WaPo: Gen. Stanley McChrystal coming to Washington to explain anti-administration comments

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813.html?hpid=topnews

KABUL -- The top U.S. general in Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/afghanistan.html?nav=el) was summoned to Washington for a White House meeting after apologizing Tuesday for flippant and dismissive remarks about top Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy.

---------------------------------------

I was really in favor of McChrystal getting that assignment and supported Pres Obama in his bold move to replace the commanding general early. I will not be surprised if McChrystal does not survive this article. It will be tough to find someone better for the position though.

[Kilmer17]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813.html?hpid=topnews

KABUL -- The top U.S. general in Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/afghanistan.html?nav=el) was summoned to Washington for a White House meeting after apologizing Tuesday for flippant and dismissive remarks about top Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy.

---------------------------------------

I was really in favor of McChrystal getting that assignment and supported Pres Obama in his bold move to replace the commanding general early. I will not be surprised if McChrystal does not survive this article. It will be tough to find someone better for the position though.

I dont care what he thinks, I dont care if he's makingg great points and exposing a serious issue.

He needs to get fired, get busted rank etc etc etc.

His job is to do what the CIC tells him to do to the best of his ability and not to question it. Further, he needs to sell that plan to HIS subordinates.

Write your book when you retire, but until then, shut your trap and do as youre told.

[Redskins Diehard]

I dont care what he thinks, I dont care if he's makingg great points and exposing a serious issue.

He needs to get fired, get busted rank etc etc etc.

His job is to do what the CIC tells him to do to the best of his ability and not to question it. Further, he needs to sell that plan to HIS subordinates.

Write your book when you retire, but until then, shut your trap and do as youre told.

He won't get busted in rank. He will likely retire.

[KAOSkins]

I appreciate the sentiment Kilmer, I really do. A look at the comments on Fox had him up, not surprisingly, for the medal of honor. It's the same old story, I know, but it's sad for me to see so many people just being partisan over it. Shameful behavior.

[DCranon21]

I bet he'll tender his resignation after the meeting Obama. No way he'll survive the article.

[nonniey]

Yes he should be fired, but the sad thing is he basically confirmed what those critizing the President, during the Afghan debate last year, were saying.

[Buford]

Sad to see a guy who put in so many years of his life for something he believes in, to stumble like this.

I kind of hope they ask him not to resign. Very sick of this culture where taking out a person who's to blame is more important than fixing the issue at hand.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yes he should be fired, but the sad thing is he basically confirmed what those critizing the President, during the Afghan debate last year, were saying.

His criticism should have never been heard by us. His points should not be ignored either in my opinion.

[War Paint]

Man, it just seems like everything is a real mess, from the economy, to the wars, to the oil volcano in the gulf....Seems like those at the top are starting to get real frustrated. This has to be a huge blow to the morale of our troops.

[skinfan13]

Sad to see a guy who put in so many years of his life for something he believes in, to stumble like this.

I kind of hope they ask him not to resign. Very sick of this culture where taking out a person who's to blame is more important than fixing the issue at hand.That's not how the military works, this is an incredibly serious issue. The chain of command has to be respected here, and clearly he doesn't respect it. General or not he must be held accountable. Obama needs to fire him and Adm. Mullen and Gates will decide if there's any use left for him in the Army.

this makes me rather angry.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The chain of command has to be respected here, and clearly he doesn't respect it.

Unit, Corps, God, Country, sir!

[Bang]

I agree with Kilmer 100%. If he had complants or ideas for fixing flaws in strategy, he should speak to his CiC about it in private.

~Bang

[Heisenberg]

I dont care what he thinks, I dont care if he's makingg great points and exposing a serious issue.

He needs to get fired, get busted rank etc etc etc.

His job is to do what the CIC tells him to do to the best of his ability and not to question it. Further, he needs to sell that plan to HIS subordinates.

Write your book when you retire, but until then, shut your trap and do as youre told.


That's not how the military works, this is an incredibly serious issue. The chain of command has to be respected here, and clearly he doesn't respect it. General or not he must be held accountable. Obama needs to fire him and Adm. Mullen and Gates will decide if there's any use left for him in the Army.

this makes me rather angry.


Two posters who I disagree with often but this shows why I'm always interested in what they have to say.

[thebluefood]

I dont care what he thinks, I dont care if he's makingg great points and exposing a serious issue.

He needs to get fired, get busted rank etc etc etc.

His job is to do what the CIC tells him to do to the best of his ability and not to question it. Further, he needs to sell that plan to HIS subordinates.

Write your book when you retire, but until then, shut your trap and do as youre told.

Exactly. I may not know much about the military, but I know that you do as you're told by your CO, and that includes generals.

Whether we like it or not, Obama is the Commander-In-Chief and he must be treated with respect, especially by the men who serve under him.

[JimboDaMan]

Yes he should be fired, but the sad thing is he basically confirmed what those critizing the President, during the Afghan debate last year, were saying.Well, no, he confirmed nothing, what he did was voice his opinion.

I don't believe he should blindly follow orders, he needs to voice his opinions - PRIVATELY - to the President and his advisors. Once that's done, then he needs to shut up and follow orders or resign.

[deejaydana]

Didn't MacArthur get relieved of his duties by Truman (for letting his head get too big)? I've heard about that story but never read into it.

[War Paint]

McChrystal said he voted for Obama, so he made his own bed.

[Thiebear]

If you completely disagree with your Commander in Chief = Resign in protest.
If you completely disagree with your CIC on CNN = Resign in shame

[thebluefood]

McChrystal said he voted for Obama, so he made his own bed.
And now it appears he **** all over it.

[PeterMP]

It isn't like they even said anything intelligent in terms of criticism. It is a bunch of stupid stuff with the mentality of your general tv jock.

For such stupidity and immaturity alone, they should be fired.

[ABQCOWBOY]

McCrystal is done. It's to bad too. He will be replaced with a yes man and this War is going to get ugly.

[Jumbo]

I know Kilmer and others are correct (and Fox and FoxNews/moron-fans are going to do the same brain-donor dances they always do), but I personally like intelligent dissent even at the top. But I defer to the valid points ya'all make on the matter and well know the military chain of command needs to be different for proper functioning. There are appropriate ways you express dissent in that realm. And I remember how Johnson and Nixon took plenty of heat about politicized/strategic choices and their own "field competency" during Vietnam. But while getting crucified in public venues, they didn't suffer their top military staff fragging the CIC or his cronies in the media.

[Switchgear]

McCrystal is done. It's to bad too. He will be replaced with a yes man and this War is going to get ugly.

Going to get? It already is, at least by our current standards.

In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's a link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37847841/ns/us_news-military) to the Rolling Stone article. It has a fair amount of swearing in it, so it may be NSFW.

[Jumbo]

Deejay, per some accounts, the firing of Mac in '51 had to due with grave concerns over nuclear policy and increasing Korean tensions leading up to that war. I'm sure there was a lot of stuff between them and way more than one factor involved, but their arguments over nuclear polciy and attitudes towards the Asian theater (and the Asian role in the world) during a crucial time was said to be key (as I remember).

[JMS]

He won't get busted in rank. He will likely retire.

I disagree. This is a wood shed moment.. not a career ending moment.
Not unless they are otherwise unhappy with McChystal's performance and we are unware of that.

This isn't even all that uncommon.

[Ryman of the North]

if he was a civilian id say Good on him but hes not.

In the Army you dont contradict the CIC, if you believe so strongly that he is wrong you resign your post.

[Thiebear]

and Fox and FoxNews/moron-fans are going to do the same brain-donor dances they always do),

Couldn't comment on a subject without degrading [insert generalization here] that is easily refutable.

:cool:

[JMS]

Deejay, per some accounts, the firing of Mac in '51 had to due with grave concerns over nuclear policy and increasing Korean tensions leading up to that war. I'm sure there was a lot of stuff between them and way more than one factor involved, but their arguments over nuclear polciy and attitudes towards the Asian theater (and the Asian role in the world) during a crucial time was said to be key (as I remember).

As I remember it, Truman wanted to fight a defensive war. At first he didn't want to risk China getting into the war, and Mac assured Truman China would not enter the war.

After China got into the war counter to Macs assurances, Truman wanted to fire Mac but couldn't. American forces were fighting for their lives and President Truman didn't think the time was right.

What sealed it for Mac was when he gave interviews and had public meetings with Chang in Taiwan about invading China frm the east and Mac Invading China up through Korea. That and opennly advocating for using the bomb, even discussing acceptable loses.

Mac was basically working out his own foreign policy, independent from the President. Truman actually had enough on Mac to shoot him, rather than just fire him.

[Fergasun]

How do we know he wasn't making the comments at the behest of Petraeus? I believe the Army is upset with committing to a summer 2011 withdrawal from Afghanistan, which the White House reaffirmed yesterday. Why would any military commander want the job when the civilian leaders have already knee-capped your strategy? This is McCrystal's way of pissing back on the civilians who constantly piss on them for purely political purposes. Do you really think that conducting the "long war" like this makes the Army happy? We'll support you, but only if you get the job done on our terms, in our time, and if not we're going to completely undermine you and telegraph our moves that precludes you from using any strategy what-so-ever. The Taliban know they just have to hold out until July 2011 and they will gain an advantage.

I agree he should go, but I don't think it makes him a disgrace. When we politicize everything, including the armed forces these things are bound to happen. Whose name is going to get attached to the failure of Afghanistan, more than anyone else?

[ABQCOWBOY]

How do we know he wasn't making the comments at the behest of Petraeus? I believe the Army is upset with committing to a summer 2011 withdrawal from Afghanistan, which the White House reaffirmed yesterday. Why would any military commander want the job when the civilian leaders have already knee-capped your strategy? This is McCrystal's way of pissing back on the civilians who constantly piss on them for purely political purposes. Do you really think that conducting the "long war" like this makes the Army happy? We'll support you, but only if you get the job done on our terms, in our time, and if not we're going to completely undermine you and telegraph our moves that precludes you from using any strategy what-so-ever. The Taliban know they just have to hold out until July 2011 and they will gain an advantage.

I agree he should go, but I don't think it makes him a disgrace. When we politicize everything, including the armed forces these things are bound to happen. Whose name is going to get attached to the failure of Afghanistan, more than anyone else?

A lot of what is driving this is current rules of engagement and policy from the White House limiting what McCrystal wants to do IMO. It doesn't matter, it's done. It will be the problem of the next Commander now.

[DCBnG21]

At first I thought that this was squarely on the general and he was either out of line or throwing himself on the proverbial grenate. But, I just read the entire article...I don't know that it's being portrayed right here. Actually, to me, a lot of it sounds like stuff that they were saying that a reporter shouldn't have had access to, to be honest.

Nowhere in the article (that I saw) does he say he's not going to follow orders or rip directly on Obama. In fact, nowhere does he come out and say many of these things - a lot of it is hearsay. The fact that he was disappointed that Obama knew nothing about him when he was put in charge....? If he's disappointed, I'm utterly apoplectic to find out that Obama knew little about him. This is the man in charge of bringing our troops home.

He seems like the type of guy that should be in charge over there. A type of guy that realizes he's on the top level and makes it a point to get out and understand what is going on with the real soldiers.

Reading through the article, it strikes me, that this reporter hung out with a group of guys that have been at work for the last 9 years. He grabbed a bunch of statements from them while they were in their down time and blowing off steam and used it to paint a picture of them. This was not a rogue general that went out of his way to find a reporter and make a bunch of dissenting comments. My personal opinion was that this was essentially a reporter that had access to guys behind closed doors blowing off steam.

Being a general should not be a political position. I don't care if the guy says the right things all the time; particularly not behind closed doors and when blowing off steam. If he was indicating that he was not going to follow policy or he was going to openly counter orders from the CIC, my stance would be completely different, but it really wasn't the takeaway I got from this article.

[Fergasun]

DCBnG21,
Except journalism 101 says "make sure you have clearance to go on the record with the story."

McCrystal and crew wanted this to come out. I read the article and thought it showed real unprofessionalism. You can't have that attitude toward your chain of command. How would McCrystal feel if a bunch of SSgt or other were talking **** about him?

[Jumbo]

Couldn't comment on a subject without degrading [insert generalization here] that is easily refutable.

:cool:


Sure I could, and have innumerable times. Sorry you're not cognizant enough to be aware of that, and I make no apology for the remark. I was following an ealrier comment made about Fox in the thread before me--that comment prompetd my inclusion of it. So it was tied to the exchange. I just decided to leave out my usual obligatory co-slam of MSNBC as I used to do whenever I criticized one or the other in order to calm the easily disturbed. But that's something I no longer plan to do. Nor do I think the comment in context is "easily refutable." Plenty of evidence supports Fox having a sizable contingent of what could (in these areas of discourse) be called "moron fans" in the common use of the vernacular (again, calling on you to understand context---not your strong suit given the unique language you often speak--and make no mistake, you're one of my favorite posters and I say that with affection). Perhaps I should have used my preferred custom term of "igwad."

But then there's posts like yours here, too, where someone is himself the one who feels obliged to make a gratuitous and misplaced "callout" of a matter--given that randomly (or illegitimately) blasting Fox for no reason (or even with reason) or pretty much doing anything else stupid, is hardly my signature.



:)

Back to topic.

[Redskins Diehard]

That's not how the military works, this is an incredibly serious issue. The chain of command has to be respected here, and clearly he doesn't respect it. General or not he must be held accountable. Obama needs to fire him and Adm. Mullen and Gates will decide if there's any use left for him in the Army.

this makes me rather angry.
ADM Mullen will play no role whatsoever. You might want to learn who is and who isn't in the chain of command. Figured they'd teach you that as freshmen.

[visionary]

I think this whole issue is pretty silly.
He said some stuff he that probably shouldn't have been made public, but nowhere did he say that he wouldn't follow orders.
I think it's total crap to fire a guy for speaking his mind.
Don't care if he is in the military, as long as he's still doing his job.
I hope he stays and Obama and co. actually take time to go over with him whatever his issues are.

[twa]

DCBnG21,
Except journalism 101 says "make sure you have clearance to go on the record with the story."

McCrystal and crew wanted this to come out. I read the article and thought it showed real unprofessionalism. You can't have that attitude toward your chain of command. How would McCrystal feel if a bunch of SSgt or other were talking **** about him?

I tend to agree it was deliberate and a natural result of allowing that type of press access.

What if you can't help but have that kind of attitude Fergasun?
I'm certain some Sgts are saying much worse about both of them...in private.

"how does it feel to be fired by the President you supported ..." :silly:(stolen from Blackfive comments)

[Jumbo]

I have the same surface reaction, Vis, but I get the premise that the military leadership is to support the CIC and try to find a way to "sell the plan" to their people the best they can and particularly in public (without sacrificing their principles) and complain in private through the proper chains.

[Mooka]

Being a general should not be a political position. I don't care if the guy says the right things all the time; particularly not behind closed doors and when blowing off steam. If he was indicating that he was not going to follow policy or he was going to openly counter orders from the CIC, my stance would be completely different, but it really wasn't the takeaway I got from this article. This is worse then open dissent.

These guys are getting drunk, blowing off steam, calling French Ministers gay, making fun of the Vice President, all to a reporter from Rolling Stone? Have they lost their damn minds?

Its really disappointing.

