View Full Version : Rolling stone on mcchrystal?
Anyone read th article this references?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/21/mcchrystal-says-ambassador-betrayed-criticism-afghan-war-strategy/?test=latestnews
variablebinary
06-22-10, 06:16
MSNBC is taking this especially hard.
What do we know?
The military doesnt really respect Obama.
The General will be be collecting unemployment very soon
What do you expect from a guy like him? McChrystal's reputation isn't one of political jockeying, or hemming or hawing. I believe that's exactly why he was chosen for the position in the first place.
He may be facing retirement here in very short order, but at least the truth is out there now. You can't make butter with a toothpick.
I have been a huge McCrystal ever since I heard he went into the big 'clam shell' gym at BAF and said WTF 'who are all of these people who have time to work out in the middle of the day?!' - that, and the closing of the BK, Popeye's, Subway and the DQ. I love his idea of returning the combat to the combat zone.
You could fill a book with the things Obama and his administration are unprepared for. These asshats are in the deep end of the pool without a clue.
Good for McCrystal. With any luck they will fire him so he can be a news commentator and really hammer these guys. His book would be a best seller.
Even more than why someone like him would talk to a magazine like that, I've been wondering for years why the hell Rolling Stone has gotten into the business of political commentary (you can't call it reporting).
Regardless of the truth or merit of what he says, I don't know why somebody in his position would do an interview like this (or talk to the media at all).
I'd rather he just keep doing what he's doing and keep his mouth shut while doing it. He can write a book about his political feelings later when it's done. Not because he's wrong, but because nothing good will come of talking about it in his current position.
RogerinTPA
06-22-10, 08:07
Agree with all comments so far. McChrystal is a good man, a warrior's warrior, and has a long career in SOF units who are used to speaking their mind. Unfortunately, in his current position and as a general, that's a career killer. As the chief instrument in prosecuting this war, if he saw flaws in POTUS's strategy, he should have kept them private and discussed them privately to him. As much as the military can't stand the current administration and visa versa, POTUS can't afford to look weak. McChrystal is done.
QuietShootr
06-22-10, 08:35
Its been well known (for years) in the Army SOF community that Stanley McChrystal is / was a dyed-in-the-wool far Left "Progressive" Democrat. He's also a tough-as-nails faceshooter.
-ODA_564, from TOS
That disturbs me on so many levels it's just not possible for me to put it into words. Actually, I can put it into words, but the screaming and crying would be so intense it wouldn't be worth it.
Posted as an FYI.
rubberneck
06-22-10, 08:50
The military doesnt really respect Obama.
According to the various news reports McChrystal respected the President enough to vote for him. I guess maybe he came to the belated realization that the President is essentially an empty shirt.
Even more than why someone like him would talk to a magazine like that, I've been wondering for years why the hell Rolling Stone has gotten into the business of political commentary (you can't call it reporting).
Because there in not enough going on that people care about in the music industry:D.
Belmont31R
06-22-10, 10:00
I think either he is going to retire or Obama is going to fire him.
Generals will lose every time they publicly try to humiliate the CIC. Just because you have a bunch of stars on your collar doesn't give you the authority to speak ill, publicly, of your COC.
CarlosDJackal
06-22-10, 10:14
Sounds as if the General has finally had enough with how this administration is running the war and the military.
I find it almost impossible to believe he would have voted for Obama. I guess like all the others he got what deserved and what he somehow never saw coming.
But how could a man of his background and mentality have made such a fundamental mistake?
I think either he is going to retire or Obama is going to fire him.
Generals will lose every time they publicly try to humiliate the CIC. Just because you have a bunch of stars on your collar doesn't give you the authority to speak ill, publicly, of your COC.
Sometimes a loss isn't a loss. Yeah, he will probably end up drawwing unemployment. . . . but at what cost to the administration? There isn't any way for the enemy to spin this as a win.
ForTehNguyen
06-22-10, 12:18
posting this quote i read on another forum:
Patton, MacArthur, Schwartzkoff, McChrystal...
Continuing a tradition of ground pounders getting tired of going halfway around the world, and getting half of what's need.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-22-10, 12:27
If I were McChrystal I would play a round of golf and go to a baseball game before showing up at the WH. Good for the goose....
Maybe he said it just so that he could get a meeting with BHO. Outside of putting on an SEUI shirt, how else is he supposed to get in??
ROCKET20_GINSU
06-22-10, 13:13
I am very disappointed that the politicians are even thinking of firing McCrystal. He and his staff should be more careful of what they say in public and how they phrase certain things, if the context and content of the article is true, but don't fire him. I had a chance to work many many levels below him when I was AD and I have nothing but respect for him.
I see him as the one of the only guys that can make this OEF situation work with an acceptable ending. The guy is not only a seasoned warrior and Soldier, he's also exceptionally intelligent. I hope Obama, even though he has never served in the military, has the foresight to see that and look past trite and trivial remarks.
GU
montanadave
06-22-10, 13:39
Having read the Rolling Stone article in its entirety, seems to me McChrystal sold President Obama on his COIN strategy, was given a free hand to conduct operations, and has failed in his mission (no surprise, as COIN has never proven successful anywhere at anytime). McChrystal has lost the support of his troops, sees the train wreck coming (as can anyone who has taken the time to read ten minutes worth of Afghan history), and knows Congress and the American public have grown weary of sacrificing blood and capital on quixotic crusades half a world away. Rather than go down with the ship, McChrystal's decided to force the SecDef or President to sack him for publicly disparaging the constitutionally-mandated civilian command and control of the military.
I'm sure the general will find a comfortable (and well-compensated) home as a military analyst for Fox News, ardently pressing his case that had he only been allowed to pursue his strategy by retaining the command he has so cleverly insured he would be relieved of he could have succeeded.
