of their jobs. Not that Obama had any other choice, but that's the end result. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[strollingbones]

pat tillman

 

[strollingbones]

Revisiting the Pat Tillman Story, and McChrystal’s Role - The Fifth Down Blog - NYTimes.com


seems the general was good to go on using the press in the past

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The guy is a four star. You don't get there by being a naive.

He had to know who he was dealing with.

and if there is a great quote, it is never off the record. Ever.

Now McCrystal was not insubordinate like McArthur was, but he was way out of line.

I think he had legitimate complaints. And I think he may have done a good thing by this.... and taken one for his men. The major policy complaints have been changed. McCrystal couldn't do that, but Petreaus changed the major issue before he even arrived. The lethal to US service personel rules of engagement have been modified.

If he had done things the right way, and just resigned and then published why, he may not have got the necessary changes done.

 

[editec]

I don't know about that. I think what happened is he got caught being naive. We're talking about a SF guy that isn't used to being around the media. One would think a General would know better, but obviously not.

Obviously you don't know about that.

That's why I told you about that.

There is no "off the record" rule in journalism.

Everything you say to a reporter is on the record.

Everything you say to anybody is on the record.

If you want something off the record, don't say it.

There certainly is an "off the record rule" the RS people are even saying hey we didn't use stuff that they said "this is off the record"

No, I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Perhaps there should be, I wouldn't disagree with that sentiment.

But as to the rule you claim exists?

Never existed, and frankly, I don't know how it could exist.

Who would enforce it?

If you want to be off the record, don't record.

 

[Sarah G]

I was watching Doris Kearns Goodwin on The Daily Rundown the other day and she likened General McChrystal to General George B. McClellan and his relationship with President Lincoln.

I researched it a little and her thoughts ring true, moreso than the comparison to McChrystal and MacArthur.

After meeting with President Lincoln and military leaders in Washington in late July and August1861, the 34-year-old McClellan himself was impressed with his new importance, writing his wife: “I find myself in a new & strange position here – Presdt, Cabinet, Genl Winfield Scott & all deferring to me – by some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the power of the land,' he wrote in pleased amazement. 'I almost think that were I to win some small success now I could become Dictator or anything else that might please me – but nothing of that kind would please me – I won't be Dictator. Admirable self denial!” 7 Historian Richard Striner wrote: ”McClellan possessed two crippling vices that would doom him to failure as a general. First, his bravado was nothing more than a brittle veneer to conceal a major weakness of will. When the bloodshed started and the casualties rose, this military man would prove weak to the point of timidity. Second, when he lost a battle, he would blame it on his superiors. Ironically, his victories in western Virginia that summer had been won to some extent by the skill of his subordinates.”

Abraham Lincoln and George B. McClellan - Abraham Lincoln's Classroom

She said McClellen was called to a meeting with Lincoln and he just let the president sit there. He never showed up.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

McClelean was by no means the worse. Hooker and Fremont were even weirder.

Part of Grant's rise from town character to 3 star was the fact he said little and did much.

 

[georgephillip]

"Victim." Perfect!

I should have, but did not, forsee the "victim" card - what the fuck else does the left offer but the coveted spot of victimhood?

BO has a case! He should sue!

Of course he won't sue, he took pity on the so called gino and didn't have him court marshalled. Obama handled it, swift justice.

I do believe the general thought he'd have more support than he did. Much like neocons always always think. The general was extraordinarilly stupid and he looked it taking his walk of shame.

You seem to just have it out for anyone who serves in the military. Of course, that's your right, and you certainly have a right to express your disdain. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise or change your mind.

