[TheoCryst]

I don't know how there hasn't been a thread about this whole clusterf*ck yet: McChrystal Is Removed From Afghan Command.

I think it's unfortunate, but this is how it had to happen. You just don't publicly question the chain of command like that, whether you're a private, a four-star general, or anywhere in between. He made a huge, stupid mistake, and now he has to pay the consequences.

[The Final Dakar]

It's so dumb I'd think he wanted to get relieved, if only this didn't put his entire career in jeopardy.

(cue some *edit* PL members supporting his actions despite it being a massive breach of decorum)

[besson3c]

I suspect that he isn't upset about being fired if he felt accordingly, but his tactics seem like a dumb way to go about changing things.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

(cue some *edit* PL members supporting his actions despite it being a massive breach of decorum)

I thought Barry was into breaches of decorum? Let's see...

- Churchill statue snub.
- Brown present snub.
- Netanyahu snub.
- "Kicking ass".
- First Community Organiseress touching The Queen.


McChrystal knows what he's doing. He knew what the outcome would be. Good play by him, I reckon.

[The Final Dakar]

Prophecy fulfilled.

[Doofy]

Let's have a look which way the winds are blowing:

"I have extraordinary respect for General McChrystal, we work exceedingly well together," German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg told public broadcaster ARD on Wednesday, adding that McChrystal is crucial to "the new strategy in Afghanistan."

At NATO headquarters in Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen also expressed his support for McChrystal. "The Rolling Stone article is rather unfortunate, but it is just an article," a NATO statement read. "We are in the middle of a very real conflict, and the secretary-general has full confidence in General McChrystal as the NATO commander, and in his strategy."

In a statement released on Wednesday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai described McChrystal as the "best commander" so far. In an hour-long video conference with Obama on Tuesday, Karzai also expressed his support for the general.

"The president believes that we are in a very sensitive juncture in the partnership, in the war on terror and in the process of bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan, and any gap in this process will not be helpful," Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar told reporters in Kabul.

Meanwhile, Barry continues to look like a child who throws his toys out of the pram at every available opportunity.

[BadKosh]

I'm sure the General is relieved. Let someone else fail with Obama admin military strategy.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Meanwhile, Barry continues to look like a child who throws his toys out of the pram at every available opportunity.

I disagree. While it may appear to be an overreaction, you have to remember that the integrity of the chain of command is critical for a successful military. And when anyone breaches it, whether by ignoring a command or simply throwing around personal insults of a commanding officer, you are effectively telling everyone below you that it's okay to disrespect your CO.

That's why insubordination must always be dealt with swiftly and harshly, especially at such a high level.

[The Final Dakar]

Wouldn't people view Obama as a push-over if he let this guy bad mouth the administration and then let him keep his command?

No win?

[SpaceMonkey]

Exactly. Hardly the first senior military officer to be dismissed for publicly criticizing the president. See Douglas MacArthur.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

I disagree. While it may appear to be an overreaction, you have to remember that the integrity of the chain of command is critical for a successful military. And when anyone breaches it, whether by ignoring a command or simply throwing around personal insults of a commanding officer, you are effectively telling everyone below you that it's okay to disrespect your CO.

Well, that's a problem you're going to face when you put a civilian lawyer in an office and call him the "Commander in Chief". Barry isn't military, except by title, so he shouldn't be top of the chain of command.

Perhaps it's time to rethink your military/political structure?

Best option here was to demote to three-star and leave in place. Barry chose to throw the toys out of pram instead.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, that's a problem you're going to face when you put a civilian lawyer in an office and call him the "Commander in Chief". Barry isn't military, except by title, so he shouldn't be top of the chain of command.

Perhaps it's time to rethink your military/political structure?

Are you saying we shouldn't have civilian control of the military?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Are you saying we shouldn't have civilian control of the military?

I'm saying that your community organiser in chief shouldn't be anyone's CO.

We manage the separation and we're a backwards little hovel. Why can't an advanced country like you manage it?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm saying that your community organiser in chief shouldn't be anyone's CO.

We manage the separation and we're a backwards little hovel. Why can't an advanced country like you manage it?

You manage the separation because your military's commander-in-chief is the monarch, allowing the prime minister to exert de facto control without ever formalizing it. We don't have a monarch. Within the context of the U.S. presidential system, how would you propose that we exercise civilian control of the military without putting a civilian at the top of the chain of command? Or are you saying that isn't necessary?