[Predicto]

The fact that he was disappointed that Obama knew nothing about him when he was put in charge....? If he's disappointed, I'm utterly apoplectic to find out that Obama knew little about him. This is the man in charge of bringing our troops home.



I wouldn't assume that Obama actually knew nothing about him when he was hired just because McCrystal himself suspected that. I could just be an ego or miscommunication thing. McCrystal could have been peeved that Obama didn't know the name of McCrystal's wife and kids.

I also suspect that every military commander and his staff makes similar comments abut the civilian leadership from time to time. It's natural. The real problem here is doing it with a reporter present.

[Predicto]

Reading the R.S.M. article, he sounds like the classic Warrior General that if unshackled, would open up cases of Wup Azz but he is in an environment where the Corporate General, cough yes man is preferred.



Umm, no. McCrystal is the guy who invented the current strategy. He is the one who thinks that simply opening up the can of Wup Azz will backfire on the US. He has made his entire career out of that principle.

[Thiebear]

But then there's posts like yours here, too, where someone is himself the one who feels obliged to make a gratuitous and misplaced "callout" of a matter--given that randomly (or illegitimately) blasting Fox for no reason (or even with reason) or pretty much doing anything else stupid, is hardly my signature.
Back to topic.

Hmmm, it does seem i've been retaining water today... will put the ankles up and take a pill.. sorry.

[DCBnG21]

DCBnG21,
Except journalism 101 says "make sure you have clearance to go on the record with the story."

McCrystal and crew wanted this to come out. I read the article and thought it showed real unprofessionalism. You can't have that attitude toward your chain of command. How would McCrystal feel if a bunch of SSgt or other were talking **** about him?

Did you actually read the article? It seems that he was pretty willing to let the enlisted folk at the funeral and other soldiers speak to him very openly, contradict his ideas and in general, express the frustration that they clearly felt that he was the cause of. In fact, he seemed to place importance in allowing that to happen. That was a big part of the reason I was led to believe this was much less of a deal than the press is turning this into.

Agreed; they should have all had the judgment to make the Rolling Stone interviewer get lost.

[JimboDaMan]

Did you actually read the article? It seems that he was pretty willing to let the enlisted folk at the funeral and other soldiers speak to him very openly, contradict his ideas and in general, express the frustration that they clearly felt that he was the cause of. In fact, he seemed to place importance in allowing that to happen. That was a big part of the reason I was led to believe this was much less of a deal than the press is turning this into.

Agreed; they should have all had the judgment to make the Rolling Stone interviewer get lost.Or just shut their foolish mouths.

[JimboDaMan]

"how does it feel to be fired by the President you supported ..." :silly:(stolen from Blackfive comments)Probably similar to being fired by the general you supported. Its being reported McCrystal immediately fired a press aide because of the article.

[Redskins Diehard]

Umm, no. McCrystal is the guy who invented the current strategy. He is the one who thinks that simply opening up the can of Wup Azz will backfire on the US. He has made his entire career out of that principle.
That may be a bit of a stretch.

I do agree that many are missing the fact that McChrystal was not criticizing the strategy. The current strategy is HIS strategy.

[Jumbo]

Hmmm, it does seem i've been retaining water today... will put the ankles up and take a pill.. sorry.

Don't sweat it, amigo. ;)

[Special K]

So, please refresh my memory as to why the commander of the war in Afghanistan is granting interviews with Rolling Stone? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

I would love to be a fly on the wall of this meeting.

What he did was completely unacceptable and he should be fired over this IMO. Doesn't matter what you think of Obama, you don't pull disgraceful public stunts like this and publicly call into question the Commander In Chief...particularly in Rolling Stone. What was he thinking? Methinks he's been indulging in some of Afghanistan's fine opium products. Unreal.

[Teller]

This is a really unfortunate situation all the way around. If I'm the president, I want my generals giving me their opinions and being critical -- PRIVATELY. But you simply can't go public with your gripes as a soldier, no matter your rank. I respect Gen. McChrystal, and I think overall he's executed the mission admirably. But this is an extreme disappointment. I hope he will be allowed to retire gracefully and bow out of the spotlight. I don't believe he should be busted.

[Predicto]

This is a really unfortunate situation all the way around. If I'm the president, I want my generals giving me their opinions and being critical -- PRIVATELY. But you simply can't go public with your gripes as a soldier, no matter your rank. I respect Gen. McChrystal, and I think overall he's executed the mission admirably. But this is an extreme disappointment. I hope he will be allowed to retire gracefully and bow out of the spotlight. I don't believe he should be busted.

I seriously doubt he will be busted (but I've been wrong before).

I think there may even be a small chance that he will keep his command, if he says the right things and the Administration figures out a way to spin this.

[Teller]

I think there may even be a small chance that he will keep his command, if he says the right things and the Administration figures out a way to spin this.

Hm. In spite of my overall respect for him, I'm not sure if I could support that or not. Lack of faith in the way the mission is being carried out can be devastating to the troops on the ground. Especially when it's coming from the very top.

I should say too, that I do respect the way the president is carrying out operations over there. I wished that W would have gone into Pakistan with drones more often when targets were verified there. This president is going after the enemy wherever they're hiding over there, and he deserves credit for it.

[twa]

So, please refresh my memory as to why the commander of the war in Afghanistan is granting interviews with Rolling Stone? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
.

From my understanding it is even worse than that in that the reporter was allowed to tag a long for weeks

Foolishness

[Redskins Diehard]

Hm. In spite of my overall respect for him, I'm not sure if I could support that or not. Lack of faith in the way the mission is being carried out can be devastating to the troops on the ground. Especially when it's coming from the very top.

I should say too, that I do respect the way the president is carrying out operations over there. I wished that W would have gone into Pakistan with drones more often when targets were verified there. This president is going after the enemy wherever they're hiding over there, and he deserves credit for it.

He didn't speak critically of the military plan(he would be crazy since it is his plan!)

As far as strikes in Pakistan goes...it would be useful, although not likely, if we could look at that process on a continuum instead of some line on the calendar. Targets can't be engaged until they are discovered. Getting info of who is where in the tribal areas is not an overnight. As painful as it will be for a lot here to admit...both guys(Bush and Obama) deserve credit.

[Redskins Diehard]

From my understanding it is even worse than that in that the reporter was allowed to tag a long for weeks

Foolishness
It is embedded media and it can be a VERY useful tool. It can also cause this to happen. Unfortunately we have to treat all of the media the same.

[JMS]

Didn't Macarthur get relieved of his duties by Truman (for letting his head get too big)? I've heard about that story but never read into it.

Letting his head get too big, planning an invasion of China against express presidential orders, trying to provoke a nuclear confrontation, and conspiring with a foreign government (Taiwan) to do all of the above.

After WWII....
When President Truman heard Macarthur had met with the Emperor of Japan, Truman said; they probable had a lot to discuss, one deity to another.

[Teller]

He didn't speak critically of the military plan(he would be crazy since it is his plan!)

FOX (yes, I know) is reporting that McChrystal said he was "selling an unsellable plan." I'd say that's pretty critical.

[Redskins Diehard]

FOX (yes, I know) is reporting that McChrystal said he was "selling an unsellable plan." I'd say that's pretty critical.
In context the "unsellable" plan was not what he is doing now. When he said he was selling and unsellable plan he was actually talking about selling the notion of a troop buildup that would be required to execute the plan. He was trying to sell that plan to his seniors not subordinates.

[Jumbo]

So, please refresh my memory as to why the commander of the war in Afghanistan is granting interviews with Rolling Stone? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

I would love to be a fly on the wall of this meeting.

What he did was completely unacceptable and he should be fired over this IMO. Doesn't matter what you think of Obama, you don't pull disgraceful public stunts like this and publicly call into question the Commander In Chief...particularly in Rolling Stone. What was he thinking? Methinks he's been indulging in some of Afghanistan's fine opium products. Unreal.

I just saw a Rick Sanchez interview on a colleague's laptop that was just aired with the article's author, and wow, the number of things/people commented on in this matter, and the nature of the comments, really does make this a real "wtf were they thinking" moment above and beyond the general topic of these players in this context being critical in public. There is really some odd (to be cautious for now in use of terms) judgement shown.

[twa]

Be grateful it is not worse

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544314-mcchrystals-pr-man-resigns-how-rolling-stone-got-more-access

[JimboDaMan]

Be grateful it is not worse

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544314-mcchrystals-pr-man-resigns-how-rolling-stone-got-more-accessAh, demon rum at the root cause yet again!

[Predicto]

FOX (yes, I know) is reporting that McChrystal said he was "selling an unsellable plan." I'd say that's pretty critical.


In context the "unsellable" plan was not what he is doing now. When he said he was selling and unsellable plan he was actually talking about selling the notion of a troop buildup that would be required to execute the plan. He was trying to sell that plan to his seniors not subordinates.

Classic FOX. We give our viewers just enough information so that they can misunderstand what's going on. :silly:

[Fergasun]

You know what's ironic? It's clear Afghanistan is another Vietnam. I'm not talking about in the ways people say it is. Back when RFK was campaigning for President in '68 he spoke hard about how our boys were getting a raw deal (my summary) and it doesn't make sense to send Americans to die for Vietnamese who aren't fighting for themselves. I have to say that no matter what strategy we have for Afghanistan whether it is COIN or otherwise, if the Afghanistani's aren't going to stand up for themselves, then its not worth being there anymore. I know it was all about trying to find bin laden and disrupt the Taliban, but I think we've reached the point where the Afghanistani's need to do what they have to do. If they fight their own civil war when we leave, so be it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What is going on in Afghanistan today is not what McChrystal wanted to do at the outset. He is working within the frame work of what the President wanted to allow. If you recall, McKeirnan wanted 50 thousand more troops and he didn't get them. In fact, what he got was replaced by McChrystal and now, you have problems with the Battle Plan.

I posted the fact that I thought certain things needed to happen and needed to happen quickly if McChrystal wanted to recover the initiative about a week ago and nobody really listened. The current strategy is not working and it's only a matter of time before the President is either forced to extend troops or go back on his promised of withdrawl. Either position is a bad one for him politically.

Regardless, I think the President has to rethink his strategy in Afghanistan. If we pull out, it will be no time at all before terrorist camps are back in Afghanistan and drugs are again thriving to finance operations IMO.

[Fergasun]

Well, its obvious we are going to pull out at some point. Let's just start pulling out now. I'm not convinced the occupation is a good way to battle terrorism either, between the Christmas day attempt, Times Square, Fort Hood. I'm sure this will leave many unsatisfied, but the wars appear to be a waste of money at this point.

[ABQCOWBOY]

CNN is saying that McCrystal has submitted resignation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/22/times_joe_klein_sources_tell_me_mcchrystal_has_sub mitted_his_resignation.html

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, its obvious we are going to pull out at some point. Let's just start pulling out now. I'm not convinced the occupation is a good way to battle terrorism either, between the Christmas day attempt, Times Square, Fort Hood. I'm sure this will leave many unsatisfied, but the wars appear to be a waste of money at this point.

At some point, all Wars end. The problem here is that if we pull out on the President's time table, we are putting ourselves in a very bad position. Attacks are becoming more prevalent. If these planned attacks are financed with the kind of money Al Qaeda had available to them when they were running drugs, like they were previously, that's a very dangerous combination. Not just politically but for the country. You really have to think about what pulling out means.

You have to ask yourself the question, does pulling out mean that terrorists will not come back to the U.S. or does it mean that it only provides more resources with which to work? If another 9/11 attack happens, that means that you have to go through the expense and all the rest of redeploying etc. That's not something our economy can do at this point. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's as easy as just pulling out.

[thebluefood]

Well, its obvious we are going to pull out at some point. Let's just start pulling out now. I'm not convinced the occupation is a good way to battle terrorism either, between the Christmas day attempt, Times Square, Fort Hood. I'm sure this will leave many unsatisfied, but the wars appear to be a waste of money at this point.

I saw somewhere on Sunday that we'll be out of Iraq by late 2011.

[The Evil Genius]

CNN is saying that McCrystal has submitted resignation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/22/times_joe_klein_sources_tell_me_mcchrystal_has_sub mitted_his_resignation.html

He will make more as a Fox News pundit anyways.

:ols:

[twa]

CNN is saying that McCrystal has submitted resignation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/22/times_joe_klein_sources_tell_me_mcchrystal_has_sub mitted_his_resignation.html


Update NBC says he has not.:silly:

[ABQCOWBOY]

He will make more as a Fox News pundit anyways.

:ols:

I'd be shocked if that is what McChrystal was doing in a years time. He just is not that kind of person IMO. I don't know? I guess if you offer enough money, anything might happen but I dont' see that.

[jnhay]

His blunder was so obviously moronic that he deserves to be punished. I don't understand how you can be in the military so long, and then all of a sudden forget how you're supposed to act.

[nonniey]

DCBnG21,
Except journalism 101 says "make sure you have clearance to go on the record with the story."

McCrystal and crew wanted this to come out. I read the article and thought it showed real unprofessionalism. You can't have that attitude toward your chain of command. How would McCrystal feel if a bunch of SSgt or other were talking **** about him?

Wait a minute. You absolutely can have an attitude about your Chain of Command. You just can't display in a manner that undermines that chain of command. You can ***** to confidants, complain to friends, heck even post on message boards when you are not identified. And yes SSGs ***** about their chain of command to one another.

(OK these word censors are just too sensitive - the female dog word is taboo?).

[nonniey]

His blunder was so obviously moronic that he deserves to be punished. I don't understand how you can be in the military so long, and then all of a sudden forget how you're supposed to act.

Well, even a General can vote for whoever he wants.:evilg:

[ACW]

(OK these word censors are just too sensitive - the female dog word is taboo?).Only in the singular for some reason.
Bitches. Odd I know.

[EersSkins05]

As I remember it, Truman wanted to fight a defensive war. At first he didn't want to risk China getting into the war, and Mac assured Truman China would not enter the war.

After China got into the war counter to Macs assurances, Truman wanted to fire Mac but couldn't. American forces were fighting for their lives and President Truman didn't think the time was right.

What sealed it for Mac was when he gave interviews and had public meetings with Chang in Taiwan about invading China frm the east and Mac Invading China up through Korea. That and opennly advocating for using the bomb, even discussing acceptable loses.

Mac was basically working out his own foreign policy, independent from the President. Truman actually had enough on Mac to shoot him, rather than just fire him.





After WWII....
When President Truman heard Macarthur had met with the Emperor of Japan, Truman said; they probable had a lot to discuss, one deity to another.

That led to MacArthur getting a ticker-tape parade and giving a speech before a joint session of Congress which caused Truman to utter the greatest high-school yearbook quote in history (obviously he didn't say the abbreviated version):

"It's a bunch of GD BS."

[Fergasun]

At some point, all Wars end. The problem here is that if we pull out on the President's time table, we are putting ourselves in a very bad position. Attacks are becoming more prevalent. If these planned attacks are financed with the kind of money Al Qaeda had available to them when they were running drugs, like they were previously, that's a very dangerous combination. Not just politically but for the country. You really have to think about what pulling out means.

