The Runaway General

[yeahwho]

I'm surprised that no ones mentioned Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan and the recent revelation that he likes to disparage his boss to a Rock & Roll magazine rather than perform his duties in one of the most drawn out bullshit wars the United States of America has ever entered into.

Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236) scooped every major news organization by finding out he was in contempt of his Chain of Command. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and his aides spoke critically of nearly every member of the president’s national security team, saying President Obama appeared “uncomfortable and intimidated” during his first meeting with the general, and dismissing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as “Bite Me.”

“I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment,” Mr. Obama said after a cabinet meeting Tuesday. “But I also want to make sure I talk to him directly before I make final judgment.”

Military officers interviewed on Tuesday noted that while the general’s statements could be viewed as inexcusable and disrespectful, he never indicated a decision not to carry out Mr. Obama’s orders or fulfill the president’s strategy.

Left, Right, Tea Baggy or "Independent" how do you feel about a General who criticizes his commander during his mission? He has done the unspeakable, he has mocked his boss and undermined our mission in the Middle East (whatever the fuck that is?).

Fire him. Just get it over. Now. This is a General who is so poor in judgment he bashes a democratic president in a rock and roll left leaning magazine. Send him off to his FOX News job.

[kaiser soze]

Firing him would be the nice thing to do - under UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), specifically article 88 he would be in a bit of a pickle. I read he put his resignation in prior to arriving on US soil to speak with his Commander in Chief.

There's more important things for the President needs to focus on - let the general resign and be on our way.

This is just the start for him, I bet there's a position at FOX awaiting him. North and Rove would love his company.

[100% ILL]

I admire his candor, of course that type of an honest (at least in his view) assessment will not be tolerated by this administration no matter how effective he may be as a general. He will be fired and someone will be put in his place who will more accurately represent this administration, which is basically all about rhetoric and bullsh*t. Such is the way of politics. Presidents have to make killing people seem humane and necessary, while soldiers have the duty of getting the killing done; which requires a certain mentality that does not often translate well in politics.

[travesty]

From what I understand very little of the bashing in the article actually came from McChrystal himself but rather most of it was from his aides. Nevertheless he's the boss and is accountable. (funny how that doesn't apply to Obama). But that's irrelevant.
Was it a fuck up? I don't know....Maybe. It may also be very calculated. This is a guy who is by all accounts a brilliant strategist and real "soldier's soldier" so it's hard to imagine that inviting a Rolling Stone reporter to tag along on a few boozy nights in Paris with the boys was just a coincidence. His frustration and lack of respect for Obama are no secret. He is a soldier not a politician and the two ideologies always clash. Remember that Obama was one of the guys trying to defund the war when he was in the Senate and then refused to meet with McChrystal for a long time and then dragged his feet and double guessed Stanley's request for more troops AND THEN put a timeline on them. I think it is symptomatic of a larger problem within the miltary at large that has a genaral lack of respect for this administration and their fumbling foriegn policy and wartime leadership. So the guy who has made the most progreses in Afghanistan since the war started and who the President of Afghanistan says is best suited for the job will be replaced with some suck ass general who will run this campiagn for political results instead of victory....just like Obama wants. (That's really all he cares about.) Maybe McChrystal was fed up, wanted out and wanted to make sure everyone knew how he felt. Like a big "Fuck this place, it's bullshit, I'm outta here!!" Regardless of his motives it all reflects very badly on Barry and I can only imagine how inflamed his precious Chicago ego is over this whole thing. The thought of it makes me happy inside.
As with most of the recent conflicts we have been in, the politicans will ensure that the soldiers on the ground are unable to acheive victory over the enemy. It's a shame.

[Burnout18]

i wonder if there is a lack of respect because obama's this liberal lawyer/professor from the ivy league and a big city who never served in the military. i wonder how much McChrystal actually respected him, even though he voted for obama.

Obviously clinton didn't have this, but he was a bmore experienced politician the obama.

[yeahwho]

From "Managing your Boss 101": Always present your dissatisfaction's and suggestions for improvement directly to your boss, BEFORE grandstanding in a rock-n-roll magazine.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is out. Exactly the right choice. If he stayed I believe any last thread of legitimacy for continued death and upheaval on the United States behalf in Afghanistan would be viewed as runaway ego, which BTW, it already is by those in the Middle East.

