[ebuddy]

Unfortunately, Afghanistan has been a net-failure and McChrystal's name is all over it. I respect his service, but his PR breach in tandem with a lacking success in Afghanistan = Petraeus. That's the way it goes and if McChrystal didn't know this, he's using drugs which might explain how Rolling Stone was able to scoop him.

I support Obama's decision on this one and I think the speech Obama gave in accepting McChrystal's resignation was gracious, but assertive, and personally confidence-building that we might see some much needed progress in Afghanistan. Karzai's support for McChrystal almost cinches it IMO.

[BadKosh]

As obama watches the pennies he spends for the military, he still pisses away billions for political points. He didn't give the generals what they requested. Now he's getting rid of a general who laughed at his incompetence and lack of leadership. he wants Afghanistan to fail, while taking credit for the Bush surge in Iraq.

[andi*pandi]

That's just ridiculous, BadKosh.

Two strikes on McChrystal. He got a second chance. Didn't we learn that we have to respect our leadership, or we're not Patriots? With us or agin' us?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In my opinion...That's just ridiculous, BadKosh.

Two strikes on McChrystal. He got a second chance. Didn't we learn that we have to respect our leadership, or we're not Patriots? With us or agin' us?

fixed.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

fixed.

Sorry, I'm afraid she was right. It was objectively ridiculous.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unfortunately, Afghanistan has been a net-failure and McChrystal's name is all over it. I respect his service, but his PR breach in tandem with a lacking success in Afghanistan = Petraeus. That's the way it goes and if McChrystal didn't know this, he's using drugs which might explain how Rolling Stone was able to scoop him.

I support Obama's decision on this one and I think the speech Obama gave in accepting McChrystal's resignation was gracious, but assertive, and personally confidence-building that we might see some much needed progress in Afghanistan. Karzai's support for McChrystal almost cinches it IMO.

It'd be one thing if he was being relieved simply for his performance in Afghanistan. But I suspect it's more because of his criticism of the administration- which if it can actually be called that, is pretty tame if going by the Rolling Stone article. Most of it is just "and someone in his staff supposedly said this..." type of crap, barely a single direct quote.

It is Obama's priority as commander-in-chief. Unfortunately, I think his top priority is just damage control for himself and his admin of clowns. Actually doing anything effectively in Afghanistan, no matter what general is in charge, isn't even on his radar.

[sek929]

From what I understand, many of the disparaging remarks were made after the general had a few beers.

The man is a warrior, and I'm willing to bet any warrior with a little booze in them is going to speak their mind. I don't think anything that Obama could have done would have made this situation any better.

If he does nothing he is a weak leader, if he fires the guy then he is protecting his administration.

[besson3c]

The general had a few beers shortly before his Rolling Stones interview?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The general had a few beers shortly before his Rolling Stones interview?

As I understand it, flights were grounded waiting on the impacts of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano eruption. It was supposed to be a couple of days that turned into a month at which point it is thought McChrystal got comfortable with the reporter "hanging around". It very easily could've been a drink, but I don't have anything substantial to confirm it.

[subego]

The author of the article describes him at one point with a "Bud Light Lime".

Which is grounds for being sacked in and of itself.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As I understand it, flights were grounded waiting on the impacts of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano eruption. It was supposed to be a couple of days that turned into a month at which point it is thought McChrystal got comfortable with the reporter "hanging around". It very easily could've been a drink, but I don't have anything substantial to confirm it.

I don't buy that as an excuse. First of all, he's an adult and he knows what happens if he tells reporters what he thinks. Secondly, I find it hard to believe McChystal hasn't seen and signed off on a version of the article prior to publication. Even if he hasn't, he hasn't tried to qualify his statements in any way, shape or form.

I think it's more likely McChrystal knew what could happen and accepted the consequences. That sounds like the stand-up-guy thing to do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't buy that as an excuse. First of all, he's an adult and he knows what happens if he tells reporters what he thinks. Secondly, I find it hard to believe McChystal hasn't seen and signed off on a version of the article prior to publication. Even if he hasn't, he hasn't tried to qualify his statements in any way, shape or form.

I think it's more likely McChrystal knew what could happen and accepted the consequences. That sounds like the stand-up-guy thing to do.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I think McChrystal would have to have been on drugs to not know that the guy with the recorder and notebook wasn't "putting things on the record", I don't care if he's been hanging around as a veteran embed for 12 months. Which, by the way, would be another contemporary phenomena I'm sure he's more than intimately familiar with. Still, I think it would have been much more difficult to can him had Afghanistan been a well-documented success story, but it is just the opposite and according to a gameplan almost exclusively his.