You have to ask yourself the question, does pulling out mean that terrorists will not come back to the U.S. or does it mean that it only provides more resources with which to work? If another 9/11 attack happens, that means that you have to go through the expense and all the rest of redeploying etc. That's not something our economy can do at this point. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's as easy as just pulling out.Yes, but the attacks are coming from other places and other people. So what's to say that being in Afghanistan is deterring anything? I think the problem was and remains airport security, no fly list, surveillance of terrorists, etc. It's not like we had no idea there was some plan to attack us and were completely blindsided. If we spent as much money on working on tools that help us connect the dots instead of country building.... who knows. I hope we have goodwill from the Iraqis and Afghanis, I really do, and for them our money is worth it. But at some point we have to admit reaching diminishing returns.

You're point would advocate us being in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, or elsewhere since someone wants to attack us. I think we need to work on a better defense.

[Special K]

I just saw a Rick Sanchez interview on a colleague's laptop that was just aired with the article's author, and wow, the number of things/people commented on in this matter, and the nature of the comments, really does make this a real "wtf were they thinking" moment above and beyond the general topic of these players in this context being critical in public. There is really some odd (to be cautious for now in use of terms) judgement shown.


Be grateful it is not worse

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544314-mcchrystals-pr-man-resigns-how-rolling-stone-got-more-access

Yeah, I'd say the heavy boozing could explain these comments....

[Fergasun]

Wait a minute. You absolutely can have an attitude about your Chain of Command. You just can't display in a manner that undermines that chain of command. You can ***** to confidants, complain to friends, heck even post on message boards when you are not identified. And yes SSGs ***** about their chain of command to one another.

(OK these word censors are just too sensitive - the female dog word is taboo?).Can the SSG ***** about the GEN to the PFC? McCrystal bitching about the President to his staff strikes me as much. Is his staff made of subordinates or is it made up of peers? I'm pretty sure it is made up of peers. Certainly I think there is some level of bitching, however the comments showed a lack of respect.

This may be an extreme thought, but do I really want to find out if the Army is more loyal to McCrystal or Obama?

The President has a unique role. He's in charge of everything dealing with and controlling the Executive branch. Anyone this far out of control deserves to be gone. It's sad that Obama has been put in this situation by no power of his own, in fact direct insubordination. If he doesn't accept the resignation he looks very weak...

[twa]

Just for clarity it was not O he was mainly bitching about.:ols:

Still foolish to allow reporter that kind of access

[Redskins Diehard]

Can the SSG ***** about the GEN to the PFC? McCrystal bitching about the President to his staff strikes me as much. Is his staff made of subordinates or is it made up of peers? I'm pretty sure it is made up of peers. Certainly I think there is some level of bitching, however the comments showed a lack of respect.

This may be an extreme thought, but do I really want to find out if the Army is more loyal to McCrystal or Obama?

The President has a unique role. He's in charge of everything dealing with and controlling the Executive branch. Anyone this far out of control deserves to be gone. It's sad that Obama has been put in this situation by no power of his own, in fact direct insubordination. If he doesn't accept the resignation he looks very weak...

A commander's relationship with his staff is a little different than a squad leader's relationship with a rifleman. No his staff is not made of peers. He literally has no peers in the country.

I have looked at part of the actual Rolling Stone article and have to say that my thought that he had to be fired has softened a bit. It seems that most of what he "said" was actually passed on to the reporter by "sources". If that is true then it changes some. His staff, and to some degree him, was WAY to informal with the guy from Rolling Stone. You have to know that he is not there to paint a flattering picture of the military.

[nonniey]

Can the SSG ***** about the GEN to the PFC? McCrystal bitching about the President to his staff strikes me as much. Is his staff made of subordinates or is it made up of peers? I'm pretty sure it is made up of peers. Certainly I think there is some level of bitching, however the comments showed a lack of respect.

This may be an extreme thought, but do I really want to find out if the Army is more loyal to McCrystal or Obama?

The President has a unique role. He's in charge of everything dealing with and controlling the Executive branch. Anyone this far out of control deserves to be gone. It's sad that Obama has been put in this situation by no power of his own, in fact direct insubordination. If he doesn't accept the resignation he looks very weak...

As I said (earlier) Gen McChrystal crossed the line as he most certainly did undermine the President and made him look clueless. I see no way he can nor should retain his position.

Our duty would be to the President before any subordinate officer.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

:ols:

I just saw his comments on the news....wow, he really let Obama have it.

[Veretax]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being trumped up to try and get pressure off Obama's PR nightmares of late?

[Wrong Direction]

I think McCrystal should be fired, though his resignation is more likely to be accepted. You just don't do this to our CiC in a time of war. My question is, did he do this on purpose?

If yes, he did it w/o honor. He could have resigned very publicly with his criticsms. Instead, he went to Rolling Stone of all places? Very weak.

If he didn't do it on purpose, he's probably freaking punch drunk from all of the war. I'm not sure I could ever trust his judgement if he can be so reckless.

This has already raised the debate about our strategy in Afghanistan back into prominence. The left is saying we should leave, the right is saying we might not have gone strong enough. The President is in an incredibly difficult position on this issue. I just hope he looks at this through the eyes of a CiC, not through the eyes of a politician.

[Madison Redskin]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being trumped up to try and get pressure off Obama's PR nightmares of late?

General McChrystal is effectively in charge of the war in Afghanistan and he criticized the Commander in Chief and the Vice President of the United States on the record in an interview with a member of the press. He might resign or be relieved of his command. It's a ******* HUGE story.

[Wrong Direction]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being trumped up to try and get pressure off Obama's PR nightmares of late?

This is another nightmare for Obama, is it not? I mean his head General in Afghanistan just called his national security team and VP a bunch of clowns. That doesn't exactly instill confidence in our leadership.

[zoony]

I know Kilmer and others are correct (and Fox and FoxNews/moron-fans are going to do the same brain-donor dances they always do), but I personally like intelligent dissent even at the top. But I defer to the valid points ya'all make on the matter and well know the military chain of command needs to be different for proper functioning. There are appropriate ways you express dissent in that realm. And I remember how Johnson and Nixon took plenty of heat about politicized/strategic choices and their own "field competency" during Vietnam. But while getting crucified in public venues, they didn't suffer their top military staff fragging the CIC or his cronies in the media.


I agree with this.

People who are saying that there "is a chain of command and that is that" I don't think fully realize the political implications of being a General or Admiral.

What I do have a problem with, however, is the way this general went about providing the feedback. At best, it's extremely poor judgement.

[Redskins Diehard]

General McChrystal is effectively in charge of the war in Afghanistan and he criticized the Commander in Chief and the Vice President of the United States on the record in an interview with a member of the press. He might resign or be relieved of his command. It's a ******* HUGE story.

I thought the same thing until I read through the article. Most of the criticism of the CiC was stuff that "sources" relayed to the journalist. It is not the same as him going on the record with the press.

[KAOSkins]

McChyrstal, Internet Champion of the far right, 2012 presidential candidate (even though he's apparently a dem) and political medal of honor winner - not too popular with the troops? Yeah, it' the NYT so the spin will be questioned and it's the presidents policy too but he's more than a willing participant, it's an interesting read. A bit discouraging as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23troops.html?ref=global-home


“I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon,” he said to a reporter in the back. “Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it’s like.”

The sergeant was speaking of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and the circle of counterinsurgents who since last year have been running the Afghan war, and who have, as a matter of both policy and practice, made it much more difficult for troops to use airstrikes and artillery in the fight against the Taliban.

No matter the outcome of his meeting on Wednesday in Washington over caustic comments he and his staff made about President Obama and his national security team, the general, or his successor, faces problems from a constituency as important as his bosses and that no commander wants to lose: his own troops.

As levels of violence in Afghanistan climb, there is a palpable and building sense of unease among troops surrounding one of the most confounding questions about how to wage the war: when and how lethal force should be used.

Since last year, the counterinsurgency doctrine championed by those now leading the campaign has assumed an almost unchallenged supremacy in the ranks of the American military’s career officers. The doctrine, which has been supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations, rests on core assumptions, including that using lethal force against an insurgency intermingled with a civilian population is often counterproductive.

Since General McChrystal assumed command, he has been a central face and salesman of this idea, and he has applied it to warfare in a tangible way: by further tightening rules guiding the use of Western firepower — airstrikes and guided rocket attacks, artillery barrages and even mortar fire — to support troops on the ground. - continued at link

[Redskins Diehard]

McChyrstal, Internet Champion of the far right, 2012 presidential candidate (even though he's apparently a dem) and political medal of honor winner - not too popular with the troops? Yeah, it' the NYT so the spin will be questioned and it's the presidents policy too but he's more than a willing participant, it's an interesting read. A bit discouraging as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23troops.html?ref=global-home

- continued at link
Wonder where you got "apparently he is a Dem"...is it because he voted for Obama?

I am not surprised that some of the lower echelons have problems with this strategy. One, they aren't focused on strategy. They are focused at the tactical level as they should be. Two, it puts them at increased risk. Similar to the surge in Iraq. Get people out of giant bases and in armored hmmwvs. It is dangerous. Three, like the article says they complain about everything. It is the way it is.

For what it is worth, the term "Sergeant" has been used by the media to describe soldiers with anywhere from 4 years to 30 years of experience. It is not a very precise term

[KAOSkins]

Wonder where you got "apparently he is a Dem"...is it because he voted for Obama? Yup.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yup.
That's probably a stretch to equate a vote with membership in a party. More likely that he would keep his options open.

[Fergasun]

KAOSkin,
That's odd. In the Rolling Stone article it talks about McCrystal personally going on foot patrol and getting involved at the lower level in response to e-mails sent to him. Additionally talks of him talking to soldiers and not getting a real good response.

This is one of the reasons I think we need to bring them home; I think our military has done a good job to adapt to the COIN strategy, I'm not sure its the best way to use our forces when we have to go COIN.

[KAOSkins]

That's probably a stretch to equate a vote with membership in a party. More likely that he would keep his options open.

Hence the apparently and not a statement. Really not the most important part of the post IMO. Just a little pot stirring.:evilg:


This is one of the reasons I think we need to bring them home; I think our military has done a good job to adapt to the COIN strategy, I'm not sure its the best way to use our forces when we have to go COIN. I sure am starting to lean that way. What are we going to accomplish? Maybe Clinton had something with the just bomb the crap out of them policy but stay off the ground. Probably less effective overall but a whole lot cheaper in terms of lives and money.

[Redskins Diehard]

KAOSkin,
That's odd. In the Rolling Stone article it talks about McCrystal personally going on foot patrol and getting involved at the lower level in response to e-mails sent to him. Additionally talks of him talking to soldiers and not getting a real good response.

This is one of the reasons I think we need to bring them home; I think our military has done a good job to adapt to the COIN strategy, I'm not sure its the best way to use our forces when we have to go COIN.

The notion that Stanley McChrystal no longer understands the "pointy end" of the spear would only be made by someone that does not know that much about the man. His career has hardly been that of a Headquarters Soldier

[Thiebear]

If Iraq is considered to be doing well because of the relationship between the General and the Diplomat. With Afghanistan the opposite.
Seems to me now is a good time to replace the general with someone that will work with the civilian.

Generals are a dime a dozen and this one obviously is not working well with others.

[Fergasun]

Quite frankly McCrystal could be court martial'd over this:

Article 88
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Article 133
"Conduct unbecoming of an officer."

The problem isn't the personnel. The problem is Afghanistan. If the people don't want us there; well we can leave.

[Redskins Diehard]

Quite frankly McCrystal could be court martial'd over this:

Article 88
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Article 133
"Conduct unbecoming of an officer."

The problem isn't the personnel. The problem is Afghanistan. If the people don't want us there; well we can leave.

:ols: Riiiiight.

What blog dropped that nugget in your lap?

[Redskins Diehard]

If Iraq is considered to be doing well because of the relationship between the General and the Diplomat. With Afghanistan the opposite.
Seems to me now is a good time to replace the general with someone that will work with the civilian.

Generals are a dime a dozen and this one obviously is not working well with others.

Diplomats are a dime for 2 dozen. Especially when you decide not to limit yourself to actual diplomats and instead decide to hire ex-generals as your diplomats. Eikenberry, Karl for example.

Generals with the background of McChrystal are anything but a dime a dozen.

[Fergasun]

I said he *could* (of course he would be tried by his peers...). Certainly Article 133 is a catch-all, but this article clearly points out that there are Article 88 violations at least on his staff.

This is not a very good situation, at all.

[JimboDaMan]

:ols: Riiiiight.

What blog dropped that nugget in your lap?Technically he's right. But if we followed the letter of the law who would be left to command the troops?

[Redskins Diehard]

I said he *could* (of course he would be tried by his peers...). Certainly Article 133 is a catch-all, but this article clearly points out that there are Article 88 violations at least on his staff.

This is not a very good situation, at all.

It is not a good situation. As I mentioned earlier that placing McChrystal in charge of the Afghan operation was a 2 thumbs up decision in my opinion. Originally I thought there was no way he would survive this. Now I am not so sure. It wasn't an interview. And many of the things that "McChrystal said" are actually things that either his staff said or things that a source said he said. President Obama is doing the smart thing here. Call him in and get to the bottom of it. McChrystal SHOULD be apologetic, even if not for his own words then for those of his staff. Bite Me and "the dinner is gay" is no issue if Rolling Stone isn't around.

[Fergasun]

I think its still an issue, even if Rolling Stone isn't around. In fact if the problem is "who would be left to command the troops", well that shows a serious issue with civilian control by the military. The fact that McCrystal didn't go on record or even on "deep background" means nothing, it's obvious he shares the same thoughts as his staff, otherwise he would've been perturbed by the comments and the article would've made note that McCrystal did not approve of the comments by his staff.

[twa]

Diplomats are a dime for 2 dozen. Especially when you decide not to limit yourself to actual diplomats and instead decide to hire ex-generals as your diplomats. Eikenberry, Karl for example.

Generals with the background of McChrystal are anything but a dime a dozen.

Yes, perhaps this will be a catalyst to change the 'diplomatic' side of the equation...the current adversarial bs between the departments is not helping.
I'm not holding my breath though.

[Fergasun]

I hope Obama calls him in with the intention of telling him, "you're fired!". Its the only option he has at this point. Of course he should get to the bottom of everything and understand what's going on, what strategic things are not working... but there's a lot wrong with the article, especially the presumption that there will be a surge in 2011, really guys?

The military has to respect civilian control, period.

[Thiebear]

Diplomats are a dime for 2 dozen. Especially when you decide not to limit yourself to actual diplomats and instead decide to hire ex-generals as your diplomats. Eikenberry, Karl for example.

Generals with the background of McChrystal are anything but a dime a dozen.

The diplomat is not doing interviews with Rolling stone and disrespecting the chain of commnand... Seems to me he should not be punished because the General hates civilians he has to work for/with.

[Redskins Diehard]

I think its still an issue, even if Rolling Stone isn't around. In fact if the problem is "who would be left to command the troops", well that shows a serious issue with civilian control by the military. The fact that McCrystal didn't go on record or even on "deep background" means nothing, it's obvious he shares the same thoughts as his staff, otherwise he would've been perturbed by the comments and the article would've made note that McCrystal did not approve of the comments by his staff.

Still an issue sure. Barely a blip. Of course he has opinions. You don't think senior leaders had thoughts of Rumsfeld? You don't think commanders and staffs talked about him? And Bush. And Cheney. And Gen Meyers. Of course they did. These people are not "on" 24 hours a day. They should be "on" when the media is around.