However, you seem to lack complete understanding of who Stanley McChrystal is. Throughout his career, he's had the tough jobs. He's held ten commands during his career, the majority of them with the "HOOAH" units: the 82nd Airborne Division, 7th Special Forces Group, 75th Ranger Regiment, JSOC, CENTCOM and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. What all of this means in layman's terms is that McChrystal has been conditioned throughout his career to take on the toughest jobs, handle the biggest challenges and to succeed. He has no tolerance for defeat or defeatist attitudes. If John Rambo were a real person and had an Army career (the original David Morrell character not the Sylvester Stallone fantasy figure), then Stanley McChrystal would be the result. Mission-oriented, results-driven, totally committed to victory and no tolerance for the squeamish, the hesitant or those who cater to gloom and doom. It would be no surprise that he'd be very opinionated and that those opinions would get him in trouble.

I'm not defending him. He definitely screwed up; no doubt about that. But the published words in the Rolling Stone article don't subtract any of his accomplishments as a warrior.

The point you may not understand is that we may have lost the one person with the greatest understanding of what it takes to win in Afghanistan. That's a real shame, and I'm hoping that there's someone else who will be able to take on the challenge. However, it is clear in my mind that Obama has politicized the position and that subsequent generals may focus more on the political aspects rather than the military aspects of their jobs. Not that Obama had any other choice, but that's the end result. Hope I'm wrong.

If what it takes to win in Afghanistan required killing as many US civilians as Afghan civilians do you think McChrystal's mission-oriented, results oriented commitment to victory would change?

Why are US lives, history, and destiny always superior to all others on this planet?

War is a Racket.

 

[Toome]

Of course he won't sue, he took pity on the so called gino and didn't have him court marshalled. Obama handled it, swift justice.

I do believe the general thought he'd have more support than he did. Much like neocons always always think. The general was extraordinarilly stupid and he looked it taking his walk of shame.

You seem to just have it out for anyone who serves in the military. Of course, that's your right, and you certainly have a right to express your disdain. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise or change your mind.

However, you seem to lack complete understanding of who Stanley McChrystal is. Throughout his career, he's had the tough jobs. He's held ten commands during his career, the majority of them with the "HOOAH" units: the 82nd Airborne Division, 7th Special Forces Group, 75th Ranger Regiment, JSOC, CENTCOM and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. What all of this means in layman's terms is that McChrystal has been conditioned throughout his career to take on the toughest jobs, handle the biggest challenges and to succeed. He has no tolerance for defeat or defeatist attitudes. If John Rambo were a real person and had an Army career (the original David Morrell character not the Sylvester Stallone fantasy figure), then Stanley McChrystal would be the result. Mission-oriented, results-driven, totally committed to victory and no tolerance for the squeamish, the hesitant or those who cater to gloom and doom. It would be no surprise that he'd be very opinionated and that those opinions would get him in trouble.

I'm not defending him. He definitely screwed up; no doubt about that. But the published words in the Rolling Stone article don't subtract any of his accomplishments as a warrior.

The point you may not understand is that we may have lost the one person with the greatest understanding of what it takes to win in Afghanistan. That's a real shame, and I'm hoping that there's someone else who will be able to take on the challenge. However, it is clear in my mind that Obama has politicized the position and that subsequent generals may focus more on the political aspects rather than the military aspects of their jobs. Not that Obama had any other choice, but that's the end result. Hope I'm wrong.

If what it takes to win in Afghanistan required killing as many US civilians as Afghan civilians do you think McChrystal's mission-oriented, results oriented commitment to victory would change?

Why are US lives, history, and destiny always superior to all others on this planet?

War is a Racket.

McChrystal was the one who tightened up the ROE in order to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. Petraeus is the one who just recently loosened them up so that troops can use deadly force with fewer restrictions.

Seems to me that you don't understand McChrystal's approach.

 

[georgephillip]

You seem to just have it out for anyone who serves in the military. Of course, that's your right, and you certainly have a right to express your disdain. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise or change your mind.