This man was not only compromising his duty he was compromising our troops.

[kaiser soze]

and as a General compromising the honor, integrity, and valor or our military - which is hanging from a thread

I thought he had the resignation in hand or email and Obama was gonna be kind enough to honor it - but alas Obama put him in his place and probably did what the UCMJ would call for - sorta.

gotta keep the military in check - if not, it's a virtual coup de tat

[Drederick Tatum]

It may also be very calculated.

this is what I thought when I first read the story. just disconnecting himself from an unwinnable conflict. Obama should've done the same when he had the chance.

[Schmeltz]

This is a guy who is by all accounts a real "soldier's soldier"

I don't think Pat Tillman's family would agree with that assessment.

replaced with some suck ass general who will run this campiagn for political results instead of victory....just like Obama wants.

someone will be put in his place who will more accurately represent this administration, which is basically all about rhetoric and bullsh*t.

I bet David Petraeus would kick both your asses if you said that to his face. You'd deserve it, too.

It may be that Stanley McChrystal was frustrated with the administration's approach to the war, specifically with the delay in implementing the recommended troop surge. On the other hand, people were already calling for his resignation or dismissal after the unprecedentedly public nature of that recommendation almost a year ago. It's quite clear that there was tension between the commander-in-chief and his man on the ground, and according to McChrystal's own rules that makes him insubordinate and compromises his authority. And no military anywhere has any use for insubordination. End of story.

[travesty]

So I stand corrected, frankly I was surprised to see Petraeus get named. After all of the no-confidence and brow beating he took from Obama, Biden and the other Dems over the Iraq surge I think it's ironic that when the cards are down, Obama picks him to carry on the war in Afghanistan. I mean the left was calling this guy "Betray-us" for having the "audacity" to ask for the Iraq surge when most Dems were admitting defeat and ready to head home. Then they slammed him and double guessed the actual effectiveness of his plan even after it worked. What's going to happen when he asks Obama to support his Afghanistan plan? I feel bad for anyone in the military that has to answer to our current commander in cheif, they are in a no win situation for at least another two years.

For the record though I support that McChrystal had to go. The military can not function with dissent, especially public dissent.

[Schmeltz]

After all of the no-confidence and brow beating he took from Obama, Biden and the other Dems over the Iraq surge I think it's ironic that when the cards are down, Obama picks him to carry on the war in Afghanistan. I mean the left was calling this guy "Betray-us" for having the "audacity" to ask for the Iraq surge

The first and most obvious point to make here is that MoveOn.org does not represent anyone besides themselves. It's probably also worth it to point out that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden abstained from voting on the Senate resolution that ran in the wake of that ad campaign, condemning personal attacks on David Petraeus. Obama at the time called it for what it was: a cheap stunt and empty politics. One might also mention that Petraeus himself has remarked, on FOX News no less, that Obama acknowledges that the troop surge worked in Iraq (although if you ask me there's plenty of debate to be had about that as well).

So I think you're just trying to spin this story against the Obama administration any way you possibly can. It isn't working very well. All it amounts to is indiscretion and irresponsibility on the part of Stanley McChrystal, for which he appears to have been justly reprimanded. Trying to take it further into the realm of partisan politics really just shows you up as no better than the whiny mudslinging liberals if you ask me.

[100% ILL]

I bet David Petraeus would kick both your asses if you said that to his face. You'd deserve it, too.

That's a fair statment, I didn't figure Gen. Petraeus would be named as the replacement, seeing as how it is actually a step down for him.

I still say McChrystal's loss is huge for the Afghan campaign. It will be interesting to see if Petraeus will have similar conflicts with the administration. I do give Obama credit for choosing him, considering his popularity and effectivness in the Iraq campaign he was a wise choice. It bears noting however, that it took someone of Petraes' caliber to replace McChrystal.
The fact that McChrystal chose to make the statements he did would seem to indicate he wanted out, Generals, especially Generals as high up as McChrystal don't just throw away thier careers. It seems more like a politcal statement in and of itself. And of course there's the question, What if he's right?