[mardi gras skin]

I read the rolling stones article and the whole tone of McChrystal's inner circle was shocking. But what exactly did McChrystal say? I got from the article that a meeting with Obama went poorly. McChrystal felt Obama wasn't prepared and that Obama seemed to be intimidated by the top military leaders.

Was there something else?

And why was a Rolling Stones reporter given access anyway?

[Redskins Diehard]

The diplomat is not doing interviews with Rolling stone and disrespecting the chain of commnand... Seems to me he should not be punished because the General hates civilians he has to work for/with.

Probably because nobody wants an embed with the diplomat. Find the disrespect that came in an interview. Even the articles about the article say that he really didn't say anything about Obama. And all he said about Biden was "Biden? Who's that?"

[JMS]

Generals with the background of McChrystal are anything but a dime a dozen.

I agree with you. McChrystal is a very respected guy. If he's fired over this it will be a lose. I'm still hoping this is a woodshed moment, and not a career ending moment.

I heard it wasn't even McChrystal who is quoted as saying the objectionable things. It was offercers on his staff. McChrystal should be given every opprotunity to back away from the offending statements, and if he does that this episode should be over. If not, then he should be fired. It's all about whether they believe he can be trusted to follow the Presidents orders.

[HSW]

I agree with you. McChrystal is a very respected guy. If he's fired over this it will be a lose. I'm still hoping this is a woodshed moment, and not a career ending moment.

I heard it wasn't even McChrystal who is quoted as saying the objectionable things. It was offercers on his staff. McChrystal should be given every opprotunity to back away from the offending statements, and if he does that this episode should be over. If not, then he should be fired. It's all about whether they believe he can be trusted to follow the Presidents orders.

He is done. He already got his "get-out-of-jail" pass after the
Pat Tillman death/cover-up incident. He was the senior General
in that mess.

[Fergasun]

I'm sorry that's BS. The article shows a whole lack of respect.

Let me count the ways of disrespect:
- We don't really have allies, we are just pretending to work with other countries. There's no doubt about that now.
- I don't want to take on the task of continually selling the war to other people. Even though it is my war, I'm the highest General in the country, and it is my responsibility (or at least someone higher than me thinks it is).
- Meeting with our allies, like the French is "gay" (well, McCrystal wasn't around for that comment).
- Even though the President told me to "shut up and keep a low profile", I'm not going to.
- Let's openly joke and laugh about the Vice President, forgetting that he's part of the chain of command, and deserves respect with the position (and its likely Biden was speaking on behalf of the White House). I already got in trouble for doing that once, I'm going to do it again.
- Let's openly question whether the President is fit to be Commander-in-Chief; I thought he was intimidated by the military.
- Let's also question the President's diplomatic efforts as well.
- We can also be presumptious that we'll get another surge in summer 2011.

Now, here's the question for those who think he should keep his job. Is the President in charge, or the military? In our Constitutional system, the President is in charge of everything, and in fact it is the Executive who is most able to run a single unified policy. If the military is not focused on executing the policy, rather works to undermine the policy, well Obama has every right to fire them.

[MEANDWARF]

Not happy on how this country is being run, and I like McChrystal, but Obama should fire him. The president will show weakness if he doesn't. IMO.

[Chicken Fried]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm sorry that's BS. The article shows a whole lack of respect.

Let me count the ways of disrespect:
- We don't really have allies, we are just pretending to work with other countries. There's no doubt about that now.
- I don't want to take on the task of continually selling the war to other people. Even though it is my war, I'm the highest General in the country, and it is my responsibility (or at least someone higher than me thinks it is).
- Meeting with our allies, like the French is "gay" (well, McCrystal wasn't around for that comment).
- Even though the President told me to "shut up and keep a low profile", I'm not going to.
- Let's openly joke and laugh about the Vice President, forgetting that he's part of the chain of command, and deserves respect with the position (and its likely Biden was speaking on behalf of the White House). I already got in trouble for doing that once, I'm going to do it again.
- Let's openly question whether the President is fit to be Commander-in-Chief; I thought he was intimidated by the military.
- Let's also question the President's diplomatic efforts as well.
- We can also be presumptious that we'll get another surge in summer 2011.

Now, here's the question for those who think he should keep his job. Is the President in charge, or the military? In our Constitutional system, the President is in charge of everything, and in fact it is the Executive who is most able to run a single unified policy. If the military is not focused on executing the policy, rather works to undermine the policy, well Obama has every right to fire them.

The President runs the military.(most of the people that you appear to think are in the "chain of command" actually are not. But that is beside the point) It is completely the President's prerogative to keep him or fire him. And McChrystal, foolishly in my opinion, has given enough reason to justify it. That doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

May be a good idea to reread the article and understand what GEN McChrystal said. What the author has said(the whole keep up the image that we actually have allies is the author "editorializing"). And what the McChrystal supposedly said to an unnamed aide who in turn share it with the journalist.

Oh and you forgot to mention he put up his middle finger...the horror of it all.

[Thiebear]

Image is everything diehard: spin as you might... his image is done.
.002% of the people will re-read the article 7 times to try and parse out the 'good' points.

[JimboDaMan]

I think its still an issue, even if Rolling Stone isn't around. In fact if the problem is "who would be left to command the troops", well that shows a serious issue with civilian control by the military. The fact that McCrystal didn't go on record or even on "deep background" means nothing, it's obvious he shares the same thoughts as his staff, otherwise he would've been perturbed by the comments and the article would've made note that McCrystal did not approve of the comments by his staff.I don't see that it shows a serious problem with civilian control of the military. I doubt its any defferent than it ever is. Military brass always thinks their civilian commanders are pinheads. The breach is in openly displaying this disrespect. Its not that they think this way, its that they think its OK to give the civilians the finger in public.

[Fergasun]

That was my attempt to synthesize between McCrystal and his staff. Just because he never went directly "on-record" doesn't mean anything, those were clear thoughts on page 1 I gleamed from McCrystal, and the existence of this article. The President runs the whole country. So when you insult the Vice President's strategy (which no doubt was approved by the President, went through his office and advisors, etc.), you are insulting the President. That's the whole point of calling McCrystal back the first time and meeting him on AF1.

Do you think Obama's cabinet and officials up there act independent of the White House? While it's true they can have internal debate, no doubt there was White House (ergo Obama) approval prior to Biden putting his strategy on the table.

Why does UCMJ Article 88 mention the President, Vice President, other cabinet level positions? Because those are other top-level civilians and insulting them or showing a lack of respect for them and their positions undermines the cilivian-military control.

This article was pre-cleared to be run and I have no doubt that when the author wrote he he cleared it through McCyrstal's staff. Whether McChrystal personally cleared it in its form is another question, however that's why the staff member got fired.

[DCranon21]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

He should of went off the record then or just not have them onboard the plane with him in order for this all to happen. That is his fault.






Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

See below. It's in the UCMJ.



Quite frankly McCrystal could be court martial'd over this:

Article 88
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Article 133
"Conduct unbecoming of an officer."

The problem isn't the personnel. The problem is Afghanistan. If the people don't want us there; well we can leave.

[KAOSkins]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

He bears no responsibility for his own actions? I bet he would disagree with you very strongly and be offended that you even suggest this.

[Fergasun]

Navy Times: Special Ops Officers Shocked by McCrystal Comments (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/06/tns_reaction_062210/)Comments are from a special forces officers who worked with McCrystal previously. It's a good article, but obviously I agree mostly with the final point.
“I was surprised they would speak like that, even amongst themselves,” said another special operations officer who has worked extensively with McChrystal and his staff in Afghanistan. “I know all of his inner staff…[and] I never heard anybody say anything politically negative about Obama. Nobody ever said anything incendiary about Obama… or about the administration.”...
The field grade SF officer with extensive experience in Afghanistan said he wasn’t surprised at the nature of the comments attributed to McChrystal and his staff. “I’m sure that stuff happens on every staff,” he said. “I’m sure it happens in the Oval Office.” What shocked him, he said, was that the officers apparently felt comfortable making the comments in the presence of a Rolling Stone reporter....
The negative remarks about civilian administration officials that were attributed to McChrystal and his staff ought to seal the general’s fate, the field grade SF officer said. “I don’t see how McChrystal is ever going to be able to interact with Holbrooke or [U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl] Eikenberry or the president or Biden or anyone else that was disparaged in this article again,” he said. “And that makes him ineffective and that’s why he needs to go. I’m going to be disappointed in Obama if he doesn’t fire him.”

[Thiebear]

You know its not going to be good when the interviewer says this:



One of the most vivid scenes in the stories comes when you are out with the general, his wife, and his team for a night on the town in Paris. His team is entirely forthright with you, did that surprise you?
Well, they were getting hammered, I don’t know at that moment if they were being the most forthright. Of course it was surprising. A lot of the reporting that is getting most of the attention happened right away in the first few days in Paris. So I was surprised—because they didn’t know me.

[Jumbo]

All those the comments being made on foreign soil...turrible turrible :evilg: :pfft:

[Madison Redskin]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

Rolling Stone didn't end General McChrystal's career, General McChrystal did.

[MEANDWARF]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.
I am surprize that McChrystal let a Rolling Stone reporter hang with them.
Like him or not, criticizing the Comander and Chief is not good. But I agree McChrystal is a fine military man. Said he had to go base on an article by an "Entertainment" Magazine.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, but the attacks are coming from other places and other people. So what's to say that being in Afghanistan is deterring anything? I think the problem was and remains airport security, no fly list, surveillance of terrorists, etc. It's not like we had no idea there was some plan to attack us and were completely blindsided. If we spent as much money on working on tools that help us connect the dots instead of country building.... who knows. I hope we have goodwill from the Iraqis and Afghanis, I really do, and for them our money is worth it. But at some point we have to admit reaching diminishing returns.

You're point would advocate us being in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, or elsewhere since someone wants to attack us. I think we need to work on a better defense.

I believe, and have always believed that once we are in the Middle East, we are not coming out. For me, that opinion hasn't changed. The easiest, most efficient path to market for illegal drugs being grown is through Afghanistan. The terrorist who was just found guilty received training in Pakistan. I know that our presence in Afghanistan has had an impact on terrorist activities.

Diminishing returns is more a point of the situation that exist between McChrystal, this Administration, Holbrooke and Eikenberry. That group is not able to function efficiently. I mean, it is what it is and I believe that McChrystal is gone, even though he is probably the best guy for the job, but that eventuality is probably unavoidable.

[Redskins Diehard]

That was my attempt to synthesize between McCrystal and his staff. Just because he never went directly "on-record" doesn't mean anything, those were clear thoughts on page 1 I gleamed from McCrystal, and the existence of this article. The President runs the whole country. So when you insult the Vice President's strategy (which no doubt was approved by the President, went through his office and advisors, etc.), you are insulting the President. That's the whole point of calling McCrystal back the first time and meeting him on AF1.

Do you think Obama's cabinet and officials up there act independent of the White House? While it's true they can have internal debate, no doubt there was White House (ergo Obama) approval prior to Biden putting his strategy on the table.

Why does UCMJ Article 88 mention the President, Vice President, other cabinet level positions? Because those are other top-level civilians and insulting them or showing a lack of respect for them and their positions undermines the cilivian-military control.

This article was pre-cleared to be run and I have no doubt that when the author wrote he he cleared it through McCyrstal's staff. Whether McChrystal personally cleared it in its form is another question, however that's why the staff member got fired.

No, the President did not approve the Vice President's strategy as you claim. The President approved McChrystal's strategy. Biden wanted a drawdown...that didn't happen...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?_r=1. You are factually incorrect in that position.

No, the military does not "clear" what journalists write. Freedom of the Press is something you must be familiar with. You are factually incorrect there as well.

[Redskins Diehard]

Word is that we will find out within the hour.

WaPo now has the three front runners to replace him if he is canned.(which I do not think is a foregone conclusion at this point...wouldn't bet on either outcome). Mattis would be an interesting pick

[nonniey]

No, the President did not approve the Vice President's strategy as you claim. The President approved McChrystal's strategy. Biden wanted a drawdown...that didn't happen...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?_r=1. You are factually incorrect in that position.

No, the military does not "clear" what journalists write. Freedom of the Press is something you must be familiar with. You are factually incorrect there as well.

He didn't really approved McChrystal's plan either. Don't forget that McChrystal requested an additional 80K troops, with no publicized deadline for withdrawal, to begin deploying last summer and fall. He stated he could take on risk with a minimum of 40K. He got 30K, a publicized withdrawal date and a major delay to boot. If this war is lost it was lost last fall by the President (He could change strategy again to recover which is why I say if it is lost).

[HSW]

Word is that we will find out within the hour.

WaPo now has the three front runners to replace him if he is canned.(which I do not think is a foregone conclusion at this point...wouldn't bet on either outcome). Mattis would be an interesting pick

Matthis is due to rotate out of the JFCOM postion and he was
passed over for the Marine Commandant job. Good and bad.
It means he is free for another job but it also means that
he is not on their list of top folks.

[Redskins Diehard]

He didn't really approved McChrystal's plan either. Don't forget that McChrystal requested an additional 80K troops, with no publicized deadline for withdrawal, to begin deploying last summer and fall. He stated he could take on risk with a minimum of 40K. He got 30K, a publicized withdrawal date and a major delay to boot. If this war is lost it was lost last fall by the President (He could change strategy again to recover which is why I say if it is lost).

I would say that he came much MUCH closer to choosing McChrystal's plan over Biden's plan. Published withdrawal dates and 30k instead of 40k were Pres Obama's moves to demonstrate control. I mean, we saw what happened with the published closure date of Guantanamo.

[Redskins Diehard]

Matthis is due to rotate out of the JFCOM postion and he was
passed over for the Marine Commandant job. Good and bad.
It means he is free for another job but it also means that
he is not on their list of top folks.

I know nothing about the other Marine General listed. And not much more about Gen Rodriguez.

At this point I would not be surprised by either outcome with McChrystal

[nonniey]

I would say that he came much MUCH closer to choosing McChrystal's plan over Biden's plan. Published withdrawal dates and 30k instead of 40k were Pres Obama's moves to demonstrate control. I mean, we saw what happened with the published closure date of Guantanamo.

Unfortunately in this case publishing the withdrawal date essentially turned off our Afghan allies (See Karzai's behaviour) which where essential for this operation. It was a horrendously bad mistake by the President and there is no sugar coating it.

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

MSNBC reports that Gen. Stanley McChyrstal has been relieved of commmand.

[Switchgear]

WTOP's front page says McChrystal will be replaced.

[DCranon21]

Petreaus will take over in Afghanistan.

[visionary]

CNN says he's replaced by Petraeus.

[Madison Redskin]

I think we just got an upgrade.

[Madison Redskin]

Isn't Petreaus in charge of CENTCOM? If so, taking McChrystal's post would be a step down.

[Redskins Diehard]

McChrystal was supposed to be Afghanistan's Petraeus. looks like Petraeus will be Afghanistan's Petraeus

[Predicto]

Isn't Petreaus in charge of CENTCOM? If so, taking McChrystal's post would be a step down.

Maybe in rank, but not in prestige. Petreaus has just cemented his status as THE go-to guy.