For all I know, he's prepping a book deal in anticipation of what he knew would be his retirement.

[BadKosh]

So, are there any quotes from McChrystal or just hearsay?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

As near as I can tell, it's stuff like:

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
OMG how dare he!! Shocking!

Then there's a bunch of his advisers said this or that, then somebody else said someone else said something and then the old standby, "according to sources..."

According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his ****ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Really, what's surprising about any of this? Obama was uncomfortable in the presense of people other than his staffhole yes-men. Of course he is. He wasn't engaged in the conflict, and doesn't even know anything about those charged with handling it. Of course he doesn't.

Any of this is a big shocker to anyone?

[BadKosh]

I still think McChrystal was canned because of Obamas thin skin. He doesn't take criticism or suggestions very well.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I still think McChrystal was canned because of Obamas thin skin. He doesn't take criticism or suggestions very well.

Criticisms and suggestions in cabinet meetings or behind closed doors are one thing. To give a glimpse of discord between combat leadership and the CIC to some leftist hack from Rolling Stone looking for a scoop to ultimately change the face of our actions overseas is another.

McChrystal would've been better represented by this hack than Betray-us, I'm curious how he feels about the result of his article. Perhaps now we can take another look at some of the rules of engagement in Afghanistan that would have one consult a field manual while being shot at.

[lpkmckenna]

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

Like I said, the general was sandbagged by Rolling Stone. On the plus side, no one will ever speak off the record to RS ever again.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

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

Like I said, the general was sandbagged by Rolling Stone. On the plus side, no one will ever speak off the record to RS ever again.

I think the odds are even that either RS did cheat or the general and his guys just weren't cautious enough. Either way, you're right that nobody is going to take the slightest chance of uttering something that could be misconstrued in speaking with anyone from Rolling Stone again.

Still, McChrystal should have been way more cautious and way more attentive. His job included paying attention to what he said, where he said it and how he said it. Saying ANYTHING remotely disdainful of his boss around anyone else at all was just plain stupid.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

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

Like I said, the general was sandbagged by Rolling Stone. On the plus side, no one will ever speak off the record to RS ever again.

It also gives an insight on how many military leaders probably think about the current administration. You normally never hear about it, but the content is hardly surprising.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It also gives an insight on how many military leaders probably think about the current administration. You normally never hear about it, but the content is hardly surprising.

-t

Too true. Unfortunate, but true. I hope this is not indicative of a more pervasive disconnect between this Administration and our armed services, but I'm afraid it may be.

[ghporter]

I know that a lot of people in the military disdained Bill Clinton when he was president. But as a Senior NCO, my personal opinions NEVER came out. Never. The only times I discussed this sort of thing with others were when it was exceedingly clear that I was speaking as a citizen and voter, not as a Senior NCO. I never, ever discussed politics on the job, and I don't recall hearing national politics discussed by anyone who was in uniform.

If enlisted people understand this sort of thing, you'd think that a flag officer of the highest rank would as well-and that his staff would be extremely attentive to this sort of thing as well. I believe that this incident speaks far more about McChrystal's leadership skills than of the overall military.

Oh, and by the way, GIs routinely support the president whether or not they like him or his politics. The office IS supported and respected, even if the Current Resident doesn't rate that in the eyes of individual service members.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I know that a lot of people in the military disdained Bill Clinton when he was president. But as a Senior NCO, my personal opinions NEVER came out. Never. The only times I discussed this sort of thing with others were when it was exceedingly clear that I was speaking as a citizen and voter, not as a Senior NCO. I never, ever discussed politics on the job, and I don't recall hearing national politics discussed by anyone who was in uniform.

If enlisted people understand this sort of thing, you'd think that a flag officer of the highest rank would as well-and that his staff would be extremely attentive to this sort of thing as well. I believe that this incident speaks far more about McChrystal's leadership skills than of the overall military.

Oh, and by the way, GIs routinely support the president whether or not they like him or his politics. The office IS supported and respected, even if the Current Resident doesn't rate that in the eyes of individual service members.

I generally agree with the above and I too am a little taken aback by McChrystal's looseness. (to the degree that a big part of me believes this was deliberate insubordination. Strange, but not much stranger than the fact that it happened at all.) I hope you're right that this is more a reflection on McChrystal's leadership than an adversarial relationship between this Administration and military leadership.

[ghporter]

The chain of command is extremely important, whomever is in the top job. That means that everybody knows that the OFFICE is at the top, and like him or not, the guy in that office calls the shots.