With the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen still in harm's way, this type of Machiavellian behavior from a theater commander is inexcusable. McChrystal's lucky he isn't facing a court martial for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
QuietShootr
06-22-10, 13:49
I doubt if he'll go to work for Fox...more likely NPR.
variablebinary
06-22-10, 14:40
Having read the Rolling Stone article in its entirety, seems to me McChrystal sold President Obama on his COIN strategy, was given a free hand to conduct operations, and has failed in his mission (no surprise, as COIN has never proven successful anywhere at anytime). McChrystal has lost the support of his troops, sees the train wreck coming (as can anyone who has taken the time to read ten minutes worth of Afghan history), and knows Congress and the American public have grown weary of sacrificing blood and capital on quixotic crusades half a world away. Rather than go down with the ship, McChrystal's decided to force the SecDef or President to sack him for publicly disparaging the constitutionally-mandated civilian command and control of the military.
.
His candid commentary does seem like seppuku at work. Maybe he is just fed, and done up after nearly a decade of war. Given his background, speaking to the press, especially rolling stone, just seems odd
If that is the case, as an officer, he should have just resigned.
http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Army+Lt+Gen+Stanley+McChrystal+Testifies+Senate+8ycW16RVAYal.jpg
rickrock305
06-22-10, 17:43
here's a link to the article in its entirety
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqLZSVeWopw&feature=channel
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-22-10, 18:40
Having read the Rolling Stone article in its entirety, seems to me McChrystal sold President Obama on his COIN strategy, was given a free hand to conduct operations, and has failed in his mission (no surprise, as COIN has never proven successful anywhere at anytime). McChrystal has lost the support of his troops, sees the train wreck coming (as can anyone who has taken the time to read ten minutes worth of Afghan history), and knows Congress and the American public have grown weary of sacrificing blood and capital on quixotic crusades half a world away. Rather than go down with the ship, McChrystal's decided to force the SecDef or President to sack him for publicly disparaging the constitutionally-mandated civilian command and control of the military.
I'm sure the general will find a comfortable (and well-compensated) home as a military analyst for Fox News, ardently pressing his case that had he only been allowed to pursue his strategy by retaining the command he has so cleverly insured he would be relieved of he could have succeeded.
With the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen still in harm's way, this type of Machiavellian behavior from a theater commander is inexcusable. McChrystal's lucky he isn't facing a court martial for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
If he is that big of a strategist, maybe he could just have won the war.
GermanSynergy
06-22-10, 18:51
The more pressing question is who is going to replace General McChrystal in AFG?
Thomas M-4
06-22-10, 19:26
here's a link to the article in its entirety
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
Thanks for the link.
Littlelebowski
06-22-10, 19:41
The more pressing question is who is going to replace General McChrystal in AFG?
Let's hope for Mattis.
SeriousStudent
06-22-10, 19:52
Let's hope for Mattis.
Amen.
Cagemonkey
06-22-10, 19:57
Let's hope for Mattis.I don't know. If he's too rough to be Commandant, I can't see him getting the nod to command Afghanistan. After McChrystal, I can't see the politicians taking a chance on Mattis.
rubberneck
06-22-10, 20:01
I don't know. If he's too rough to be Commandant, I can't see him getting the nod to command Afghanistan. After McChrystal, I can't see the politicians taking a chance on Mattis.
It's too bad that is probably true. I get the feeling that the President will go with someone with impressive academic credentials even if it means bypassing someone that would take the fight to the enemy.
variablebinary
06-22-10, 20:10
Maybe he's just tired. On Fox they just said he's only seen his wife 30 some odd days in 9 years.
And one has to wonder what he has to say and will say if he is fired. I'm sure he knows where many skeletons are buried
The part of this story that stymies me is that McChrystal voted for Obama.
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Having read the Rolling Stone article in its entirety, seems to me McChrystal sold President Obama on his COIN strategy, was given a free hand to conduct operations, and has failed in his mission (no surprise, as COIN has never proven successful anywhere at anytime)...
Malaya
Rather than go down with the ship, McChrystal's decided to force the SecDef or President to sack him for publicly disparaging the constitutionally-mandated civilian command and control of the military...
If he has thought it all out so well, doesn't it seem that the above comment is at odds with your next statement/conclusion..?:confused:
With the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen still in harm's way, this type of Machiavellian behavior from a theater commander is inexcusable. McChrystal's lucky he isn't facing a court martial for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
reply too short
Either way, the evil left spin machine will eventually blenderize this into yet another indication of similarities between the Afghan war and the Vietnam war, so that those too ignorant to understand that the root cause of failure was lack of political resolve can just draw ignorant conclusions, and drift to the Code Pink line of writing off the war, thus flushing our hard earned gains into the abyss that has become poll-based policy.
The only reason I'm willing to go back over there is that I'm certain my work saves American, coalition, and Afghan lives. F**k the political side of this, if they want to lose the war on our behalf, I can't do enough about it myself right now, so I'll do what I can.
[eta] Mattis won't take this post, except out of pure altruism. It's a terminal post, and as McChrystal has demonstrated, it has been reduced to softening the blow caused by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and working within the counterproductive ISAF constraints that have forced logistics contractors to be paying the enemy not to attack so that we can get mission critical supplies, and every other asinine requirement that has come to light in recent memory - why be associated with such an exercise in bleeding the lives of Americans.
[edit2] Rolling Stone is still barely readable.
this piece reads so poorly. is the author still at university?
On the one hand we have this...
"It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States."
And on the other, this reference to (what I thought was) a non-existent ally.
"He's also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general. The job instead went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill – a move that effectively increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a powerful rival."
It goes on like that. Rubbish.
RogerinTPA
06-22-10, 22:29
Having read the Rolling Stone article in its entirety, seems to me McChrystal sold President Obama on his COIN strategy, was given a free hand to conduct operations, and has failed in his mission (no surprise, as COIN has never proven successful anywhere at anytime). McChrystal has lost the support of his troops, sees the train wreck coming (as can anyone who has taken the time to read ten minutes worth of Afghan history), and knows Congress and the American public have grown weary of sacrificing blood and capital on quixotic crusades half a world away. Rather than go down with the ship, McChrystal's decided to force the SecDef or President to sack him for publicly disparaging the constitutionally-mandated civilian command and control of the military.