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_mcchrystal;_ylt=Ahw_vk4cbN3zlfkE5LjE7kqs0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNqZTdycHM3BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjIzL 3VzX29iYW1hX21jY2hyeXN0YWwEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXI EY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX 3N0b3J5BHNsawNtY2NocnlzdGFsb

AP source: Obama replaces McChrystal with Petraeus

By JENNIFER LOVEN and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers Jennifer Loven And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers – 5 mins ago

WASHINGTON – A senior administration official tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama has accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and is replacing him with Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command.

McChrystal was pushed out over his blistering remarks about administration officials quoted in a magazine interview.

After an Oval Office meeting with McChrystal in the morning, Obama huddled with his war advisers and planned to announce his decision on the general's fate to the nation at 1:30 p.m. EDT in the Rose Garden.

The official spoke only on condition of anonymity, because the president's announcement was not yet public. Petraeus now oversees the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A source tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama will name Gen. David Petraeus to succeed Gen. Stanley McChrystal as top war commander in Afghanistan.

[Redskins Diehard]

Maybe in rank, but not in prestige. Petreaus has just cemented his status as THE go-to guy.

Risky move for Petraeus. Tremendous success in spite of his detractors in Iraq. Is it possible to do better in Afghanistan?

[Predicto]

Risky move for Petraeus. Tremendous success in spite of his detractors in Iraq. Is it possible to do better in Afghanistan?

Maybe he doesn't care about that, and just wants to help his country as best he can when asked to do so? :whoknows:

[visionary]

Vice President Bite Me is looking kind of smug back there. :ols:

[Redskins Diehard]

Maybe he doesn't care about that, and just wants to help his country as best he can when asked to do so? No doubt you are right.

[Thiebear]

Wow, they got Favre of the Military?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Risky move for Petraeus. Tremendous success in spite of his detractors in Iraq. Is it possible to do better in Afghanistan?


Petraeus has extensive SF experience as well as a better command of political situations.

Petraeus serverd as Commander of both the 101st and 82nd. Those skills are going to be vital in Afghanistan. Petraeus should have been the Theator Commander all along but, he was due and so, McChrystal was the choice. McChrystal served under Petraus and was recommended to be the Theator Commander, replacing McKiernan, by Petraus. Petraus, I hope, will figure out a way to work with all parties involved. That's the key to winning IMO.

[Redskins Diehard]

Petraeus has extensive SF experience as well as a better command of political situations.

Petraeus serverd as Commander of both the 101st and 82nd. Those skills are going to be vital in Afghanistan. Petraeus should have been the Theator Commander all along but, he was due and so, McChrystal was the choice. McChrystal served under Petraus and was recommended to be the Theator Commander, replacing McKiernan, by Petraus. Petraus, I hope, will figure out a way to work with all parties involved. That's the key to winning IMO.

Petraeus never commanded the 82d. And has spent most/all of this time in the conventional Army.

[ABQCOWBOY]

No doubt you are right.

I think you guys are missing the point here. Petraus is a Soldier in the U.S. Military. He goes where he is ordered to go. This is not about what he wants to do or go. It's about where the CiC orders him to go. His options are to follow orders, Resign Commision or Court Martial for failing to follow a lawful order.

EOS

[Redskins Diehard]

I think you guys are missing the point here. Petraus is a Soldier in the U.S. Military. He goes where he is ordered to go. This is not about what he wants to do or go. It's about where the CiC orders him to go. His options are to follow orders, Resign Commision or Court Martial for failing to follow a lawful order.

EOS
He has other options, namely retirement. And I am sure the President consulted with him before this decision. GEN Petraeus is not some private or lieutenant.

[Alvin_Walton40]

I think you guys are missing the point here. Petraus is a Soldier in the U.S. Military. He goes where he is ordered to go. This is not about what he wants to do or go. It's about where the CiC orders him to go. His options are to follow orders, Resign Commision or Court Martial for failing to follow a lawful order.

EOS


What if he doesn't want to play in NT in a 3/4?

[Redskins Diehard]

What if he doesn't want to play in NT in a 3/4?It depends on if the last president told he would have to go to afghanistan or not :ols:

[ABQCOWBOY]

Petraeus never commanded the 82d. And has spent most/all of this time in the conventional Army.

Your wrong. Petraeus Servers as both ADCO and CG of the 82nd Airborne just prior to deploying for Kuwait as part of Desert Storm.

In 2003, Petraus was Commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the drive to Baghdad.

[Hubbs]

What if he doesn't want to play in NT in a 3/4?

:ols:

Well played, sir.

[ABQCOWBOY]

He has other options, namely retirement. And I am sure the President consulted with him before this decision. GEN Petraeus is not some private or lieutenant.

Well, I gave that as one of three options but if he want's to stay in the Military, he goes where he's ordered. I don't believe he asked for this assignment. No General in their right mind would. I believe he was ordered by the President because, this is about the only move he can make that will give him safe haven on this deal. I think he was ordered.

[Madison Redskin]

Petraeus never commanded the 82d. And has spent most/all of this time in the conventional Army.

Like the 101st, the 82nd is part of the conventional army. In any case, he commanded an airborne brigade in the 82nd back in the 1990s when he was featured in Tom Clancy's Airborne.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What if he doesn't want to play in NT in a 3/4?


You tell me, you think he has several million sitting around to pay back to the Skins?

[skinfan13]

ADM Mullen will play no role whatsoever. You might want to learn who is and who isn't in the chain of command. Figured they'd teach you that as freshmen.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/23/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

McChrystal met Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before going to the White House Wednesday morning, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

I know how the chain of command works just fine, thanks.

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/23/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1


I know how the chain of command works just fine, thanks.
If you think the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs falls in the Chain of Command you are wrong.

[visionary]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/06/23/afghanistan.reax.general.mcchrystal/index.html?hpt=T1


What's the fuss, Afghans ask about McChrystal controversy


Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Washington may be up in arms over General Stanley McChrystal's comments to Rolling Stone magazine about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and how some of his colleagues are handling it -- but some in Afghanistan are asking what the fuss is all about.

McChrystal arrived in Afghanistan last summer as the top NATO commander -- but if Washington is mad at the general, his friends in Afghanistan seem to be unaffected.

Many among the local population in Kabul say that McChrystal revamped the forgotten war, putting it on a different path and instilling a counter-insurgency strategy (COIN) in an attempt to regain the trust of the Afghan people.

He instilled a new hope, they argue, for those Afghans who actually backed the war effort, also angering the Taliban -- which ramped up their PR -- in the battle for hearts and minds.

President Hamid Karzai has vocally expressed his support for General McChrystal and called him the "best" commander for the war in Afghanistan, according to his spokesman Waheed Omar.

He added that McChrystal is a man of great integrity who understands the Afghan people and their culture and that Karzai hopes president Barack Obama will not replace the commanding general with someone else.

McChrystal and Karzai have built a strong relationship in the year he has been in Afghanistan, flying to districts and provinces in order to gain the support of villagers while showing a united front.

[Redskins Diehard]

Your wrong. Petraeus Servers as both ADCO and CG of the 82nd Airborne just prior to deploying for Kuwait as part of Desert Storm.

In 2003, Petraus was Commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the drive to Baghdad.
You might want to reread the Wiki entry.....

[Redskins Diehard]

Like the 101st, the 82nd is part of the conventional army. In any case, he commanded an airborne brigade in the 82nd back in the 1990s when he was featured in Tom Clancy's Airborne.

I am well aware of where the 101st and 82d fall. Spent my entire career in the 18th Airborne Corps. "Commanding in the 82d" and "Commanding the 82d" are two different things. And a one month stint as acting commander between McNeil and Vines doesn't really equate to "Commanding the 82d".

[ABQCOWBOY]

You might want to reread the Wiki entry.....

OK. Here is what Wiki says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

Commands held

U.S. Central Command
Multi-National Force - Iraq
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth
Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division
3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment
A Company, 2nd Battalion, 19th Infantry Regiment (Mechanized)
Battles/wars Operation Joint Forge (Bosnia)
Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti)
Operation Desert Spring (Kuwait)
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Awards Defense Distinguished Service Medal (2)
Army Distinguished Service Medal (2)
Defense Superior Service Medal (2)
Legion of Merit (4)
Bronze Star with Valor V
Defense Meritorious Service Medal

During 1993–94, Petraeus continued his long association with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) as the division's Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3 (plans, operations and training) and installation Director of Plans, Training, and Mobilization (DPTM). In 1995, he was assigned to the United Nations Mission in Haiti Military Staff as its Chief Operations Officer during Operation Uphold Democracy. His next command, from 1995–97, was the 1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, centered on the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. At that post, his brigade's training cycle at Fort Polk's Joint Readiness Training Center for low-intensity warfare was chronicled by novelist and military enthusiast Tom Clancy in his book Airborne. From 1997-99 Petraeus served in the Pentagon as Executive Assistant to the Director of the Joint Staff and then to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton, who described Petraeus as "a high-energy individual who likes to lead from the front, in any field he is going into."[30] In 1999, as a brigadier general, Petraeus returned to the 82nd, serving as the assistant division commander for operations and then, briefly, as acting commanding general. During his time with the 82nd, he deployed to Kuwait as part of Operation Desert Spring, the continuous rotation of combat forces through Kuwait during the decade after the Gulf War.
In 2003, Petraeus, then a Major General, saw combat for the first time when he [B]commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I am well aware of where the 101st and 82d fall. Spent my entire career in the 18th Airborne Corps. "Commanding in the 82d" and "Commanding the 82d" are two different things. And a one month stint as acting commander between McNeil and Vines doesn't really equate to "Commanding the 82d".

This may be so but, it does not change the fact that he does have command experience with SF operations, which as you know, is vital to the posting in Afghanistan.

[Redskins Diehard]

This may be so but, it does not change the fact that he does have command experience with SF operations, which as you know, is vital to the posting in Afghanistan.

Okay, neither the 101st or the 82d are "SF".

[Baculus]

What if he doesn't want to play in NT in a 3/4?

Aha -- I went to the last page in this thread, read this first, and became suddenly confused.

"Did I somehow switch tabs to an article about Haynesworth?!"

Well done. :-)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Okay, neither the 101st or the 82d are "SF".


Yes the are.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yes the are.
Okay dude. I spent 4 years in the 82d. A tour in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think I know whether or not it is SF. I have NO IDEA where you could get the idea that they are SF.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Okay dude. I spent 4 years in the 82d. A tour in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think I know whether or not it is SF. I have NO IDEA where you could get the idea that they are SF.

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that Airborne Troops are not used as SFs? Airborne is the training ground for Airborne Rangers and many other SF operations. Air Borne Soldiers are not conventional Soldiers. They are Special Operational Soldiers. However, if you are a former member of the 82nd, that's fine. I am not going to tell you what you are or are not. If you say you aren't then OK. However, the central point being made is that Petraeus does have experience with SFs in comabat operations. He does.

[Redskins Diehard]

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that Airborne Troops are not used as SFs? Airborne is the training ground for Airborne Rangers and many other SF operations. Air Borne Soldiers are not conventional Soldiers. They are Special Operational Soldiers. However, if you are a former member of the 82nd, that's fine. I am not going to tell you what you are or are not. If you say you aren't then OK. However, the central point being made is that Petraeus does have experience with SFs in comabat operations. He does.
you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[ABQCOWBOY]

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


OK.

You asked me to read Wiki and I did. It clearly states that he has commanded in the 82nd and 101st, which I believe you said he did not. He has been the theater commander in Iraq, of which, SFs have been prerminantly stationed, since 2003. He has command experience with SFs.

[fansince62]

That's not how the military works, this is an incredibly serious issue. The chain of command has to be respected here, and clearly he doesn't respect it. General or not he must be held accountable. Obama needs to fire him and Adm. Mullen and Gates will decide if there's any use left for him in the Army.

this makes me rather angry.

you're right!

and all of you serving in the SPECOPS community: do so honorably, follow lawful orders, watch out for your comrades...and get out at the first opportunity. you have a bunch of clowns running the show who have no clue what they are doing.

[Redskins Diehard]

OK.

You asked me to read Wiki and I did. It clearly states that he has commanded in the 82nd and 101st, which I believe you said he did not. He has been the theater commander in Iraq, of which, SFs have been prerminantly stationed, since 2003. He has command experience with SFs.

You said he commanded the 101st and 82d. He commanded the 101st...he commanded in the 82d. Further you claim that the 101st and the 82d are special operations/SF...they are not. Neither one of them.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You said he commanded the 101st and 82d. He commanded the 101st...he commanded in the 82d. Further you claim that the 101st and the 82d are special operations/SF...they are not. Neither one of them.


They are not Special Forces as in Rangers or SEALS but they are not conventional troops either. They are Special Operations Troops.

What is Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division?

What does this mean?

"2003, Petraeus, then a Major General, saw combat for the first time when he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad. "

[Redskins Diehard]

They are not Special Forces as in Rangers or SEALS but they are not conventional troops either. They are Special Operations Troops.

What is Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division?

What does this mean?

"2003, Petraeus, then a Major General, saw combat for the first time when he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad. "

Um, that means he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the drive to Baghdad. No argument there.

He was the ADC-O of the 82d. Between McNeil and Vines he was acting commander of the 82d...for 1 month.

What do you base your insistence about the "special" nature of the 82d and 101st(who is airborne in name alone) on? Seriously. You seem so sure of yourself.

[nonniey]

Risky move for Petraeus. Tremendous success in spite of his detractors in Iraq. Is it possible to do better in Afghanistan?

I'm sure Petraeus didn't take his personal legacy into consideration. I think he was the best choice at this point and he may have the weight to get what he needs from the administration (#1 being a statement of commitment to see the war through or the opposite -ie we're leaving and we're leaving now).

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm sure Petraeus didn't take his personal legacy into consideration. I think he was the best choice at this point and he may have the weight to get what he needs from the administration (#1 being a statement of commitment to see the war through or the opposite -ie we're leaving and we're leaving now).

I know that came off as a matter of "personal legacy". Not exactly how I meant it. I meant it more in terms of there is this image now that Petraeus is going to come along and "save the day". He went in to Iraq with very little expectation of success...the risk I was talking about are expectations too high. He is the best for the job.

[fansince62]

I know that came off as a matter of "personal legacy". Not exactly how I meant it. I meant it more in terms of there is this image now that Petraeus is going to come along and "save the day". He went in to Iraq with very little expectation of success...the risk I was talking about are expectations too high. He is the best for the job.

You all are missing a key point: the dysfunctionality that McC was ultimately pointing a finger at....hasn't changed one iota. Patraeus can't change that. Not his job. That responsibility falls elsewhere.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Um, that means he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the drive to Baghdad. No argument there.

He was the ADC-O of the 82d. Between McNeil and Vines he was acting commander of the 82d...for 1 month.

What do you base your insistence about the "special" nature of the 82d and 101st(who is airborne in name alone) on? Seriously. You seem so sure of yourself.

I base it on elements of each Brigade and the roles they have played and are playing in the Iraqi and Afghanistani War. The history of Airborne is not the same as that of Regular Army and neither is the training regiment. Airborne is consistantly sent it first as part of RDF and is consistantly assigned to work with JSOC and or USASOC. Airborne is not a Ranger but they are not a Regular Army unit either. I conceed that part of the 82nd, support units, are more closely aligned with regular Army but Airborne supports many, many SF Army Operations. Look at how closely 5th SFG (AB) is working with Airborne. The roles each played in Kuwait and in Desert Storm/Shield. Airborne is more then just regular Army.