Anyway, I think we "manage" in our system just fine. There have been other examples of military officers forced out because they criticized the president, but it's not like it's an epidemic. The respect for the office is pretty ingrained in military culture: they pledge allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution puts the president in charge of them.

Would a British general be forced to resign if he publicly made disparaging comments about the wartime capabilities of a prime minister? Have their been cases of that? (I'm honestly curious.)

[ort888]

The only president in my lifetime with any meaningful military experience is Bush Sr.

Someone has to be at the top. Who are you suggesting it should be? Should we only elect general's to be Presidents? That seems dumb. The military is exists to serve the civilian population. Day-to-day decisions should be made by the military, but I'm glad that a non-military type is at the top directing things. That's how it should be.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what Obama does. He could have kept McChrystal and you would have rushed off to post why you thought that was a bad idea.

[OAW]

Gen. McChrystal and his staff got waaaaaayyyyy out of pocket with the Administration. Anyway you slice it. And there are consequences and repercussions for such blatantly disrespectful comments. Now it seems to me that one doesn't become a 4 star general by being a complete idiot. So why would you and your staff make such comments in a public interview with Rolling Stone magazine that they absolutely had to know would be a C.E.M. (i.e. career ending move)? The only thing that makes sense to me is that Gen. McChrystal knows that the surge strategy he pushed for is likely to fail ... so he'd rather get fired now rather than deal with the fallout later.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You manage the separation because your military's commander-in-chief is the monarch, allowing the prime minister to exert de facto control without ever formalizing it. We don't have a monarch. Within the context of the U.S. presidential system, how would you propose that we exercise civilian control of the military without putting a civilian at the top of the chain of command? Or are you saying that isn't necessary?

Ummm. Just remove the title "Commander in Chief". Prez remains boss, but not CO.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Anyway, I think we "manage" in our system just fine.

Doesn't look that way today, does it?

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Would a British general be forced to resign if he publicly made disparaging comments about the wartime capabilities of a prime minister?

I don't believe he would. There's plenty of examples of our generals clashing with No 10 and surviving.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Have their been cases of that? (I'm honestly curious.)

Not that I'm aware of.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm. Just remove the title "Commander in Chief". Prez remains boss, but not CO.

What exactly is the practical difference there? If you call your boss stupid, you're going to get fired. "Commander in Chief" means he has ultimate authority over all other "commanders" (principally the unified combatant commands - CENTCOM, EUCOM, etc. -- which are actually the highest military command authority in the U.S. system), it is not supposed to insinuate in any way that he is part of the military.

Doesn't look that way today, does it?

To have this kind of thing happen only once in a blue moon is a good enough track record for me.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm sure the General is relieved. Let someone else fail with Obama admin military strategy.

Actually, I believe it's McChrystal's military strategy that's been put into play. So you're saying he's relieved he's not going to be in charge of his own failure?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What exactly is the practical difference there?

Doesn't translate down the ranks.

[reader50]

I haven't read anywhere that Gen. McChrystal made derogatory statements towards the President. He is claimed to have said things about VP Joe Biden, and several lesser aides.

VP Joe Biden has not been impressing me - he seems to alternate between stumbling overseas (Israel settlements announced during his visit) and making helpful announcements for the MPAA / RIAA.

One of the aides in question is Richard Holbrooke. I found one quote by Carl Bildt (Swedish foreign minister) suggesting Holbrooke is a pain to work with.

Originally Posted by Carl Bildt

...
Let's say that I have myself worked with Holbrooke through the years, so I understand the sentiment expressed.
...

Since there was no direct disrespect shown towards the President, it doesn't feel clear-cut to me. The VP is not an officer to the military unless the President died or was relieved.

I'd be interested in knowing if the sentiments expressed were deserved. Before deciding if McChrystal's removal was the right outcome.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I haven't read anywhere that Gen. McChrystal made derogatory statements towards the President. He is claimed to have said things about VP Joe Biden, and several lesser aides.

You're right (the worst thing he says about Obama is he was "uncomfortable and intimidated" in a meeting) but if he can't play well with a whole swath of people in the White House and diplomatic corps who are involved in Afghanistan, and speaks badly of them in print, then that seems like a legitimate reason to can him to me.

Here is the article, BTW:
The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Doesn't translate down the ranks.

Why wouldn't it? The boss of my boss is my boss.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Why wouldn't it? The boss of my boss is my boss.

Let's assume that your company is owned by a bank.
Does your boss criticising bankers in front of his subordinates give the subordinates cause to think that criticising your superiors in public is OK? No. It doesn't work like that if there's a degree of insulation present.