I'm sure the general will find a comfortable (and well-compensated) home as a military analyst for Fox News, ardently pressing his case that had he only been allowed to pursue his strategy by retaining the command he has so cleverly insured he would be relieved of he could have succeeded.
With the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen still in harm's way, this type of Machiavellian behavior from a theater commander is inexcusable. McChrystal's lucky he isn't facing a court martial for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Source?
I know plenty of senior officers who worked in some capacity, for the General, at one point, either currently or an earlier time, and whom I served with as a junior officer, up to field grade, back in the day. These guys are all O-6 and above. We email each other regularly on various topics and have talked about this subject in depth since this story broke (Still on going). To the man, they have the greatest admiration and respect for him, and so do the troops they command. As far as the best theater commander to prosecute this war, he's it. If POTUS would have unleashed him and other entities, and let him take the war to the enemy, this war would be done in a short period of time.
IF McCrystal lost the support of the troops it is from the fat **** pogue fobbits that are pissed off that they can't get BK anymore. Of course, fully 80% of the Army would be better suited at working for the local DMV than serving in a combat zone.
McCrystal has been a straight shooter on this war since the beginning.
COIN means COunterINsurgency. Some of you have been misusing it.
montanadave
06-23-10, 08:44
Source?
I know plenty of senior officers who worked in some capacity, for the General, at one point, either currently or an earlier time, and whom I served with as a junior officer, up to field grade, back in the day. These guys are all O-6 and above. We email each other regularly on various topics and have talked about this subject in depth since this story broke (Still on going). To the man, they have the greatest admiration and respect for him, and so do the troops they command. As far as the best theater commander to prosecute this war, he's it. If POTUS would have unleashed him and other entities, and let him take the war to the enemy, this war would be done in a short period of time.
My source is the topic of this thread (i.e. the Rolling Stone article).
As for McChrystal having his hands tied by his civilian commanders, nothing could be further from the truth. The COIN strategy being pursued by the general is his baby and he was given the troop increases he wanted. Recall his public statements in London last year when he effectively blackmailed the administration during deliberations regarding how best to proceed in Afghanistan be pronouncing the war would be lost if he was not given additional forces.
We're all speculating without complete facts, but I stand be my earlier assertion that McChrystal is looking to get fired so he isn't left holding the bag when the whole shithouse burns down.
30 cal slut
06-23-10, 08:55
Given his background, speaking to the press, especially rolling stone, just seems odd
I heard this morning that the General's meeting with the Rolling Stone reporter was somewhat serendipitous ... apparently, they met on a flight back home after being delayed by the Iceland volcanos.
They kept in touch after that ... and, here we are.
ForTehNguyen
06-23-10, 09:10
how quickly we forget:
Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/06/22/flashback-media-promoted-military-criticism-president-bush
I heard this morning that the General's meeting with the Rolling Stone reporter was somewhat serendipitous ... apparently, they met on a flight back home after being delayed by the Iceland volcanos.
They kept in touch after that ... and, here we are.
More like they met for some quick interviews and due to the Volcano got stuck together for a while including a bus trip since they could not fly... They had agreed to a 2 day thing originally which got extended due to the Volcano. This was the reporting yesterday at least.
RogerinTPA
06-23-10, 10:29
My source is the topic of this thread (i.e. the Rolling Stone article).
As for McChrystal having his hands tied by his civilian commanders, nothing could be further from the truth. The COIN strategy being pursued by the general is his baby and he was given the troop increases he wanted. Recall his public statements in London last year when he effectively blackmailed the administration during deliberations regarding how best to proceed in Afghanistan be pronouncing the war would be lost if he was not given additional forces.
We're all speculating without complete facts, but I stand be my earlier assertion that McChrystal is looking to get fired so he isn't left holding the bag when the whole shithouse burns down.
The reporter is a well know bomb throwing liberal who constructed this story as a smear campaign, nothing more. RS is "A" source, but not a credible one in most professionals military folks eyes.
So restricting movement and tactics of SOF and inability of combat units to use CAS to cut out collateral damage is free reign and unleashed? Please.:rolleyes:
Maybe he is trying to get fired and MAYBE...he's trying to gain more support for his campaign because of the dithering and weak attitude in our national leadership, AND willing to put his career on the line for it.
What do you expect from a guy like him? McChrystal's reputation isn't one of political jockeying, or hemming or hawing. I believe that's exactly why he was chosen for the position in the first place.
To be fair it is a political position appointed by Congress, no?
To be fair it is a political position appointed by Congress, no?
No, it isn't a political position. It's a strategic military command.
No, he isn't appointed by Congress. He's Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
montanadave
06-23-10, 11:55
So restricting movement and tactics of SOF and inability of combat units to use CAS to cut out collateral damage is free reign and unleashed? Please.:rolleyes:
The restricted rules of engagement and minimization of collateral damage are part and parcel of the COIN strategy endorsed, promoted, and pursued by General McChrystal and his command. To suggest that troops in the field are being restrained by civilian authorities reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of COIN as a military strategy.
No, it isn't a political position. It's a strategic military command.
No, he isn't appointed by Congress. He's Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Okay, I'm incorrect on several points but it *IS*, in fact, a political position any time Congress or the Senate must confirm them. That would not be an issue if our gov't leaders held Constitutional views but today... :rolleyes: you will get what the Demons in DC wish you to get.
ForTehNguyen
06-23-10, 12:33
Afghanis seem to like him?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/06/23/afghanistan.reax.general.mcchrystal/?hpt=C1&fbid=KE-XEq5KvSl
parishioner
06-23-10, 12:38
http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/obama-meets-with-gen-stanley-mcchrystal-at-the-white-house/19527828?icid=main|main|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Farticle%2Fobama-meets-with-gen-stanley-mcchrystal-at-the-white-house%2F19527828
AP: Obama Tapping Petraeus to Replace McChrystal
Obama chooses Gen. David Petraeus to replace McChrystal as top Afghan commander. (AP)
WASHINGTON (June 23) -- His job in grave jeopardy, Afghanistan war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal made his case to President Barack Obama on Wednesday, contrite over his blistering remarks about administration officials.