The fact that Airborne plays such a large role in U.S. RDF strategy makes them more then just Regular Army.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I know that came off as a matter of "personal legacy". Not exactly how I meant it. I meant it more in terms of there is this image now that Petraeus is going to come along and "save the day". He went in to Iraq with very little expectation of success...the risk I was talking about are expectations too high. He is the best for the job.


I agree with you on yoru view of "Expectations". However, I also believe that Petraues does have the best chance for success. His ability to handle political situations more effectively are, IMO, key to any success in Afghanistan. McChristy was a soldiers General. He was SF and I think he might have been 82nd as well. That seems to have been both a good thing and a bad thing. I think Petaeus is the one guy who can come in and pull all the different personalities together. Politically, this is the one move Obama could make that allowed him to calm the waters but he didn't do Petraeus any favors here. If the President will not listen to what he is told, then the chances for success in Afghanistan are no greater then they were under any of the previous Commanders. Obama has to listen to what he is being told and he has to get politics out of this War. He has to stop ignoring the fact that we are at War and he has to acknowledge our fighting men and woment. None of this will sit well with his base but if he loses this War, it won't matter what his base thinks because he will be out in any case and so will all that the Democratic Party has tired to do. I believe that it will all be rolled back. He has to win this IMO. He can't do that unless he takes the politics out of this whole thing and lets his Commander command.

[Redskins Diehard]

I base it on elements of each Brigade and the roles they have played and are playing in the Iraqi and Afghanistani War. The history of Airborne is not the same as that of Regular Army and neither is the training regiment. Airborne is consistantly sent it first as part of RDF and is consistantly assigned to work with JSOC and or USASOC. Airborne is not a Ranger but they are not a Regular Army unit either. I conceed that part of the 82nd, support units, are more closely aligned with regular Army but Airborne supports many, many SF Army Operations. Look at how closely 5th SFG (AB) is working with Airborne. The roles each played in Kuwait and in Desert Storm/Shield. Airborne is more then just regular Army.

The fact that Airborne plays such a large role in U.S. RDF strategy makes them more then just Regular Army.

Listen man you can believe whatever you want. I am telling you you are wrong. I served in the 82d for 4 years in a Parachute Infantry Battalion. I went to both Afghanistan and Iraq with that battalion. I am VERY familiar with the training regimen and the mission profile of those units. The 82d is a conventional infantry unit that can arrive on the battlefield from the air. That is it.

[Redskins Diehard]

I agree with you on yoru view of "Expectations". However, I also believe that Petraues does have the best chance for success. His ability to handle political situations more effectively are, IMO, key to any success in Afghanistan. McChristy was a soldiers General. He was SF and I think he might have been 82nd as well. That seems to have been both a good thing and a bad thing. I think Petaeus is the one guy who can come in and pull all the different personalities together. Politically, this is the one move Obama could make that allowed him to calm the waters but he didn't do Petraeus any favors here. If the President will not listen to what he is told, then the chances for success in Afghanistan are no greater then they were under any of the previous Commanders. Obama has to listen to what he is being told and he has to get politics out of this War. He has to stop ignoring the fact that we are at War and he has to acknowledge our fighting men and woment. None of this will sit well with his base but if he loses this War, it won't matter what his base thinks because he will be out in any case and so will all that the Democratic Party has tired to do. I believe that it will all be rolled back. He has to win this IMO. He can't do that unless he takes the politics out of this whole thing and lets his Commander command.
GEN McChrystal did spend time as the ADC-O of the 82d as well. They share that common assignment.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Listen man you can believe whatever you want. I am telling you you are wrong. I served in the 82d for 4 years in a Parachute Infantry Battalion. I went to both Afghanistan and Iraq with that battalion. I am VERY familiar with the training regimen and the mission profile of those units. The 82d is a conventional infantry unit that can arrive on the battlefield from the air. That is it.

Then I guess I am surprised that you would not understand what I am saying. Would you characterise the 82nd as Regular Army in mission and scope? Would you say that the work they are doing with Special Forces Units and Rapid Deployment missions consistant with Regular Army? The fact that you make the stipulation that the 82nd arrives on the battlefield from the air, in and of itself, would seem to denote the fact that they are different.

It doesn't matter. The point of fact remains. Petraeus does have the experience necessary to be succesful in Afghanistan. He has experience commanding SF operations in combat situations, he has sufficiant knowledge of the situation and he has experience as a Theater Commander. All that is needed for victory is there. It is now down to how this Administration supports this Commander. The question is, will politics play a bigger role in this then winning the War?

[twa]

You all are missing a key point: the dysfunctionality that McC was ultimately pointing a finger at....hasn't changed one iota. Patraeus can't change that. Not his job. That responsibility falls elsewhere.

True, but he is more of a political creature and might have more influence.

Too many working in different directions imo.

[Thiebear]

They are not Special Forces as in Rangers or SEALS but they are not conventional troops either. They are Special Operations Troops.

What is Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division?

What does this mean?

"2003, Petraeus, then a Major General, saw combat for the first time when he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad. "

Just to point out having sent Special Forces to Special Forces training they are their own section.
Airborne is badass
Mechanized aint too shabby
Infantry are awesome when they come back from the field and hit the bars.

There really isn't anyone hanging out in the 100degree desert with MOP4 gear that isn't "Special" in my eyes.

combat dentists scare me more than anything.


Fort Campbell is proud to be the home of the only Air Assault Division in the world, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). We are also the home of two prestigious Special Operations Command units, the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne). Additionally, we are the home to the 86th Combat Support Hospital, the 716th MP Battalion, and sizable Medical and Dental activities.

[fansince62]

True, but he is more of a political creature and might have more influence.

Too many working in different directions imo.

putting aside personality conflicts...which will persist.....the point I'm making is that the parties to the discussion/decision-making process have objectives that reach far beyond winning the war itself. that's a subtext to this little drama that has been playing out. Patreus can't change that dynamic. He will be just another party to it.

btw...anyone else find humor in the fact that the one man the President's supporters basically savaged is now tasked to rescue the situation?

[Madison Redskin]

btw...anyone else find humor in the fact that the one man the President's supporters basically savaged is now tasked to rescue the situation?

The moveon.org crowd isn't representative of Obama supporters.

[Redskins Diehard]

The moveon.org crowd isn't representative of Obama supporters.

They weren't the only ones. Pretty sure the Sec State is an Obama supporter and while savage may not be the right word....support definitely isn't either. Of course she just said basically "don't expect me to believe what you are about to say".

[sacase]

Yes the are.

No they are not.

http://www.socom.mil/SOCOMHome/Pages/default.aspx

Don't see them listed under SOCOM at all.

The 82nd and 101st are apart of the XVIII airborne corps.

[sacase]

I'm sure Petraeus didn't take his personal legacy into consideration. I think he was the best choice at this point and he may have the weight to get what he needs from the administration (#1 being a statement of commitment to see the war through or the opposite -ie we're leaving and we're leaving now).

I think Obama and Petraeus are taking a big risk sending him there. Let's be real about this, Petraeus wants to be president. If he turns Afghanistan around, Obama better watch out in 2012 becuase he will have everything he needs to soundly defeat Obama.

However, he is the right man for the job.

[Madison Redskin]

They weren't the only ones. Pretty sure the Sec State is an Obama supporter and while savage may not be the right word....support definitely isn't either. Of course she just said basically "don't expect me to believe what you are about to say".

Clinton didn't villify Petraeus. Clinton merely said she wasn't going to take him at his word. There's a difference, but I get your point (which is fair).

[PeterMP]

I think Obama and Petraeus are taking a big risk sending him there. Let's be real about this, Petraeus wants to be president. If he turns Afghanistan around, Obama better watch out in 2012 becuase he will have everything he needs to soundly defeat Obama.

However, he is the right man for the job.
There is no way Petraeus can orgainze a run for 2012 and stay in the military for another year.

He'd have to essentially leave the military today to organize a run for 2012.

[IHOPSkins]

........I spent 4 years in the 82d. A tour in Afghanistan and Iraq.......Thank You

[Fergasun]

The reason the "chain of command is broken" is because the military isn't accepting the civilian control. When there is a struggle between the direction the military wants to go and the direction of the civilians, who should win? The civilians. This the way the founding fathers set up the country all those years ago.

The military has to understand the the American people elected a democratic president, with democratic policies. Unfortunately its going to impact what they *want* to do, but they have no right to undermine that authority and policy. Such is military.

[zoony]

over/under on the McChrystal book and 60 minutes appearance?

I say 6 months from today

[twa]

I'd buy it,but watching 60 minutes is pushing it.

[Ax]

McChrystal gave the President the cover he'll need when we can't pull out by his stupidly imposed deadline. Like everything else, it won't be his fault.

If Petraeus succeeds, he will take credit for leading him there.
If he fails, he will be the lying soldier boy, he so much as called him, only a few years ago.

Job one for this potus is, cover my own ass.

Edit: I am glad to see him embracing his inner Bush, though.

[Redskins Diehard]

The reason the "chain of command is broken" is because the military isn't accepting the civilian control. When there is a struggle between the direction the military wants to go and the direction of the civilians, who should win? The civilians. This the way the founding fathers set up the country all those years ago.

The military has to understand the the American people elected a democratic president, with democratic policies. Unfortunately its going to impact what they *want* to do, but they have no right to undermine that authority and policy. Such is military.
Talking smack about Eikenberry is not disrespecting the "civilian control of the military". Neither is Holbrooke. It is likely the sign of a dysfunctional team, but it is not disrespecting civilian control.

What is the worse thing that was said about the civilian control of the military. That the President was ill prepared for a 10 minute meeting? Everyone is so up in arms about how President Obama was disrespected. Understand they are protecting "their guy". He certainly didn't seem to bothered by personal "attacks" or disrespect.

[Redskins Diehard]

over/under on the McChrystal book and 60 minutes appearance?

I say 6 months from today

That is an interesting over/under. Special Ops guys...especially of his stature...tend to keep a pretty low profile. I can only think of 2 books by internal guys..."Dalton Fury" and the Eric Haney book. And you don't see many JSOC guys showing up as "military analysts" on cable news.

I would probably take the over.

[Fergasun]

Redskins Diehard,
I disagree, for the specific reasons I posted quite a bit back. I'll now go into further rationale behind why talking smack about Eikenberry and Biden is directly an affront to the President.

As I mentioned before, the President is in charge of the whole Executive Branch. To put it bluntly, everyone in their position is there because the President wants them to be in that position. When it comes to comments from the White House, I am highly skeptical of a claim that things said by Biden, even though they may be a "trial balloon" are his independent words). Even though I like the fact that Biden goes off half-**** sometimes, when he spoke about a different plan, I have no doubt that Biden's plan in part also was some trial balloon at the behest of Obama. For instance, if it was "Obama's plan" it would look foolish to have the commander-in-chief commit to something without getting military advice, or taking the military position into consideration. Hence, someone like Biden or Clinton could advocate different plans, which Obama buys into. I have to believe democrats would rather implement Biden's plan.

So, when Obama takes control of the war, he not only takes control of the military, but also the other parts of his branch, such as Holbrooke and Eikenberry. I saw some speculation that Holbrooke and Eikenberry might also be on the way out, I doubt this very much. Holbrooke and Eikenberry are more in line with what Obama wants to do. I very much doubt there will be a surge in 2011, and I doubt the overall strategy is going to change. The see the military guys express optimism and hope that the strategy will change is completely undermining what Obama is trying to do, because it looks like they don't buy into the 2011 withdrawal, even though civilian leadership is completely for it.

[twa]

That is an interesting over/under. Special Ops guys...especially of his stature...tend to keep a pretty low profile. I can only think of 2 books by internal guys..."Dalton Fury" and the Eric Haney book. And you don't see many JSOC guys showing up as "military analysts" on cable news.

I would probably take the over.

You might very well be right...he does not seem the type

Interesting (even if immaterial )charges that the comments were supposedly off the record and the pre-screening of the article was not the article written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087.html

, officials close to McChrystal began trying to salvage his reputation by asserting that the author, Michael Hastings, quoted the general and his staff in conversations that he was allowed to witness but not report. The officials also challenged a statement by Rolling Stone's executive editor that the magazine had thoroughly reviewed the story with McChrystal's staff ahead of publication.

Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates denied that Hastings violated any ground rules when he wrote about the four weeks he spent, on and off, with McChrystal and his team. "A lot of things were said off the record that we didn't use," Bates said in an interview. "We abided by all the ground rules in every instance."

A senior military official insisted that "many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [Hastings] a sense" of how the team operated. The command's own review of events, said the official, who was unwilling to speak on the record, found "no evidence to suggest" that any of the "salacious political quotes" in the article were made in situations where ground rules permitted Hastings to use the material in his story.
...
Sholtis said that "arguing about the merits of the article would have seemed like we were trying to protect or excuse ourselves rather than acknowledge our mistake. That may have not been the best PR strategy, but it wasn't the approach consistent with the character of General McChrystal."

Officials also questioned Rolling Stone's fact-checking process, as described by Bates in an interview this week with Politico. "We ran everything by them in a fact-checking process as we always do," Bates said. "They had a sense of what was coming and it was all on the record and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it."

In an interview Friday, managing editor Will Dana said that the reporter's notes and factual matters were exhaustively reviewed.

But 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker posed in a memo e-mailed last week to then-McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby contained no hint of what became of the controversial portions of the story. Boothby resigned Tuesday.

much more at the link

[jnhay]

over/under on the McChrystal book and 60 minutes appearance?

I say 6 months from today

Over, unless he's totally out now.

Is anyone else a little annoyed that this big story came from Rolling Stone? I've always disliked the idea of reading music reviews.

[Redskins Diehard]

Redskins Diehard,
I disagree, for the specific reasons I posted quite a bit back. I'll now go into further rationale behind why talking smack about Eikenberry and Biden is directly an affront to the President.

As I mentioned before, the President is in charge of the whole Executive Branch. To put it bluntly, everyone in their position is there because the President wants them to be in that position. When it comes to comments from the White House, I am highly skeptical of a claim that things said by Biden, even though they may be a "trial balloon" are his independent words). Even though I like the fact that Biden goes off half-**** sometimes, when he spoke about a different plan, I have no doubt that Biden's plan in part also was some trial balloon at the behest of Obama. For instance, if it was "Obama's plan" it would look foolish to have the commander-in-chief commit to something without getting military advice, or taking the military position into consideration. Hence, someone like Biden or Clinton could advocate different plans, which Obama buys into. I have to believe democrats would rather implement Biden's plan.

So, when Obama takes control of the war, he not only takes control of the military, but also the other parts of his branch, such as Holbrooke and Eikenberry. I saw some speculation that Holbrooke and Eikenberry might also be on the way out, I doubt this very much. Holbrooke and Eikenberry are more in line with what Obama wants to do. I very much doubt there will be a surge in 2011, and I doubt the overall strategy is going to change. The see the military guys express optimism and hope that the strategy will change is completely undermining what Obama is trying to do, because it looks like they don't buy into the 2011 withdrawal, even though civilian leadership is completely for it.

McChrystal is every bit as much of a part of the executive branch as Eikenberry and Holbrooke. Biden's position from as far back as the campaign for the nomination has been different than Obama's. They are not the same and to think that Biden's words are actually Obama's words is incorrect in my opinion. Obama's position has pretty much been the same since he first came on the candidate scene. More than one person on this board has made the claim that "Obama has promised the Afghan surge...and that is what we are getting" Obama and Biden have a difference of opinion and that is fine.

