I agree w/ Olberman RE: McChrystal

[The Rabbi]

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?

I think you're stoopid for suggesting that in the first place.

Coming from you, I'm quite flattered. I'd have to cut my own throat if you ever thought I had good ideas.

Cut your own throat? WHy that's a GREAT idea!!

 

[del]

The president is the leader of the United States...so yes, discrediting him is discrediting the United States and undermining what the United States is trying to accomplish.

Doesn't matter who the president is...Bush or Obama.

This isn't Imperial Japan 1940. The Prez is not above criticism and I thought what the US has always tried to accomplish is Freedom. Wouldn't that include Freedom of Speech? You don't think our Troops, the very people putting their lives on the line should have a Freedom they are dying for?

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.

 

[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.

I don't think the general was being so crafty as trying to get fired to avoid any ownership of the Afghanistan policy, but it should be pointed out that this is his policy and he needs to start acting like a frigging leader.

He also needs to be told that if this succeeds or fails, he and the President's reputation will be intimately tied to each other so he'd better get hip to that.

He then needs to be told to get his ass back to Afghanistan and stop bitching.

 

[Ravi]

OK, let's take the current politics out of it.

If Gen. Haig had tendered his resignation in 1976, could President Ford have refused it? How would they have forced Haig to continue serving if he had?

No...but it would affect what type of discharge was awarded I would think.

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.

 

[CurveLight]

The general should stand at a full court for his actions.
Is he really indespensable in Afganistan?
Says a lot lot those under him and his leadership skills doesn't it if he cannot leave without it falling apart.

I disagree. This doesn't reach the level of insubordination that should cause the General to be fired and doing so will put Obama at odds with the General staff (just as they were with Rumsfeld).

The military was dysfunctional under Rumsfeld due to his penchant to fire anyone that disagreed with him. It created a climate of fear and bootlicking that allowed a bunch of "yes men" to climb to the senior ranks and it was one of the reasons we had the devil to pay in Iraq.

As it stands, if I were Obama I'd be like "WTF?". McChrystal has been given full latitude to implement his plan in Afghanistan. What more does he want? Perhaps to not be accountable for the situation.

Tough nuts, General, you are the commander on the ground. Now stop bitching like a little *****, take command, and do your ******* job.

Maybe he's reached the "War is a Racket" moment and is done with having Soldiers die in a bullshit occupation? I remember Obama saying he is against dumb wars but as far as I can see, the Bush admin has yet to leave the Oval Office.

 

[Ravi]

This isn't Imperial Japan 1940. The Prez is not above criticism and I thought what the US has always tried to accomplish is Freedom. Wouldn't that include Freedom of Speech? You don't think our Troops, the very people putting their lives on the line should have a Freedom they are dying for?

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.

 

[Immanuel]

You want me to move because you support a Policy that is so ******* stoopid you can't even begin to legitimately defend it? Yep. The iraqi islamic government loves people like you.

I don't happen to think that civilian control of the military is a stupid policy. I don't happen to believe that demanding that military personnel serve their country and not denigrate their chain of command is stupid policy. I am sorry that you do.

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?

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 "***** 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

 

[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.

I think Obama ought to bust him down a couple ranks or so before accepting his resignation.

The man went off the reservation and as a top ranking general he ought to have known better.

Reducing an officer in rank, let alone a General Officer, is actually a complicated, rare, and hard ordeal that generally accomapnies criminal charges.

McChrystal will resign his commission before that happens.

 

[The Rabbi]

This isn't Imperial Japan 1940. The Prez is not above criticism and I thought what the US has always tried to accomplish is Freedom. Wouldn't that include Freedom of Speech? You don't think our Troops, the very people putting their lives on the line should have a Freedom they are dying for?

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.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

I don't think the general was being so crafty as trying to get fired to avoid any ownership of the Afghanistan policy, but it should be pointed out that this is his policy and he needs to start acting like a frigging leader.

He also needs to be told that if this succeeds or fails, he and the President's reputation will be intimately tied to each other so he'd better get hip to that.

He then needs to be told to get his ass back to Afghanistan and stop bitching.

Go back and do what? After almost a decade of a failed occupation what magical crystal ball of solutions should the general take with him?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Well, like Frank crows about, this is a big win for the Taliban.

 

[del]

No...but it would affect what type of discharge was awarded I would think.

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.

he would probably be court martialled and dismissed. a case could be made for him being AWOL at the very least and desertion in the face of the enemy is not a big stretch. all officers are subject to the exigencies of the service, and there's no guarantee that your resignation will be accepted when tendered.

 

[geauxtohell]

You want me to move because you support a Policy that is so ******* stoopid you can't even begin to legitimately defend it? Yep. The iraqi islamic government loves people like you.

I don't happen to think that civilian control of the military is a stupid policy. I don't happen to believe that demanding that military personnel serve their country and not denigrate their chain of command is stupid policy. I am sorry that you do.

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.

 

[CurveLight]

I don't happen to think that civilian control of the military is a stupid policy. I don't happen to believe that demanding that military personnel serve their country and not denigrate their chain of command is stupid policy. I am sorry that you do.

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?

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 "***** 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?

 

[CurveLight]

I don't happen to think that civilian control of the military is a stupid policy. I don't happen to believe that demanding that military personnel serve their country and not denigrate their chain of command is stupid policy. I am sorry that you do.

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.

 

[Ravi]

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?

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 "***** 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.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Well, like Frank crows about, this is a big win for the Taliban.

People who make statements like that usually don't have a ******* clue.

 

[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 "***** 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.

Non-sequitur. Next.

 

[geauxtohell]

No...but it would affect what type of discharge was awarded I would think.

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.

McChrystal has had diarrhea of the mouth before. Obama needs to lay the chips down and ask him if he can serve under him.

I think he would answer "yes".

His response should then be: "Then stop bitching and get back to work. If you or your staff have a problem with me, then we'll talk about it in private like professionals."

This gives Obama plenty of ammo to fire McChrystal on another event.

In the end, I have tremendous respect for Secretary Gate and whatever decision comes out of the White House, I trust will be the best one.

 

[geauxtohell]

The general should stand at a full court for his actions.
Is he really indespensable in Afganistan?
Says a lot lot those under him and his leadership skills doesn't it if he cannot leave without it falling apart.

I disagree. This doesn't reach the level of insubordination that should cause the General to be fired and doing so will put Obama at odds with the General staff (just as they were with Rumsfeld).

The military was dysfunctional under Rumsfeld due to his penchant to fire anyone that disagreed with him. It created a climate of fear and bootlicking that allowed a bunch of "yes men" to climb to the senior ranks and it was one of the reasons we had the devil to pay in Iraq.

As it stands, if I were Obama I'd be like "WTF?". McChrystal has been given full latitude to implement his plan in Afghanistan. What more does he want? Perhaps to not be accountable for the situation.

Tough nuts, General, you are the commander on the ground. Now stop bitching like a little *****, take command, and do your ******* job.

Maybe he's reached the "War is a Racket" moment and is done with having Soldiers die in a bullshit occupation? I remember Obama saying he is against dumb wars but as far as I can see, the Bush admin has yet to leave the Oval Office.

I doubt that. If that's the situation, he would resign first and make the statements second.

His words seem to be driven by the fact that the White House is hesitant to escalate Afghanistan.

Obama needs to be astute about handling this, because it's much larger than just McChrystal. It will define his relationship with the Pentagon.

As I cited, the Bush Administration created a shitty environment by relieving and retiring any General who dared to tell them the truth about Afghanistan.

That wasn't insubordination, but I think if Obama gos for the high ground here, McChrystal loses any right to ***** in the future.