Obama huddled with his war advisers before telling the nation of the embattled general's fate. He planned a 1:30 p.m. EDT statement in the Rose Garden about the controversy.
With Washington abuzz, there was an almost complete White House lockdown on information about the day's developments and the president's thinking. It wasn't even known where McChrystal went after leaving the West Wing from his nearly half-hour showdown with Obama.
Summoned to Washington to explain himself, McChrystal had arrived from Kabul in the early morning and met first at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. After his next face-to-face, with Obama, the general was not seen returning to the White House for a bigger, hourlong Afghanistan strategy session, as he has been expected.
Before the White House meeting, two military officials said McChrystal went in prepared to submit his resignation. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared ... showed poor judgment," Obama said Tuesday at the close of an unrelated Cabinet meeting. "But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."
Obama summoned McChrystal to Washington from Afghanistan after learning of scathing, mocking comments from the general and his inner circle about administration officials, including the president. The White House rebuke of McChrystal on Tuesday suggested that it would be hard for him to give an explanation that would be enough to save his job.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his confidence in McChrystal during a video conference Tuesday night with Obama, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said Wednesday in Kabul. "We hope there is not a change of leadership of the international forces here in Afghanistan," Omar told reporters.
In the article in Rolling Stone magazine, McChrystal didn't criticize Obama himself but called the period last fall when the president was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said Obama appeared ready to hand him an "unsellable" position.
McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan. He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so,'" McChrystal told the magazine. And he was quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden.
If not insubordination, the remarks - as well as even sharper commentary about Obama and his White House from several in McChrystal's inner circle - were at least an indirect and extraordinary challenge. The capital hasn't seen a similar public contretemps between a president and a top wartime commander since Harry Truman stripped Gen. Douglas MacArthur of his command more than a half-century ago after disagreements over Korean War strategy.
Notably, neither McChrystal nor his team questioned the accuracy of the story or the quotes in it. McChrystal issued an apology.
Military leaders rarely challenge their commanders in chief publicly. When they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding.
Indeed, the presidential spokesman's prepared reaction to the article was remarkably revealing, even for the normally coded language of Washington. Press secretary Robert Gibbs repeatedly declined to say McChrystal's job was safe, and questioned whether McChrystal is "capable and mature enough" to lead the war.
Gates, one of McChrystal's biggest backers, said in a statement that McChrystal had made "a significant mistake."
A senior U.S. military official in Afghanistan told The Associated Press that McChrystal - who had not spoken with Obama on the matter before Wednesday - has been given no indication that he'll be fired but no assurance he won't be. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions between Washington and the general's office in Kabul.
Obama raised the issue of McChrystal's future in a phone call with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday night, Cameron's office said Wednesday without disclosing what was said. Britain has about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, the largest international force after the United States.
McChrystal was viewed as a visionary with the guts and smarts to turn around the beleaguered, 8-year-old Afghanistan war when he was chosen to take over last year.
But despite his military achievements, he has a history of making waves. This is not his first brush with Obama's anger. Last fall, the president scolded McChrystal for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.
Wisconsin Democratic Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, called for McChrystal to resign. Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, was among three prominent Republican senators to criticize the general and say a decision about his future should rest with Obama.
Several names circulated among Pentagon and Capitol Hill aides as potential successors, including Gen. James Mattis, Joint Forces Command chief; Lt. Gen. John Allen, the No. 2 at U.S. Central Command; Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, McChrystal's No. 2 in Afghanistan; Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Command; and Adm. James Stavridis, the top NATO commander in Europe.
Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the White House meeting, said the administration had not reached out to possible successors but might do so Wednesday.
Obama took the easy, non-leadership way out.
Belmont31R
06-23-10, 13:09
Petraeus getting a demotion?
CarlosDJackal
06-23-10, 13:09
Obama took the easy, non-leadership way out.
What in God's green Earth made you think that kenwaiian had any sort of leadership bone in his body? :confused:
Okay, I'm incorrect on several points but it *IS*, in fact, a political position any time Congress or the Senate must confirm them. That would not be an issue if our gov't leaders held Constitutional views but today... :rolleyes: you will get what the Demons in DC wish you to get.
Much of what you say I really cannot comment about, though I would truly like to.
However, I must still disagree, and I am not trying to be argumentative. My own promotions are subject to Senate confirmation as well (and I'm a nobody), so your pretenses are still incorrect.
Are there political considerations as a commander? Absolutely! Especially at the level where military command interacts with civilian command. But there are also many (not all) of the same political considerations with any job.
However, it is still not a political position.
Petraeus getting a demotion?
This was exactly my thought as well.
What in God's green Earth made you think that kenwaiian had any sort of leadership bone in his body? :confused:
I never thought he did.
CarlosDJackal
06-23-10, 13:18
Much of what you say I really cannot comment about, though I would truly like to.
However, I must still disagree, and I am not trying to be argumentative. My own promotions as an officer are subject to Senate confirmation as well (and I'm a nobody), so your pretenses are still incorrect.
Are there political considerations as a commander? Absolutely! Especially at the level where military command interacts with civilian command. But there are also many (not all) of the same political considerations with any job.
However, it is still not a political position.
I agree. While it may very well be that you need to be politically "connected" to get the job; you still have to have achieved a certain level and/or rank before you can be considered for it.
The politics comes in long before you reach that level. Once you reach the pay grade of O-6 you pretty much have to toe the line politically or you'll have a heck of a time moving upwards.
montanadave
06-23-10, 13:19
Obama took the easy, non-leadership way out.
Given the fact that this is your thread, what, pray tell, would have been your preferred course of action, given the circumstances?