You are right...Obama holds everything. Military and "civilian". But the Ambo to a country is not the civilian leadership of the military. Civilian leadership of the military is actually pretty simple...President, Secretary of Defense. That is it. Civilian control of the military does not apply to every other member of the government that is not a part of the DoD.

[mardi gras skin]

Interesting (even if immaterial )charges that the comments were supposedly off the record and the pre-screening of the article was not the article written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087.html


This is the section of the Post article I find most problamatic for Rolling Stones.


"Does McChrystal's staff joking refer to themselves as Team America?" the fact-checker asked. "Not really," Boothby replied. "We joke that we are sometimes perceived that way by many of the NATO forces" under McChrystal's command.

In the article, Hastings wrote that McChrystal and his aides "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." In other passages, Hastings took what appear to be similar minor liberties with the facts as Boothby described them.

In the last question, the fact-checker asked: "Did Gen. McChrystal vote for President Obama? (The reporter tells me that this info originates from McChrystal himself.)"

Boothby replied in all capitals. "IMPORTANT -- PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS -- THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNRELATED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE." He went on to describe the "strict rules" under which military personnel keep their political views to themselves.

In the article, Hastings reported that the general "had voted for Obama."

Sounds like the reporter played very lose with the facts. Rolling Stones got good press with this one but I bet they have crippled their ability to get access in the future.

[Redskins Diehard]

This is the section of the Post article I find most problamatic for Rolling Stones.



Sounds like the reporter played very lose with the facts. Rolling Stones got good press with this one but I bet they have crippled their ability to get access in the future.

I doubt it is problematic for Rolling Stone at all. I have a feeling that a lot of the people that are going to buy their magazine now, and in the future, aren't too concerned about that.

When I initially saw the headline and read the Post thread I was a little shocked and a LOT disappointed that McChrystal would say the things that were attributed to him. Not necessarily that he believed them...but that he would share those beliefs with the press. Then it became clear that most of the quotes in the article were off the cuff informal comments that the reporter heard because he was around. The "Biden, who is that?" comment is embarrassing but I would hope that the VP understands it. A simple apology would be necessary and should "fix" that. The comments about the French dinner being "gay" would require an apology to the gay community. The issues between Holbrooke and Eikenberry don't require an apology at all. They do require the President to make an assessment of whether or not his team is capable of functioning in a unified front. Militarily and diplomatically. I was impressed by Obama's speech regarding this issue because that is what it focused on.

As far as the magazine violating "ground rules" or not...I really don't think they care. They just became VERY relevant in the Afghan war. They will have access in the future just like any other accredited news organization. Hopefully our service members will be a little more guarded about what their journalists hear and don't hear.

[Special K]

Sounds like the reporter played very lose with the facts. Rolling Stones got good press with this one but I bet they have crippled their ability to get access in the future.
Yeah, this is what I'm also getting from these follow-up reports. One report I heard was that many of these comments were made at a celebration in Paris for McChrystal and his wife's 33rd wedding anniversary. Supposedly it was made extremely clear that this reporter was allowed to stay, but everything said was strictly off the record.

Also, I heard that the story given McChrystal's staff to review prior to publication was different from the story that was ultimately published.

I think I believe both of these accounts as I can't imagine:
1) Some of these comments said with expectations that it would be public and
2) McChrystal's staff would review this story as it was published and sign off on it.

[Special K]

I doubt it is problematic for Rolling Stone at all. I have a feeling that a lot of the people that are going to buy their magazine now, and in the future, aren't too concerned about that.
I actually disagree. While in the short term, I think a lot of people will buy this issue of the magazine, I think Rolling Stone have screwed not only themselves, but other reporters in general in regards to getting access to certain people, particularly military people.

I was talking to one of my coworkers at the office the other day who's husband is in Afghanistan right now and she said the military has already grown increasingly distrustful of reporters, I highly doubt this fiasco is going to help that situation at all.

[Redskins Diehard]

I actually disagree. While in the short term, I think a lot of people will buy this issue of the magazine, I think Rolling Stone have screwed not only themselves, but other reporters in general in regards to getting access to certain people, particularly military people.

I was talking to one of my coworkers at the office the other day who's husband is in Afghanistan right now and she said the military has already grown increasingly distrustful of reporters, I highly doubt this fiasco is going to help that situation at all.
In 2002 when I went to Afghanistan we were distrustful of reporters. In fact there was an article similar to this one published in Rolling Stone at the time. One of the things that surprised me so much throughout this incident is not what was said. Not at all. But the fact that they said it with this guy around. On or off the record. The military is not going to shut out journalists and embeds...they can't. They can't censor what the journalist is going to write except for security purposes. Will a journalist ever have access again? Yes. Will a journalist have full time access for 2 weeks? Probably not. Probably never should have in the first place.

[Special K]

In 2002 when I went to Afghanistan we were distrustful of reporters. In fact there was an article similar to this one published in Rolling Stone at the time. One of the things that surprised me so much throughout this incident is not what was said. Not at all. But the fact that they said it with this guy around. On or off the record. The military is not going to shut out journalists and embeds...they can't. They can't censor what the journalist is going to write except for security purposes. Will a journalist ever have access again? Yes. Will a journalist have full time access for 2 weeks? Probably not. Probably never should have in the first place.
Just curious (seriously), what article was published in Rolling Stone in 2002 that was similar to this? I don't remember. It surely was not of this magnitude, however.

I also understand the military can't kick out embedded reporters. I think this incident solidified the fact that they sure as crap aren't going to be giving them full access like McChrystal's camp did ever again.

I still don't get why they were saying that stuff around a reporter, drunk or not, off the record or not. You would think at that level they would be smart enough to know not to say crap like that around any reporter, no matter what the circumstances. Unless the reporter's Burgy. I'd trust him.

[JimboDaMan]

Just curious (seriously), what article was published in Rolling Stone in 2002 that was similar to this? I don't remember. It surely was not of this magnitude, however.

I also understand the military can't kick out embedded reporters. I think this incident solidified the fact that they sure as crap aren't going to be giving them full access like McChrystal's camp did ever again.

I still don't get why they were saying that stuff around a reporter, drunk or not, off the record or not. You would think at that level they would be smart enough to know not to say crap like that around any reporter, no matter what the circumstances. Unless the reporter's Burgy. I'd trust him.Absolutely agree. My wife will tell you, one of the things I bore her to tears with is how idiotic it is when somebody says, "Listen, don't tell anybody but...". If you don't want people to know something THEN DON'T TELL THEM. I can't imagine saying or doing anything in front of a reporter - somebody who's job it is to tell about what they hear and see - and expect them not to use that information somehow.

[Redskins Diehard]

Just curious (seriously), what article was published in Rolling Stone in 2002 that was similar to this? I don't remember. It surely was not of this magnitude, however.

I also understand the military can't kick out embedded reporters. I think this incident solidified the fact that they sure as crap aren't going to be giving them full access like McChrystal's camp did ever again.

I still don't get why they were saying that stuff around a reporter, drunk or not, off the record or not. You would think at that level they would be smart enough to know not to say crap like that around any reporter, no matter what the circumstances. Unless the reporter's Burgy. I'd trust him.

I don't remember the title of the article. But it was by an embed with the 101st that was there at the time. Basically painted the whole operation like a real life version of the movie Platoon. Drinking, *******, disrespect for the Afghani people, etc.

I wouldn't trust any reporter....and was skeptical of civilians as a whole. It is a tough culture to understand and I think it would take a special person to "get it" after a week or 2. But the embed are also a valuable tool for the military. It gives them a chance to tell their story. To put a touch of humanity on the whole ordeal. So much of our population is insulated not only from the sacrifice but from the military as a whole. Think about the movie "Blackhawk Down" and the human side of conflict that was portrayed. Or "We were soldiers once". Embed are the way to tell those stories as they are unfolding. The danger is forgetting that while you are using them for that they are ultimately not there for that. In fact many aren't even there to report on the whole situation. They are there to write stories that will sell publications. My Battalion Commander forced every reporter that wanted to do a story on our battalion to listen to a briefing about the humanitarian efforts that we were undertaking. Almost all listened, most of them were respectful and interested, none mentioned it in their articles.

[Special K]

I wouldn't trust any reporter....and was skeptical of civilians as a whole. It is a tough culture to understand and I think it would take a special person to "get it" after a week or 2. But the embed are also a valuable tool for the military. It gives them a chance to tell their story. To put a touch of humanity on the whole ordeal. So much of our population is insulated not only from the sacrifice but from the military as a whole. Think about the movie "Blackhawk Down" and the human side of conflict that was portrayed. Or "We were soldiers once". Embed are the way to tell those stories as they are unfolding. The danger is forgetting that while you are using them for that they are ultimately not there for that. In fact many aren't even there to report on the whole situation. They are there to write stories that will sell publications. My Battalion Commander forced every reporter that wanted to do a story on our battalion to listen to a briefing about the humanitarian efforts that we were undertaking. Almost all listened, most of them were respectful and interested, none mentioned it in their articles.
That's interesting. That's almost exactly what my coworker said her husband says.

He says no one really trusts the reporters over there, but it's really sad and upsetting because the reporters have the ability to tell the Americans, and the world, the story of what's happening over there, but so much of the time they aren't giving that full story or are taking crap out of context (doesn't surprise me with today's media). So military is distrustful of them.

[Burgold]

And I'd imagine the distrust is part of why they are not worthy of trust.

Mind you, there are probably a bunch o'reporters who go over there to earn their name and try to get famous and so are more willing to be controversial or go for a gotcha. I do hate gotcha journalism, but I also hate the avoidance games too. I think each feeds on the other.

[Redskins Diehard]

And I'd imagine the distrust is part of why they are not worthy of trust.

Mind you, there are probably a bunch o'reporters who go over there to earn their name and try to get famous and so are more willing to be controversial or go for a gotcha. I do hate gotcha journalism, but I also hate the avoidance games too. I think each feeds on the other.

No, the problem is it takes one journalist to bring down the commanding general of all forces in Afghanistan. A man that worked 34 years to get to the position he was in and was completely undone by one reporter in 2 weeks. The distrust is because I can hang out and talk to 100 reporters without a problem and then come across the 101st that is there to make a name for himself. I suspect that the journalist that penned this article did not take into account the impact it would have one the thousands of service members in the midst of the fight and the overall effectiveness of the mission. The stakes are too high to just trust someone that has the power of the pen and press on their side.

[Burgold]

I think there's truth in that and probably a bunch of truth in that. I'd also say that when I've done political pieces (and I've done very few, maybe 3) it's amazing the amount of double talk and bs you receive from politicians. They really do speak nonsense at you like you are a total idiot that will buy anything. It's so bad that when you get a moment of truth (inside of an interview) it's like finding water in a desert.

Now, I also have something I consider a strength and weakness as a reporter which is that I feel a tremendous amount of responsibility to my subject. Truth comes first, but a close second is making sure I do right by the people and story I'm covering. I also because of my background in psych have a tremendous respect for confidentiality.

On the other hand, there's also a subset of reporters who want glory, fame, and vanity is a bigger thing to them then getting the story right or being fair to its participants. I think these guys are wrong, but I guess it's also part of why I chose NPR and not cable news... or even network.

So, I understand some need to be on guard or even en guard around reporters. Now, I've never covered a war zone and that's got to be a very different thing, both on the rules imposed on the reporter and the pressure to deliver. Still, if you're given a ton of pablum or bs it's hard to ignore something genuine. It's like when a President slips and says something authentic or real. Half the people will like it and the other half will worry that a President shouldn't be allowed to feel or express such things.

I will say that from what I understand when there was a better relationship with the press and government or the military these stories were rarer and we got better stories. Think of how many Presidential affairs were widely known about but never devulged in the press. The fact that the press is treated like the enemy sometimes makes them the enemy.

[JimboDaMan]

No, the problem is it takes one journalist to bring down the commanding general of all forces in Afghanistan. A man that worked 34 years to get to the position he was in and was completely undone by one reporter in 2 weeks. The distrust is because I can hang out and talk to 100 reporters without a problem and then come across the 101st that is there to make a name for himself. I suspect that the journalist that penned this article did not take into account the impact it would have one the thousands of service members in the midst of the fight and the overall effectiveness of the mission. The stakes are too high to just trust someone that has the power of the pen and press on their side.That man was taken down by his own actions, not by the reporter.

Keep in mind, even if nobody had reported this, the culture within the general's staff seemed to be that everyone non-military was an idiot. Not just in general terms, but specific people were "clowns", etc. The counterinsurgency strategy involves a kind of "holistic" military-political-economic-social effort that requires coordination between different groups with different mindsets. Not easy to work effectively with a team when you are openly mocking the other members.

[Fergasun]

Redskins Diehard,
Things don't clear the White House unless the White House allows it to go out. Biden's comments were approved by folks in the White House, whether Obama was aware of it or simply his "policy advisers" screened it, or not the folks in the White House wanted to give the impression that they were seriously considering other options outside of the surge. This could be for purely political reasons, however in so far as Obama is in control of the White House even more than the Executive Branch.

I guess it's kind've conflating to say Obama vs. "democrats".

To put it broadly. Democrats have been elected to the White House. Democrats will rule the White House and Executive Branch in the manner they believe most beneficial to Democrats, and the way Democrats should run it. They will place Democrats in key positions and enact Democratic policy, even Democratic military policy. When the military command speaks about Democrats in such a way it raises doubts among Democrats whether the military will follow Democratic policy.

I understand Gates is a Republican hold-over, but he seems to understand the politics involved. If McCrystal really had his doubts and concerns I think the proper place to deal with them was internally with Gates and Petraeus. I don't know if McCrystal is politically deaf or simply tired of dealing with having his hands tied. I don't know if Petraeus had a hand in the article either.

Regardless, if you are in the military and complain about the party in the White House, and their policies, and show them disrespect openly to the American public, you're gone and rightly so.

What's funny is to see the Republicans attempt to spin this and say that Eikenberry and Jones need to go, and that getting rid of McCrystal only solved "half the solution". No way will that happen.

[twa]

That man was taken down by his own actions, not by the reporter.

Keep in mind, even if nobody had reported this, the culture within the general's staff seemed to be that everyone non-military was an idiot. Not just in general terms, but specific people were "clowns", etc. The counterinsurgency strategy involves a kind of "holistic" military-political-economic-social effort that requires coordination between different groups with different mindsets. Not easy to work effectively with a team when you are openly mocking the other members.

So he would have been forced out w/o this story being published?...Puleeze:pfft:

It appears he thinks just certain people are(if you read the piece) idiots.
Whoever allowed a embed access like that w/o complete control over what is printed is a fool.(and I don't think it is McChrystal)

[Burgold]

So he would have been forced out w/o this story being published?...Puleeze:pfft:

Well, if he showed a certain amount of disdain or noncooperation because of his belief in civilian idiocy... sure. Eventually.

[twa]

Well, if he showed a certain amount of disdain or noncooperation because of his belief in civilian idiocy... sure. Eventually.

Civilian idiocy or just certain idiocy from both civilians and military?