However, you seem to lack complete understanding of who Stanley McChrystal is. Throughout his career, he's had the tough jobs. He's held ten commands during his career, the majority of them with the "HOOAH" units: the 82nd Airborne Division, 7th Special Forces Group, 75th Ranger Regiment, JSOC, CENTCOM and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. What all of this means in layman's terms is that McChrystal has been conditioned throughout his career to take on the toughest jobs, handle the biggest challenges and to succeed. He has no tolerance for defeat or defeatist attitudes. If John Rambo were a real person and had an Army career (the original David Morrell character not the Sylvester Stallone fantasy figure), then Stanley McChrystal would be the result. Mission-oriented, results-driven, totally committed to victory and no tolerance for the squeamish, the hesitant or those who cater to gloom and doom. It would be no surprise that he'd be very opinionated and that those opinions would get him in trouble.

I'm not defending him. He definitely screwed up; no doubt about that. But the published words in the Rolling Stone article don't subtract any of his accomplishments as a warrior.

The point you may not understand is that we may have lost the one person with the greatest understanding of what it takes to win in Afghanistan. That's a real shame, and I'm hoping that there's someone else who will be able to take on the challenge. However, it is clear in my mind that Obama has politicized the position and that subsequent generals may focus more on the political aspects rather than the military aspects of their jobs. Not that Obama had any other choice, but that's the end result. Hope I'm wrong.

If what it takes to win in Afghanistan required killing as many US civilians as Afghan civilians do you think McChrystal's mission-oriented, results oriented commitment to victory would change?

Why are US lives, history, and destiny always superior to all others on this planet?

War is a Racket.

McChrystal was the one who tightened up the ROE in order to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. Petraeus is the one who just recently loosened them up so that troops can use deadly force with fewer restrictions.

Seems to me that you don't understand McChrystal's approach.

You're right to say I don't understand McChrystal's approach.
Probably because my military service was limited to (the longest) 10 days of my life in March of 1966.

However, when someone like McChrystal talks of "winning hearts and minds" I'm old enough to remember another decorated liar named Westmoreland who tried to buy his way into the White House by killing millions of innocent Asians.

If it's true more Afghan civilians and US troops have died since May 12, 2009 when McChrystal replaced McKiernan, then possibly the intent of that change was to shift assaults against Afghan civilians into the realm of undercover operations thereby making it easier to duck the blame while more US troops died awaiting air support that never came.

War is a Racket.

 

[elvis]

Rolling Stone? He's too busy watching World cup soccer with Bill Clinton.

 

[Toome]

If what it takes to win in Afghanistan required killing as many US civilians as Afghan civilians do you think McChrystal's mission-oriented, results oriented commitment to victory would change?

Why are US lives, history, and destiny always superior to all others on this planet?

War is a Racket.

McChrystal was the one who tightened up the ROE in order to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. Petraeus is the one who just recently loosened them up so that troops can use deadly force with fewer restrictions.

Seems to me that you don't understand McChrystal's approach.

You're right to say I don't understand McChrystal's approach.
Probably because my military service was limited to (the longest) 10 days of my life in March of 1966.

However, when someone like McChrystal talks of "winning hearts and minds" I'm old enough to remember another decorated liar named Westmoreland who tried to buy his way into the White House by killing millions of innocent Asians.

If it's true more Afghan civilians and US troops have died since May 12, 2009 when McChrystal replaced McKiernan, then possibly the intent of that change was to shift assaults against Afghan civilians into the realm of undercover operations thereby making it easier to duck the blame while more US troops died awaiting air support that never came.

War is a Racket.

It is true. However, what your source omits is that McChrystal made a controversial decision to place more restrictions on when troops can shoot their weapons in an effort to reduce the number of casualties and to win more support from the locals. The result was less civilian casualties but more US troop casualties. This didn't stop him from aggressively seeking out the Taliban and al Qaida.

As for "innocent civilians," all I can tell you is that there are no good guys when it comes to this type of warfare. It's very nasty business.

 

[editec]

there are no good guys when it comes to this type of warfare

How liberating that everybody is a target.

That's exactly the thinking of terrorists.

Time McVey totally agrees with you.