Given the fact that this is your thread, what, pray tell, would have been your preferred course of action, given the circumstances?
I am not sure. I am not and have never been in the military. Nor am I an expert on the current conflict.
But after reading a few different and differing analyses, I would have hoped that Obama would have put the mission at the forefront instead of his own pride and ego and after some sort of slap on the wrist, and maybe a reprimand in McChrystal's personnel file, he would have shown leadership in supporting McChrystal as the General seems to have been the best man for the job -- from the Afghan point of view as well as to the Western side.
This was sad - too bad - I too would want mission over BS. Un-named source crap. Even Karzai didnt want him to go.
No way for BHO to come out of this looking good.
montanadave
06-23-10, 14:54
I do not support the current COIN strategy being employed in Afghanistan as, in my opinion, it is a misguided effort at nation building which the United States has neither the resources nor the resolve to pursue. Afghanistan is nothing more than a descriptive noun for a tribal area comprised of a disparate collection of warring tribal factions with no discernible desire to coalesce into even the most rudimentary of nation-states. This tribal area is circumscribed by arbitrary borders drawn on a map by colonial powers and never recognized by the people who actually inhabit the area.
Given that I neither support President Obama's Afghanistan policy nor the COIN strategy, I still believe Obama had no choice but to relieve General McChrystal of his command. A four-star general, regardless of his service record, qualifications, or abilities, who openly expresses contempt for the civilian chain of command and fosters a cadre of staff officers who share that disdain must be handed his hat.
The military serves this country's elected civil authorities. When they lose sight of that fact, they need to look for another line of work. Active military officers need to express their opinions in private, then accept their orders, salute, and carry out the mission.
ForTehNguyen
06-23-10, 14:56
so it someone replacing Petreaus position as head of Central Command or is he going to have to pull double duty
I do not support the current COIN strategy being employed in Afghanistan as, in my opinion, it is a misguided effort at nation building which the United States has neither the resources nor the resolve to pursue. Afghanistan is nothing more than a descriptive noun for a tribal area comprised of a disparate collection of warring tribal factions with no discernible desire to coalesce into even the most rudimentary of nation-states. This tribal area is circumscribed by arbitrary borders drawn on a map by colonial powers and never recognized by the people who actually inhabit the area.
Given that I neither support President Obama's Afghanistan policy nor the COIN strategy, I still believe Obama had no choice but to relieve General McChrystal of his command. A four-star general, regardless of his service record, qualifications, or abilities, who openly expresses contempt for the civilian chain of command and fosters a cadre of staff officers who share that disdain must be handed his hat.
The military serves this country's elected civil authorities. When they lose sight of that fact, they need to look for another line of work. Active military officers need to express their opinions in private, then accept their orders, salute, and carry out the mission.
This is one of your better posts. Personally I am still on the fence regarding COIN, but well said overall.
Belmont31R
06-23-10, 15:07
I do not support the current COIN strategy being employed in Afghanistan as, in my opinion, it is a misguided effort at nation building which the United States has neither the resources nor the resolve to pursue. Afghanistan is nothing more than a descriptive noun for a tribal area comprised of a disparate collection of warring tribal factions with no discernible desire to coalesce into even the most rudimentary of nation-states. This tribal area is circumscribed by arbitrary borders drawn on a map by colonial powers and never recognized by the people who actually inhabit the area.
Given that I neither support President Obama's Afghanistan policy nor the COIN strategy, I still believe Obama had no choice but to relieve General McChrystal of his command. A four-star general, regardless of his service record, qualifications, or abilities, who openly expresses contempt for the civilian chain of command and fosters a cadre of staff officers who share that disdain must be handed his hat.
The military serves this country's elected civil authorities. When they lose sight of that fact, they need to look for another line of work. Active military officers need to express their opinions in private, then accept their orders, salute, and carry out the mission.
I mostly agree with you. I think the General should be free to express his feelings to his own staff. However that cannot get out, and they should not be saying it in public. Soldiers love to bitch, and even guys with a bunch of shiny silver on their collar need to do it too.
One thing I rarely see expressed when dealing with Afghanistan is that the country was not "created" based on the people on the ground. This is why the border area is so messed up, and will always be. The people who live across the border from each other have more in common than what their "nationality" is. The area is extremely tribal, and they follow their tribal traditions and laws before they will anything national. I think of their nationality being informal, and their tribal ties being the formal bond that holds them together.
This is why I don't think nation building there is ever going to work because you are forcing people to give up thousand year old community ties, societal structure, and culture in favor of a central government who is corrupt, and put in place by outsiders.
This is where COIN comes to into play. We can keep killing jihads all day long, and really make the country a complete war zone but the second we leave everything we fought for goes to shit. Winning depends on what your definition of winning is. One is easy, and one is very hard with limited chance of success. However they both have very different results.
Thomas M-4
06-23-10, 15:12
I mostly agree with you. I think the General should be free to express his feelings to his own staff. However that cannot get out, and they should not be saying it in public. Soldiers love to bitch, and even guys with a bunch of shiny silver on their collar need to do it too.
One thing I rarely see expressed when dealing with Afghanistan is that the country was not "created" based on the people on the ground. This is why the border area is so messed up, and will always be. The people who live across the border from each other have more in common than what their "nationality" is. The area is extremely tribal, and they follow their tribal traditions and laws before they will anything national. I think of their nationality being informal, and their tribal ties being the formal bond that holds them together.
This is why I don't think nation building there is ever going to work because you are forcing people to give up thousand year old community ties, societal structure, and culture in favor of a central government who is corrupt, and put in place by outsiders.
This is where COIN comes to into play. We can keep killing jihads all day long, and really make the country a complete war zone but the second we leave everything we fought for goes to shit. Winning depends on what your definition of winning is. One is easy, and one is very hard with limited chance of success. However they both have very different results.
Yes agree good posts Belmont31 and MontanaDave
montanadave
06-23-10, 15:48
This is one of your better posts. Personally I am still on the fence regarding COIN, but well said overall.