Confusing the two is a mistake and a unfair accusation imo...he did not get to where he was by being ambiguous.(and most good leaders don't)

Personally I'm kinda glad he is gone if it will result in looser ROE(as is rumored),a area I think he went too far in.(or allowed to)

[Redskins Diehard]

Redskins Diehard,
Things don't clear the White House unless the White House allows it to go out. Biden's comments were approved by folks in the White House, whether Obama was aware of it or simply his "policy advisers" screened it, or not the folks in the White House wanted to give the impression that they were seriously considering other options outside of the surge. This could be for purely political reasons, however in so far as Obama is in control of the White House even more than the Executive Branch.

I guess it's kind've conflating to say Obama vs. "democrats".

To put it broadly. Democrats have been elected to the White House. Democrats will rule the White House and Executive Branch in the manner they believe most beneficial to Democrats, and the way Democrats should run it. They will place Democrats in key positions and enact Democratic policy, even Democratic military policy. When the military command speaks about Democrats in such a way it raises doubts among Democrats whether the military will follow Democratic policy.

I understand Gates is a Republican hold-over, but he seems to understand the politics involved. If McCrystal really had his doubts and concerns I think the proper place to deal with them was internally with Gates and Petraeus. I don't know if McCrystal is politically deaf or simply tired of dealing with having his hands tied. I don't know if Petraeus had a hand in the article either.

Regardless, if you are in the military and complain about the party in the White House, and their policies, and show them disrespect openly to the American public, you're gone and rightly so.

What's funny is to see the Republicans attempt to spin this and say that Eikenberry and Jones need to go, and that getting rid of McCrystal only solved "half the solution". No way will that happen.

Are you saying that Candidate Obama had to approve of Candidate Biden's position on the Afghan war?

It might be funny what Republicans are doing...it is sad if Democrats think that Obama replaced McChrystal = problems solved. As has been pointed out, turning the tide in Iraq was not only the work of Petraeus. It was coordination between both Petraeus and the diplomatic leadership in Baghdad. While McChrystal's comments regarding Eikenberry and Holbrooke were not conducive to a cohesive team environment they should not be ignored by the White House.

Try to step out of the Republican v Democrat viewpoint every now and then...you might see something new.

[JimboDaMan]

So he would have been forced out w/o this story being published?...Puleeze:pfft:

It appears he thinks just certain people are(if you read the piece) idiots.
Whoever allowed a embed access like that w/o complete control over what is printed is a fool.(and I don't think it is McChrystal)So he would have been forced out w/o running his big mouth? Puleeze.

You seem to be confused about that whole cause-and-effect thing.

[twa]

So he would have been forced out w/o running his big mouth? Puleeze.

You seem to be confused about that whole cause-and-effect thing.

No,I think you are.....his comments,nor those of his staff,would have given rise to his dismissal w/o being MADE national news...which left O no other option.

Private disagreement or mockery is tolerable

[Redskins Diehard]

So he would have been forced out w/o running his big mouth? Puleeze.

You seem to be confused about that whole cause-and-effect thing.
Out of curiosity...how much of the article did you read? Or did you read newspaper accounts of the article. In your opinion...what was it he said when "running his big mouth" cost him his job?

[Redskins Diehard]

That man was taken down by his own actions, not by the reporter.

Keep in mind, even if nobody had reported this, the culture within the general's staff seemed to be that everyone non-military was an idiot. Not just in general terms, but specific people were "clowns", etc. The counterinsurgency strategy involves a kind of "holistic" military-political-economic-social effort that requires coordination between different groups with different mindsets. Not easy to work effectively with a team when you are openly mocking the other members.

And I am sure NOBODY in the embassy is talking about the snake eating non-thinker knuckle dragging trigger pullers that have a different vantage point of the whole thing than the enlightened diplomats.

If you read through this thread you would see that I generally agree with the fact that he is responsible for what happened. I am surprised that he and his staff were so casual and informal around this journalist.

[Burgold]

How long did it take for them to get a percentage of the manpower they requested?

I was once told that when it comes to military budgets or personnel requests that the DOD usually doubles or triples the amount they actually want or figure they need b/c they know that Congress or the Pres is bound to give them less than what they ask for. I think that is part of the game.

You know, a shoot for the stars so you can at least land on the moon kind of thing. I believe very few proposed budgets or requests are minimalistic.

[twa]

If you read through this thread you would see that I generally agree with the fact that he is responsible for what happened. I am surprised that he and his staff were so casual and informal around this journalist.

Just for clarity I agree he is ultimately responsible(and did what HAD to be done as a result) and it was a stupid to allow that kind of access w/o control of the published piece.

[JimboDaMan]

Out of curiosity...how much of the article did you read? Or did you read newspaper accounts of the article. In your opinion...what was it he said when "running his big mouth" cost him his job?You're missing the point, or maybe you're making it for me. It isn't the specific quotes from the general that appear in the article. Its the overall attitude of disdain in the general's office for the other players. Its the fact that this attitude is so accepted they don't even see the problem in carrying on in front of a reporter.

And yes, I expect there's an attitude in the embassy that the military just doesn't grasp the problems. But I don't know that for sure, because they so far haven't been foolish enough to let that leak out of their own circle. If they start talking publicly about Army GI Joes with bullet-sized brains I expect there'll be some changes coming there also.

[twa]

But I don't know that for sure, because they so far haven't been foolish enough to let that leak out of their own circle. If they start talking publicly about Army GI Joes with bullet-sized brains I expect there'll be some changes coming there also.

So now you agree the cause was the reporter?:)

[Redskins Diehard]

You're missing the point, or maybe you're making it for me. It isn't the specific quotes from the general that appear in the article. Its the overall attitude of disdain in the general's office for the other players. Its the fact that this attitude is so accepted they don't even see the problem in carrying on in front of a reporter.

And yes, I expect there's an attitude in the embassy that the military just doesn't grasp the problems. But I don't know that for sure, because they so far haven't been foolish enough to let that leak out of their own circle. If they start talking publicly about Army GI Joes with bullet-sized brains I expect there'll be some changes coming there also.

I am trying to figure out if you have a problem that the attitude exists or if you have a problem with the fact that you know the attitude exists. You seemingly acknowledge that the attitude likely exists in the embassy. I suspect you haven't read the leaked Eikenberry communication. We know what Eikenberry thought of the position that President Obama eventually decided to proceed with(McChrystal's/Petraeus' recommendation)

The reason why it isn't the specific quotes is because as it turns out there really aren't any out there. I can't believe a "another email from him...don't want to read that" is actually getting so much play. Who hasn't said that about an email from a colleague, or superior, or subordinate?

[Redskins Diehard]

Just for clarity I agree he is ultimately responsible(and did what HAD to be done as a result) and it was a stupid to allow that kind of access w/o control of the published piece.

The military will NEVER have control over the published piece. NEVER. Minus a clear violation of operational security.

[twa]

The military will NEVER have control over the published piece. NEVER. Minus a clear violation of operational security.

Which is why it is stupid to allow behind the scenes access at that level

[Redskins Diehard]

Which is why it is stupid to allow behind the scenes access at that level

I would agree that it is foolish to allow access for that long of a period of time. Again, I am very surprised that the staff either lacked the discipline or awareness to allow the reporter to hear the things he did. That kind of access can be beneficial...or it can turn out like this.

[Redskins Diehard]

I was once told that when it comes to military budgets or personnel requests that the DOD usually doubles or triples the amount they actually want or figure they need b/c they know that Congress or the Pres is bound to give them less than what they ask for. I think that is part of the game.

You know, a shoot for the stars so you can at least land on the moon kind of thing. I believe very few proposed budgets or requests are minimalistic.

Why am I not surprised that you are presenting the argument that Obama actually gave McChrystal what he wanted or needed even though it was significantly less than what he asked for?

I once heard that Obama actually was forced to give a lower number of resources than was requested just to prove that he was in charge. A "you'll get what I give you" move. That keeping up appearances instead of actually doing what is required for the mission is part of the game. That is what I once heard.

[Burgold]

You don't think that when people write up budget proposals that they ask for more than they need? Really? You think the requests made are the absolute essential and minimum or even the ideal numbers?

Almost every section of the government does this. It ain't military exclusively and it didn't start with Obama. The only guys who produce a minimum budget are the guys whose program is on the chopping block.

[Redskins Diehard]

You don't think that when people write up budget proposals that they ask for more than they need? Really? You think the requests made are the absolute essential and minimum or even the ideal numbers?

Almost every section of the government does this. It ain't military exclusively and it didn't start with Obama. The only guys who produce a minimum budget are the guys whose program is on the chopping block.

What is it called when you take an issue about one thing(personnel requirements) and turn it into another thing(budget requests)?

[Burgold]

I imagine the principle is the same, don't you?

Do you think they ask for the exact number, the absolute minimum number of people they need?

[Redskins Diehard]

I imagine the principle is the same, don't you?

Do you think they ask for the exact number, the absolute minimum number of people they need?

No, I think they present options. And they tell the President what they can do with the various levels of troops. And then the President makes a decision. And that is pretty much how this one played out.

[JimboDaMan]

So now you agree the cause was the reporter?:)Its ridiculous to blame this on the reporter.

[twa]

Its ridiculous to blame this on the reporter.

True, the decision to allow access is the main problem.
The General and staff were simply following their nature...as was the reporter with a scoop.
Cause is not the same as blame.
Talking crap by the General and staff nor a reporter reporting in and of themselves is a problem and are natural to a degree.
Combining the two is idiocy.

[Fergasun]

Redskins Diehard,
As a citizen the best thing I can do is look at things from the Republican and Democratic perspective. I also think its worth having an understanding of how the White House works. Any speech or statement from the White House or cabinet member is managed by senior advisers working on policy. They figure out what's going on and how it fits with what the President is doing (or what they think the President should be doing), and advise the tone and what type of speech it should be.

The President wants to ensure that everyone is working on that July 2011 pull-out. Certainly there is friction between him and the military. There is no need to make that friction any more evident than already is. Consider that part of the "big picture" was Obama seen as more diplomatic than Bush, and contrast it with McCrystal's attitude toward meeting with allies.

Like I said before; the President is in charge of everything. Yes, he's in charge of the military, he's also in charge of the ambasadors, special envoy's, and what not. Everything. McCrystal, Eikenberry, Holbrooke all serve at the pleasure and will of the President (and his shadow advisors). To have a military general who thinks that there will be another surge in 2011, and can simply spout off about other folks who quite frankly may be doing what the President wants is not wise.

We can debate over whether this is the best way to run the country. Since we've never elected a real independent over a partisan (the last chance was Perot), we'll never get even non-partisan neutral policy. The politicians have to play to the base, and rule to the "mandate" they make up.

[Burgold]

How long did it take for them to get a percentage of the manpower they requested?

This was the statement that caused our mini-discussion. A statement that you didn't contest.


No, I think they present options. And they tell the President what they can do with the various levels of troops. And then the President makes a decision. And that is pretty much how this one played out.

So, which is it? Did the they get a lower percentage of the manpower requested or did the President choose amongst the options granted? You're playing word games. The DOD requests a number that they know is unlikely to be funded and a series of other options. The President and his advisors mull through the numbers and rationales and make a pick, but the number that is generally published is generally the "dream" number and not the one the DOD actually expects or needs.

[Redskins Diehard]

This was the statement that caused our mini-discussion. A statement that you didn't contest.



So, which is it? Did the they get a lower percentage of the manpower requested or did the President choose amongst the options granted? You're playing word games. The DOD requests a number that they know is unlikely to be funded and a series of other options. The President and his advisors mull through the numbers and rationales and make a pick, but the number that is generally published is generally the "dream" number and not the one the DOD actually expects or needs.
I am playing "word games" and you are claiming that the military padded the troop requirements and asked for "x" troops when all they really needed was "y". We are talking about troop requirements and you go off on some tangent about budget requests(which by the way a parallel could be drawn, you just haven't done it). They absolutely got a lower percentage of manpower to execute the mission that the President assigned(the mission that McChrystal recommended) I know this is Obama's decision so it is unlikely to get objective criticism from his supporters so lets look at a recent example that I am sure you are more willing to be critical of. In the lead up to the Iraq invasion GEN Shinseki said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq post invasion. While the commanders were given enough troops to accomplish the mission but it obviously came with increased risk. It didn't work out so well there did it?

It is absolutely the President's prerogative to send any number of troops he wants. But it is his decision and he owns that one. Only in a support Obama at all costs world would the rationale be "the General I picked is padding his numbers so I am going to assume that he could actually do it with 50% of the troops he said he required because that is what he really needs to do the job"

[Burgold]

and you go off on some tangent about budget requests(which by the way a parallel could be drawn, you just haven't done it).

Well, I thought I did. I certainly see and understand the parallel as apparently did you.

It is absolutely the President's prerogative to send any number of troops he wants. But it is his decision and he owns that one.

Yup. For good and bad.

Only in a support Obama at all costs world would the rationale be "the General I picked is padding his numbers so I am going to assume that he could actually do it with 50% of the troops he said he required because that is what he really needs to do the job"

Ugh. That level of rhetoric really helps no one, you know. I believe that all numbers presented are inflated unless the entire program is on the chopping block. Everyone always wants more. Do they inflate by 10%, 50% 300% I don't know, but the numbers requested are always inflated. I think it is consciously done and consciously understood. Do you think that the DOD really wanted to pay 300 dollars for those infamous hammers or forty dollars per infamous nail? There's padding that goes on.

[Redskins Diehard]

Ugh. That level of rhetoric really helps no one, you know. I believe that all numbers presented are inflated unless the entire program is on the chopping block. Everyone always wants more. Do they inflate by 10%, 50% 300% I don't know, but the numbers requested are always inflated. I think it is consciously done and consciously understood. Do you think that the DOD really wanted to pay 300 dollars for those infamous hammers or forty dollars per infamous nail? There's padding that goes on.

Okay so did the White House and Pentagon agree on the percentage of increase ahead of time so that in the end the commander could get the number of troops he thought he needed? The unwillingness to say Obama decided to give a different number of troops because that is the decision he made helps no one in my opinion. Instead of saying well he choose a less number but it actually really was the number they wanted. I wonder if you had the same viewpoint when GEN Shinseki was not given the number of troops he asked for in Iraq.

[ZoEd]

Can't help but wonder if the same disdain would have been levied against a General who spoke out against Bush.

[Redskins Diehard]

Can't help but wonder if the same disdain would have been levied against a General who spoke out against Bush.
Maybe same disdain...but definitely different people.:)

[ZoEd]

Maybe same disdain...but definitely different people.:)

If it were Bush the same people with their panties in a bunch would be breaking their arms patting themselves on the back yelling "I told you so!"

[Redskins Diehard]

If it were Bush the same people with their panties in a bunch would be breaking their arms patting themselves on the back yelling "I told you so!"
I wonder if there are any threads here about Bush "ignoring" Shinseki's troop requirements? It would be an interesting read for sure. I wonder if there was anyone in a hurry to point out that it was the proper decision because Shinseki was offering an inflated requirement and Bush, wise to that old game, actually reduced it by the same amount that Shinseki inflated and therefor in a stroke of managerial brilliance arrived at the true troop requirement.

[JimboDaMan]

If it were Bush the same people with their panties in a bunch would be breaking their arms patting themselves on the back yelling "I told you so!"So all the right-wingers in this thread who said McChrystal has got to go were Bush-bashers? Interesting, my memory must be failing me.