[travesty]

So I think you're just trying to spin this story against the Obama administration any way you possibly can. It isn't working very well. All it amounts to is indiscretion and irresponsibility on the part of Stanley McChrystal, for which he appears to have been justly reprimanded. Trying to take it further into the realm of partisan politics really just shows you up as no better than the whiny mudslinging liberals if you ask me.

I'm not "spinning" anything. Go back and watch video of the Iraq Hearings with Petraeus and tell me I'm wrong. If Obama has changed his tune in regards to the Iraq surge since then, then I haven't heard it and if true then I would stand corrected. Like I said before, I am actually giving Barry props for talking Petraeus into taking the job. I just hope he can get the fuck out of his way and let him do it, then maybe we will have some small chance of getting the fuck out of that shithole.

[yeahwho]

In a move to prevent further examinations of our military the Pentagon now will tighten up media visits rather than become more accessible.

Pentagon tightens media controls (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/06/4623505-pentagon-tightens-media-controls)


So we're less likely to have true journalism coming from this war now. It's more embedded reporting and less objectivity in what is now the longest US war.

[Schmeltz]

In theory, if the military establishment is under civilian control there's no real need for direct media scrutiny of its actions; the armed forces answer to bodies politic that in turn answer to the electorate. In fact such scrutiny could conceivably hamper the efficient performance of military duties that rely on secrecy and deception in order to confound a lethally cunning and well-informed enemy. And frankly if the top brass is going to behave with such borderline treasonous irresponsibility as displayed by McChrystal and his aides, I can understand restricting media access to them. Generals subordinate to civilian authority have no place flinging criticism of their bosses before the slavering, idiot-friendly, corporate media. These guys are paid to win wars, not have opinions. Save it for the memoirs.

[yeahwho]

If I have family in danger because a general or any commander is giving away military operations or subverting our effort in Afghanistan, they should be immediately removed and subject to military court.

Even more crucial is the effort itself, who, what, where, when and how did this effort become so important that we continue to risk my family in Afghanistan? This war has slowly, tenaciously become a 140+ month effort. We need to examine our reasoning in an open public forum with as many voices as possible. What Rolling Stone and freelance writer Michael Hastings did was expose a certain contempt and complacency for us, the citizens of the USA. That is important, especially if the goal is to win over the Afghans.

Another theory is, “I don’t care who the General is in charge, unless he’s in charge of bringing the soldiers home” (http://subversify.com/2010/07/09/the-american-press-and-the-afghanistan-war/)

[Schmeltz]

Even more crucial is the effort itself, who, what, where, when and how did this effort become so important that we continue to risk my family in Afghanistan? This war has slowly, tenaciously become a 140+ month effort.

This is the thing about people in the Western world, and especially you Americans; we like wars that start and end on specific days, and have specific goals, and achieve specific things. That's the wrong way to understand this conflict. The current level of hostility isn't a neatly packageable, cut-and-dried, us-against-them war like the one waged against the Nazis. It's exponentially more complex. It's a function not of relations between nation states or armed forces, but of relations between entire blocs of humanity. Afghanistan is the pivot around which the Western and Islamic worlds revolve, it is a conduit for the energies of entire civilizations. Those relations currently take the form of an armed conflict, but even if actual combat were to end tomorrow it would be impossible to extricate your country from its position at the forefront of that interaction.

You can no more ignore Afghanistan than you can ignore China, and pretending that Islamofascism can be accommodated without an element of direct military confrontation is wishful thinking at this point in time. What we need is Western leadership capable of engineering a more productive relationship with Islam than what we've got so far. Under Bush that relationship worsened to a point darker than at any other time in history. Time will tell if things improve under Obama, let's just hope and pray they do. But the one thing that is truly impossible is disengagement. This war isn't ending anytime soon, whatever Rolling Stone has to say about it.

[yeahwho]

What your saying is we in the West don't understand our own conflict. Which is false in my case and I'm sure in millions of other US citizens who have family there. What I'm saying is, what little we have understood is now being marginalized because of the Rolling Stone article, the press will get less contact with the top military brass. I don't want to attain strategy or attack plans. What I want and any civil citizen wants is to not let a military goal to be twisted due to lack of open access.

KIA numbers have increased this summer with alarming frequency.