Even a busted watch is right twice a day. :D
ForTehNguyen
06-23-10, 15:53
move on isnt going to be happy about this change :D
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2863/generalbetrayus.jpg
Smuckatelli
06-23-10, 15:53
All's well that ends well.
This wasn't about Afghanistan, McChrystal, or Obama. It was about the current form of government that we have. The military is the servant of our civilian government.
Whenever a General is called to the Whitehouse he has a letter of resignation with him for the President to accept. At least General McChrystal didn't screw this up and force the President to relieve him. Lucky for us that the President didn't refuse the resignation and send him back to Afghanistan.
Teflon coating can only protect for so long, eventually the egg is going to stick. Allowing your subordinates to badmouth your seniors is a breakdown of discipline. By not stopping it, you only add fuel to the fire.
Eventually this President will leave office, hopefully he won't destroy the office or government while he leaves.
move on isnt going to be happy about this change :D
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2863/generalbetrayus.jpg
I watched the POTUS's speech today, and afterward, the anchor interestingly referred to the MoveOn.org ad, the Congressional uproar that ensued, and the Senate resolution that passed (72-25) condemning the ad. The anchor's point was that the POTUS did NOT vote for the resolution.
Just sayin'...
The only logical conclusion I can reach is that Petraeus was asked to do this yesterday, and in exchange, the only thing that makes sense is that down the road he'll get the nod for JCS. Anything short of that is idiotic.
I do wonder if Petraeus can actually get the desired number of troops McChrystal has been asking for this whole time (requested 40k, and so far it's been 17k, and 5 months late at that), and how much that will actually affect conditions IN afghanistan, and outside Kabul.
Here's my crazy plan that would seem to me like leadership, and this would move media pressure from himself, reduce focus on how current myopic use of force and assets has been failing, and most importantly, even if only rhetoric, provide a much needed boost in the war of opinions that we're losing, so long as we have published dates or withdrawal detached from actual conditions on the ground.
As far as a leading way out of it, he could have kept him on (though implying it would be for a limited time as strategy and personalities would shift), and instead of participating in the media drama this has become, rise above it and instead make the dialogue about ... VICTORY ... and why that's important, and why anything short of a victory won't do.
Simple, elegant, and a winner in the polls. The real question is why this option was NOT chosen...
Belmont31R
06-23-10, 18:15
The only logical conclusion I can reach is that Petraeus was asked to do this yesterday, and in exchange, the only thing that makes sense is that down the road he'll get the nod for JCS. Anything short of that is idiotic.
I do wonder if Petraeus can actually get the desired number of troops McChrystal has been asking for this whole time (requested 40k, and so far it's been 17k, and 5 months late at that), and how much that will actually affect conditions IN afghanistan, and outside Kabul.
Here's my crazy plan that would seem to me like leadership, and this would move media pressure from himself, reduce focus on how current myopic use of force and assets has been failing, and most importantly, even if only rhetoric, provide a much needed boost in the war of opinions that we're losing, so long as we have published dates or withdrawal detached from actual conditions on the ground.
As far as a leading way out of it, he could have kept him on (though implying it would be for a limited time as strategy and personalities would shift), and instead of participating in the media drama this has become, rise above it and instead make the dialogue about ... VICTORY ... and why that's important, and why anything short of a victory won't do.
Simple, elegant, and a winner in the polls. The real question is why this option was NOT chosen...
As much as I don't want to say it...since the CINC has decided to set a timeline for our withdrawl it doesn't really matter what we do there. If I were a jihad sitting on a mountain Id just lay low for the next year, and save my energy/supplies for the draw down.
Everything we are doing between now, and then is in vain.
montanadave
06-23-10, 18:17
For the sake of clarity, please define what "victory" in Afghanistan is supposed to look like.
Belmont THIS is what concerns me the most about the situation in a-stan. My God if you knew the enemy's plan for a coordinated and planned extraction time why would you not hold back until the big bully goes back home?! This makes me very nervous/curious as to what will transpire in the months after our planned draw down startng next year. What does the Taliban & 'The Base' have in their long term strategy?
As much as I don't want to say it...since the CINC has decided to set a timeline for our withdrawl it doesn't really matter what we do there. If I were a jihad sitting on a mountain Id just lay low for the next year, and save my energy/supplies for the draw down.
Everything we are doing between now, and then is in vain.
RogerinTPA
06-23-10, 22:02
The restricted rules of engagement and minimization of collateral damage are part and parcel of the COIN strategy endorsed, promoted, and pursued by General McChrystal and his command. To suggest that troops in the field are being restrained by civilian authorities reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of COIN as a military strategy.
Trust me when I say that I am well aware of COIN operations. To suggest that this was the General's plan using his own, out of the blue initiative, is a fundamental ignorance in the events which drove POTUS to mandated such a policy (Karzi) and naivete in the General's war fighting skills. This was driven from the top down from POTUS mandating that he reduced collateral damage. He complied to appease the civilian leadership, period.
variablebinary
06-24-10, 02:22
It will be interesting to see what direction change, if any, happens on Petraeus' watch
Afghanistan is a tough gig, regardless of who is calling the shots.
For the sake of clarity, please define what "victory" in Afghanistan is supposed to look like.
Bingo! That is the million dollar question.
To "win" in Afghanistan would require a 25 year occupation, the dismantling of the Pakistani ISI, and blocking the Saudi funding of madrasas in Waziristan. Yeah, that shit ain't gonna happen.
ForTehNguyen
06-24-10, 08:41
now Barry and Joe are touting how Petraeus is good for the job, yet back then they criticized him on the surge. And that Petraeus is "dead flat wrong"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/11/165225/702
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20676775/
oops?
Belmont31R
06-24-10, 08:59
now Barry and Joe are touting how Petraeus is good for the job, yet back then they criticized him on the surge. And that Petraeus is "dead flat wrong"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/11/165225/702
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20676775/
oops?