[turtle777]

Yet more Obama FAIL.

Awesome, Afghanistan is now toast.

-t

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Let someone else fail with Obama admin military strategy.

Nice to see you continuing to hold the torch of 'most idiotic NN member.'

How has the last 8 years gone with our previous military strategy? Hmm? Would you say that we were a stones throw away from securing the whole country and banishing the warlords before Obama? What about the increased Heroin production under the last military strategy?

Maybe, just maybe, failure was the only outcome from the beginning. I know that hurts your little partisan shill brain, that somehow turns every discussion, no matter how obtuse, into a "bash Obama for something-or-other" affair, but please try and refrain for this level of idiocy in the future.

At least Abe had content...

[sek929]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yet more Obama FAIL.

Awesome, Afghanistan is now toast.

-t

To bad because we were simply 4 days away from winning the war and uniting the country under Democracy.

Insert gigantic rolleyes here.

[turtle777]

Yeah, whatever.

Even idiot Obama knows that Afghanistan is now more than ever away from any real solution.

-t

[sek929]

Jesus you are so transparent.

That war became un-winnable the second that idiot republican we had before Barry decided to siphon needed resources to Iraq. Yet you goddamn shills have the balls to say that THIS is the watershed moment that lost us Afghanistan.

I know you don't believe what you said, but you will take any chance, no matter how much of a stretch, to say Obama=bad. It's really quite sad, and funny, and then sad again.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

That war became un-winnable the second that idiot republican we had before Barry decided to siphon needed resources to Iraq.

Afghanistan was un-winnable from the get-go. If the Russians couldn't kick their asses then there's no way a bunch of molly-coddled pansies like us can.

Originally Posted by sek929 

Yet you goddamn shills have the balls to say that THIS is the watershed moment that lost us Afghanistan.

No, this is the moment when Barry lost most of the support he's been seeing from the rest of the world.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Afghanistan was un-winnable from the get-go. If the Russians couldn't kick their asses then there's no way a bunch of molly-coddled pansies like us can.

Totally agreed. We might not like anything about them, but the hardcore Afghanistan warlords are hardened bastards the likes of which can never be beaten into submission. They kicked out one superpower before.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, this is the moment when Barry lost most of the support he's been seeing from the rest of the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a large amount of the multinational troops already withdraw over the last two years? I'm not marginalizing the sacrifices other countries have made, but both wars are largely kept going by the US. I know Canada had a large force in Afghanistan, but didn't they withdraw a while ago?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a large amount of the multinational troops already withdraw over the last two years? I'm not marginalizing the sacrifices other countries have made, but both wars are largely kept going by the US. I know Canada had a large force in Afghanistan, but didn't they withdraw a while ago?

I have no idea. I don't do military - I do political. And that's what I meant - political support.

--- ---
Anyway, here's the article in question:
The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

I'm about halfway through so far, and not seeing anything worth a firing.

[imitchellg5]

My biggest question is: Why was a high-ranking General interviewed by Rolling Stones?

Off topic, we're losing Afghanistan because politicians are running it (and making decisions like this), not career military men.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

No. We get out next year, maybe.

greg

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

My biggest question is: Why was a high-ranking General interviewed by Rolling Stones?

Mick Jagger is unpredictable like that.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let's assume that your company is owned by a bank.
Does your boss criticising bankers in front of his subordinates give the subordinates cause to think that criticising your superiors in public is OK? No. It doesn't work like that if there's a degree of insulation present.

Correct. But what McChrystal did was in public, not just in front of his subordinates. It was in front of a reporter.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Correct. But what McChrystal did was in public, not just in front of his subordinates. It was in front of a reporter.

Go and read it. He actually didn't do anything much at all.

[mduell]

McChrystal's surge is a flop, there's no winnable goal in Afghanistan.

Running your mouth about your civilian leadership, however poor they are? Sounds like a strategy for getting relieved.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Go and read it. He actually didn't do anything much at all.

The CNN article about it made it seem like it was actually his staff basically speaking for him... not sure what is correct.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The CNN article about it made it seem like it was actually his staff basically speaking for him... not sure what is correct.

Most of it's just banter between colleagues - as expected in any situation where political correctness hasn't reared its ugly head.

For example, in one skit he's whining about having to have dinner with a bunch of French politicians. Who the hell wouldn't whine at the thought of that?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Go and read it. He actually didn't do anything much at all.