A military member who hears a threat against the president MUST report that threat, whether the member believes it credible or not. You hear it and don't report it, YOU go to JAIL. That simple. Which is the whole point-whether you like the person you work for or not, you do not denigrate him/her verbally, especially when people are writing down what you say. I once worked for a person I thought was a violently raving lunatic, and while I sometimes asked others in our shared chain of command for advice and assistance, I never once voiced the above opinion. I've had commanders who were "a bit simple," commanders who where sharp as a tack but completely tactless, and commanders who were just too damn intelligent and not at all smart. I saluted each and every one exactly the same way. That is how everyone is trained.

The problem is that sometimes that sort of uniform overt behavior isn't properly reinforced-for example by giving someone a good talking to for back talking a superior and making it very obvious that person wasn't going into the boss' office to inquire about the health of his mom... When it's a 19 year old with one stripe, you have an opportunity to make a permanent change in both attitude and performance. When you're talking about a 56 year old with almost 35 years of service and a commission as an O10 (the highest uniformed rank currently used in the US), it's obviously way, way too late.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The problem is that sometimes that sort of uniform overt behavior isn't properly reinforced-for example by giving someone a good talking to for back talking a superior and making it very obvious that person wasn't going into the boss' office to inquire about the health of his mom... When it's a 19 year old with one stripe, you have an opportunity to make a permanent change in both attitude and performance. When you're talking about a 56 year old with almost 35 years of service and a commission as an O10 (the highest uniformed rank currently used in the US), it's obviously way, way too late.

On a complete tangent, what was the commission for a 5-star general when we had them? Was that an O10 as well or an O11?



On a personal note my step-sister is an O5, soon to be O6, who just returned to Elmendorf after a six-month tour in Afghanistan.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

On a complete tangent, what was the commission for a 5-star general when we had them? Was that an O10 as well or an O11?

On a personal note my step-sister is an O5, soon to be O6, who just returned to Elmendorf after a six-month tour in Afghanistan.

I believe that the O-x (and E-x) pay grade designations were instituted long after the last 5-star retired. As far as I can tell, Wiki has it right in their "General of the Army" article, at least in terms of modern general officers. There have been 5 men to hold that rank in modern times: George Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Henry H. Arnold, and Omar Bradley, with all but Bradley promoted within a day or so of each other in December, 1944. Hap Arnold was the first and so far only "General of the Air Force," as his rank was carried over with the establishment of The Air Force in 1947. Omar Bradley was the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In terms of duties and responsibilities, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the closest thing to what the 5-stars did. The Chairman is a separate rank, but there is no separate insignia for that rank, just as the Chiefs of Staff of the services have no special, distinctive rank insignia.

"Basic pay for an O-7 to O-10 is limited by Level II of the Executive Schedule which is $14,975.10. Basic pay for O-6 and below is limited by Level V of the Executive Schedule which is $12,141.60." "While serving as Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff/Vice Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, Chief of Navy Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Army/Air Force Chief of Staff, Commander of a unified or specified combatant command, basic pay is $19,983.60." Base pay is what one's retirement pay is based on, so while Level II and Level V put caps on monthly pay for these officers, their retirement pay is pretty substantial. Quite comfortable, I think.

Congratulations on your sister's return and upcoming promotion. Assuming she's Air Force (Elmendorf is a good giveaway), she's a Lt Colonel about to put on the eagles and assume the rank of full Colonel. Not at all shabby.

During my active duty time (and to some extent since), I made a differentiation between "pay grade" and "rank." Anyone can pull down E-7 pay, but not everyone of those people can act as a Master Sergeant. I did my level best to always be a Master Sergeant. I think most people who get to Major do their level best to act as their rank, rather than their pay grade, though I've worked for a few exceptions.

We once had a Chief of Staff who was a pay grade-and an utter failure as a leader, as far as a lot of us were concerned. I had the "interesting" experience of working under him when he commanded 12th Air Force. The interesting part came when my wife was in labor in the base hospital. A couple of workers came into the labor room, profusely apologetic, and took down the blinds from the window. That side of the hospital faced the office of the Commander, 12th Air Force, about 1/2 a mile away, and it seems he'd complained about the multi-color blinds not looking "professional." The next day the workers came in with thermal reflective film. They put the film up and put the blinds right back up! I really did like that hospital commander, by the way; he was a physician who happened to also be a Colonel (NOT an O-6).

[James L]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I know Canada had a large force in Afghanistan, but didn't they withdraw a while ago?

Hey Sek,

Nope... still there, still fighting. Canada lost 3 more troops this week:

CBC News In Depth: Afghanistan

Cheers,

James