They just say whatever they think is politically expedient at the time. Back then the entire Iraq war effort was being sabotaged by democrats, and it worked on the home front. Remember a few months ago Biden saying Iraq was going to be of this administrations greatest victories? They bash the strategy, call Bush an idiot, question generals, call our troops murderers, Obama says we are air-raiding villages, etc. But when they are in charge suddenly its great victories, and the generals are good people for the job.
They just say whatever they think is politically expedient at the time. Back then the entire Iraq war effort was being sabotaged by democrats, and it worked on the home front. Remember a few months ago Biden saying Iraq was going to be of this administrations greatest victories? They bash the strategy, call Bush an idiot, question generals, call our troops murderers, Obama says we are air-raiding villages, etc. But when they are in charge suddenly its great victories, and the generals are good people for the job.
It's amazing how many Bush policies continue to this day in the Obama Administration, isn't it?
ForTehNguyen
06-25-10, 08:12
What the Taliban Think of McChrystal's Ouster
To them, it means they're winning.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/23/what-the-taliban-thinks-of-mcchrystal-s-ouster.html
How the reporter got so much access.
In his own words.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html
overview
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544314-mcchrystals-pr-man-resigns-how-rolling-stone-got-more-access
VooDoo6Actual
06-25-10, 15:12
imo,
McChrystal knew PRECISELY what he was doing & what the outcome would be...
He saves face with his COINdinista's as he is a VETTED real deal Warrior adored by his men. He knows with certitude (Obama's agenda) how the ASTAN war well most likely play out.
For him, the forthcoming end (outcome), justified his means...:p
GermanSynergy
06-25-10, 16:36
imo,
McChrystal knew PRECISELY what he was doing & what the outcome would be...
He saves face with his COINdinista's as he is a VETTED real deal Warrior adored by his men. He knows with certitude (Obama's agenda) how the ASTAN war well most likely play out.
For him, the forthcoming end (outcome), justified his means...:p
Agreed. This wasn't an accident or oversight on his part.
Agreed. This wasn't an accident or oversight on his part.
If true, this would be an act of rather extraordinary cowardice, IMO. Is McChrystal a chickenshit by reputation? Actually, I guess this would be cowardice *on top* of incompetence, since it would seem that under this scenario, he is bailing out after having FUBAR'd his mission. Too bad.
GermanSynergy
06-25-10, 20:27
If true, this would be an act of rather extraordinary cowardice, IMO. Is McChrystal a chickenshit by reputation? Actually, I guess this would be cowardice *on top* of incompetence, since it would seem that under this scenario, he is bailing out after having FUBAR'd his mission. Too bad.
How did he "FUBAR" the mission? Not sure I'd call a man with his creds/background a coward or incompetent. JMHO.:rolleyes:
If true, this would be an act of rather extraordinary cowardice, IMO. Is McChrystal a chickenshit by reputation? Actually, I guess this would be cowardice *on top* of incompetence, since it would seem that under this scenario, he is bailing out after having FUBAR'd his mission. Too bad.
Cowardice??? By speaking the TRUTH??? Incompetence from a man with his backround??? You speak like you are more distinguished than General McChrystal. McChrystal is a highly competent, Spec Ops GENERAL. I'm sure he's seen more shit than 90% of the members on this website combined.
FUBAR'D the mission? HOW? The mission was FUBAR'D long before the good General showed up and its going to be FUBAR'D long after he's gone.
I love all these internet wannabe know-it-alls. Civilians really have no clue. In a perfect world, a TRUE MAN like McChrystal could walk with one the little loud mouth wusses, alone, to a deserted spot and then could see what the chairborn commando really had to say. MAN TO MAN.
CarlosDJackal
06-25-10, 21:21
If true, this would be an act of rather extraordinary cowardice, IMO. Is McChrystal a chickenshit by reputation? Actually, I guess this would be cowardice *on top* of incompetence, since it would seem that under this scenario, he is bailing out after having FUBAR'd his mission. Too bad.
I vehemently disagree. IMHO, his actions took more courage for him to fall on his sword than to put up a facade. If Gen Westmoreland had been able to muster such courage the Vietnam War would probably would have ended differently.
When the General selected to fight the war is (a) being hamstrung by ROEs that are being dictated by an administration where none of the top elected officials have any military service (Biden supposedly dodged no less than 5 drafts); and (b) is not being provided the manpower and material support that he has requested; it takes courage to throw away your career for the purpose of trying to reverse a very bad trend.
They might have a case of insubordination. But it is hardly an act of cowardice. IMHO, it would have been more cowardice for Gen McChrystal to just shrug his shoulders and continue conducting business as usual. Let us hope that this anti-military administration will not hamstring Gen Patreus in the same manner. JM2CW.
I don't know much about the general. I doubt he is either incompetent, or a coward. In fact I am inclined to think that he is anything but... However, one suggestion floating around here is that his mission is untenable, and so rather than deal with it or work to change his situation, he made a calculated decision to air dirty laundry in such a way as to get himself relieved. In this way, if I understand what some folks are getting at, he can leave the mess for somebody else.
Personally, I am not buying this. I don't think this was any sort of calculated effort to get ousted. I think his staff opened up too much to a reporter. This is definitely just my .02 as issues like this, at this level, are most certainly out of my lane.
Bingo! That is the million dollar question.
To "win" in Afghanistan would require a 25 year occupation, the dismantling of the Pakistani ISI, and blocking the Saudi funding of madrasas in Waziristan. Yeah, that shit ain't gonna happen.
Yet we have otherwise very sane persons beating the drums of war... I saw this back in 2001/2 and openly questioned the US's motives. Check out F. William Engdahl's book Full Spectrum Dominance.
Well if Afghanistan's mineral deposits prove rich enough, China just might send in 2 million men with SKSs to establish a long term occupation.
variablebinary
06-26-10, 03:59
Well if Afghanistan's mineral deposits prove rich enough, China just might send in 2 million men with SKSs to establish a long term occupation.