I did read it. Are you saying that he couldn't have set the tone among his aides about how to behave in front of a reporter? Please. If anyone needs to take responsibility for that, it's him. And that's not even taking into account the things he actually said in front of audiences, like the earlier comment calling Biden's remarks "shortsighted" which ticked off Obama at that time. He's already been on a shorter lease, and he's done nothing to halt the pattern.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, that's a problem you're going to face when you put a civilian lawyer in an office and call him the "Commander in Chief". Barry isn't military, except by title, so he shouldn't be top of the chain of command.

Perhaps it's time to rethink your military/political structure?

Best option here was to demote to three-star and leave in place. Barry chose to throw the toys out of pram instead.

If a British general did what McCrystal did, he'd be dumped too. Get a clue about how the military are expected to relate to elected officials.

I don't think McCrystal planned this. He got sandbagged by Rolling Stone. Most of the press wouldn't write a story like this, even though they hear worse from soldiers all the time.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

If a British general did what McCrystal did, he'd be dumped too. Get a clue about how the military are expected to relate to elected officials.

Our generals do this kind of thing all the time.
BBC NEWS | UK | General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
Why I believe Blair should stand trial - and even face charges for war crimes | Mail Online

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Our generals do this kind of thing all the time.
BBC NEWS | UK | General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal

In that article: "BBC political editor Nick Robinson described Sir Richard's remarks as 'quite extraordinary'." Doesn't sound like that kind of thing happens all the time.

Why I believe Blair should stand trial - and even face charges for war crimes | Mail Online

General Rose was retired when he wrote that op-ed. Our retired generals can get political too. You've probably heard of Wesley Clark.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In that article: "BBC political editor Nick Robinson described Sir Richard's remarks as 'quite extraordinary'." Doesn't sound like that kind of thing happens all the time.

Trust me, it happens all the time. The term "quite extraordinary" isn't frequency related - it's content related (the BBC use it to tag anything and everything which doesn't keep with their narrow view of the world).

You have to remember that we don't have a culture of respecting our politicians or the office of prime minister. In fact, it's almost a legal requirement to disrespect them at every available opportunity.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

General Rose was retired when he wrote that op-ed. Our retired generals can get political too. You've probably heard of Wesley Clark.

Here's one I remember who was at it all the time he was on the job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

McChrystal knows what he's doing.

One would like to believe that, but that's just not the case.

Don't Let the McChrystal Frenzy Obscure the Dirty Truth About Afghanistan | News & Politics | AlterNet

We have no business there, and we're not going to "win" anything, other than an enormous bill to ourselves, which could be far better spent elsewhere. It is patently absurd that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars (possibly even a trillion already) to maybe forestall the minute possibility of possibly a few Americans getting killed or injured in a terrorist attack. Sadly, very few see the utter idiocy of that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Here's one I remember who was at it all the time he was on the job:
Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have any examples of him doing something similar?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

There is a sort of a preverse absurdity in the way an accomplished solider like McChrystal has to take crap from a bunch of know-it-all (IE: know-nothing) political hacks, but hey, Obama is the commander-in-chief.

Hopefully this just serves to further illustrate to a lot of Americans that we need to pick a more competent commander-in-chief next time, not just become vote-lemmings for whoever spews the catchiest buzzwords.

Just more of the same from this current regime of petty narcissists. McChrystal & staff should have known you can't be even jokingly critical of people bumbling and faking their way through a presidency if they have power over you. Frauds demand suck-ups and 'yes men' not anyone who's going to tell anything like it IS, in Afghanistan, or in D.C.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There is a sort of a preverse absurdity in the way an accomplished solider like McChrystal has to take crap from a bunch of know-it-all (IE: know-nothing) political hacks, but hey, Obama is the commander-in-chief.

As was George W. Bush before him.

Hopefully this just serves to further illustrate to a lot of Americans that we need to pick a more competent commander-in-chief next time, not just become vote-lemmings for whoever spews the catchiest buzzwords.

Haven't had a good one in decades.

Just more of the same from this current regime of petty narcissists. McChrystal & staff should have known you can't be even jokingly critical of people bumbling and faking their way through a presidency if they have power over you. Frauds demand suck-ups and 'yes men' not anyone who's going to tell anything like it IS, in Afghanistan, or in D.C.

Your opinion is duly noted.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

My biggest question is: Why was a high-ranking General interviewed by Rolling Stones?

One more thing we can blame Iceland for:
How Did Rolling Stone Get the McChrystal Story? (A Volcano Helped) - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com