Highly unlikely. That's not new China's style. That would put them in the crosshairs of radical Islam, which could seriously put a hurting on their new found wealth.
Anyone that tries to go digging for minerals in Afghanistan is seriously going to get kicked in the balls.
I agree with all the above. Hey, you never know about the Chinese, them sending 2 million with sks's is a drop in the bucket for them.
I also agree with the getting "kicked in the balls" theory. Its happening as we speak.
MATT, I apologize if I came off a little gruff but General McChrystal is just the type of man our country needs right now. I think what did him in is the fact that he's a field, spec-ops General who really didn't care to play ball with all the ass kissing required to interact with all the clowns in D.C.
As for leaks or "OOPS, did I say that"...nah. These are all spec-ops guys. It was a calculated maneuver. What may be the logic or rationale behind, I'm sure we'll never know.
Carlos, I 100% agree that more Generals should have balls like this. They all get comfy once they get to D.C and dont want to upset the apple cart, so, they go with the flow and everything stays ,well, FUBAR'D!!
Outlander Systems
06-26-10, 06:02
A better article on the General:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10654454&pnum=0
Sometimes McChrystal would lead the raids himself, his squad of elite undercover combat troops, known as Delta Force, being told at the last minute that the commander was coming along for the ride.
What a badass.
Which leads me to a question that's been nagging me for a long, long time...
How in the ****, do you get to be commander-in-chief of the military, without any military experience? Sure, you've got "advisors", but ultimately the Prez makes the calls. That shit has always boiled my blood. In my lifetime there have only been two CIC's with no .mil experience whatsoever. Both of them, in my opinion, suck(ed).
Belmont31R
06-26-10, 07:44
A better article on the General:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10654454&pnum=0
What a badass.
Which leads me to a question that's been nagging me for a long, long time...
How in the ****, do you get to be commander-in-chief of the military, without any military experience? Sure, you've got "advisors", but ultimately the Prez makes the calls. That shit has always boiled my blood. In my lifetime there have only been two CIC's with no .mil experience whatsoever. Both of them, in my opinion, suck(ed).
Not only does Obama not have a single second serving in uniform but hasn't done anything else in his life either besides his ACORN type community shit. Never ran a business or been employed by a Fortune company. I could never understand why so many people thought him so qualified.
Belmont31R
06-26-10, 07:46
Fox News was saying Patraeus is already changing the ROE to be less restrictive than what it was under McChrystal.
No doubt McChrystal has a lot of experience under his belt but so do a lot of other people. Experience doesn't always mean someone is going to get right when put in a certain position. Look at how many commanders we went through in Iraq until Patraeus came along....
Not only does Obama not have a single second serving in uniform but hasn't done anything else in his life either besides his ACORN type community shit. Never ran a business or been employed by a Fortune company. I could never understand why so many people thought him so qualified.
Absolutey. He was a spoiled, Harvard educated brat who connived money out of the government to become a "Community Rabblerouser". 93% of his cabinet has ZERO real world business experience. Are you kidding me????? Our Government is one of the biggest most complex corporations in human history and this is who is at the helm?????? A bunch of snot nosed college kids???? Oh, excuse me, B.O served in the Senate for 143 days before hitting the campaign trail. Which, IIRC, when he was presented with something along the lines of 130 Yah/Nay votes, he justed voted "present". So, let us all get this straight B.O has 143 days of political service in which when presented the obligation of carrying out the job he was sent to do, he chose to sidestep the process. Disrespect and show disdain towards the process and ultimately show spineless, self-serving indecisevness, he voted "Present". Are you ****in kidding me???? Now this totally underqualified beauracrat is our Commander in Chief?????
Cagemonkey
06-26-10, 08:40
Well if Afghanistan's mineral deposits prove rich enough, China just might send in 2 million men with SKSs to establish a long term occupation.The Chinese will let the US protect their investment. Chinese companies will bully their way into buying as much of A-stans mineral resources. The US will stand by and secure these resources in the name of defending democracy/fighting AQ/Taliban. Kinda like how we police the worlds oceans to move Chinese goods. Just my opinion.
CarlosDJackal
06-26-10, 09:41
Fox News was saying Patraeus is already changing the ROE to be less restrictive than what it was under McChrystal.
No doubt McChrystal has a lot of experience under his belt but so do a lot of other people. Experience doesn't always mean someone is going to get right when put in a certain position. Look at how many commanders we went through in Iraq until Patraeus came along....
My question is who actually has the final say the ROE? The General on the ground? Or the politician in the White House? :confused:
RogerinTPA
06-26-10, 10:51
Absolutey. He was a spoiled, Harvard educated brat who connived money out of the government to become a "Community Rabblerouser". 93% of his cabinet has ZERO real world business experience. Are you kidding me????? Our Government is one of the biggest most complex corporations in human history and this is who is at the helm?????? A bunch of snot nosed college kids???? Oh, excuse me, B.O served in the Senate for 143 days before hitting the campaign trail. Which, IIRC, when he was presented with something along the lines of 130 Yah/Nay votes, he justed voted "present". So, let us all get this straight B.O has 143 days of political service in which when presented the obligation of carrying out the job he was sent to do, he chose to sidestep the process. Disrespect and show disdain towards the process and ultimately show spineless, self-serving indecisevness, he voted "Present". Are you ****in kidding me???? Now this totally underqualified beauracrat is our Commander in Chief?????
Agreed.
Being a college professor, grass roots organizer, voting present the majority of the time and running for POTUS does not = Executor. It is clearly "amateur hour" and OJT from the top down of our political leadership.
Belmont31R
06-26-10, 13:17
My question is who actually has the final say the ROE? The General on the ground? Or the politician in the White House? :confused:
The civilian leadership can over-ride the commander on the ground of course but I think its mostly the mil commanders getting the word on what the ROE encompasses. Even local commanders can institute a more restrictive ROE based on the immediate environment.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.