Dear General McChrystal, you have huge balls!

[Thomas93]

"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."

Exclusive? Tell that to the families of our 300 dead.

 

[LeVeL]

British_Rover, darling, did you forget that you are on my ignore list?

In his defense, his comment falls right in line with page 2 of the far-right-winger handbook; "agree with anyone who disagrees with Obama".

What in the world does my comment have to do with being on the "far right"? And when did I agree with the Gen's statements?
Talking shit about someone higher up the food chain is not good but I just don't think his comments were bad/offensive/etc enough to warrant all this. Was it stupid of him to say? Sure. Was it so highly inappropriate that he needs to go to the White House for a spanking? Not really.

 

[British_Rover]

British_Rover, darling, did you forget that you are on my ignore list?



What in the world does my comment have to do with being on the "far right"? And when did I agree with the Gen's statements?
Talking shit about someone higher up the food chain is not good but I just don't think his comments were bad/offensive/etc enough to warrant all this. Was it stupid of him to say? Sure. Was it so highly inappropriate that he needs to go to the White House for a spanking? Not really.

Nope which is why I said it in my post moron.

What he said could be construed as violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ.

Text.

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

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

Explanation.

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither ?Congress? nor ?legislature? includes its members individually. ?Governor? does not include ?lieutenant governor.? It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

The maximum punishment for this offense is listed as.

Maximum punishment.

Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Next Article> Article 89-Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer >

It is not even close.

One of the better pieces I have yet seen on the incident:



Dismissing him would be a monumental mistake. Almost as big a mistake as announcing a withdraw date (ie wait until we leave to attack in full date).

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. Your history on here gives you nearly zero credibility with me. I still haven't read the damn article cause I have a screaming baby. If I have to break down and buy Rolling Stone tomorrow I guess I will.

 

[nomix]

He didn't say anything that terrible. Should fall under freedom of speech, no?

He's a four star. He does not have free speech. A comissioned officer does not, if I'm not mistaken, have the freedom to critizise his commanding officer. The President of United States is the commander in chief of the US military, and the vPOTUS is number two in line for that position. What he says behind closed doors is not a problem. What he says in public, though.. In this case, the journalist seem to have quoted him without his permission, I don't think I'd do it myself, but I don't know the situation well enough.

It is an issue. A four star is not supposed to openly critizise his commander in chief. But then again, he didn't think he was on the record.

Just to have it said, yes, I'd think the same about the right to openly critizese POTUS if we were talking about Bush.

 

[jetsetter]

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. Your history on here gives you nearly zero credibility with me. I still haven't read the damn article cause I have a screaming baby. If I have to break down and buy Rolling Stone tomorrow I guess I will.

I could care less about what amount of creditability you attribute to me. I'll still post and still argue. Nomix and I recently discussed Ian Smith and Rhodesia in another section of the forum and neither of us accused the other of having creditability or not as that train of thought would have no purpose but to derail the conversation.

Now, nothing I said in my previous post was wrong. The current situation may remind you of MacArthur and Truman but the similarities are superficial at best. MacAuthur's comments were much more dangerous and much more threatening to the president than this recent magazine squabble.

My statement about withdraw dates is supported by various military texts and history itself.

There is no need to buy the magazine as Rolling Stone has posted the article online: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

 

[nomix]

Err, if I got something wrong in my last post, that is down to me being boozed. Just bottled this years brew, which only leaves time to drink a few of last years.. err.

 

[jetsetter]

Err, if I got something wrong in my last post, that is down to me being boozed. Just bottled this years brew, which only leaves time to drink a few of last years.. err.

You have done nothing wrong. I was referring to our conversation about Rhodesia and how we did not bring up each others creditability in an attempt to make a point.

 

[LeVeL]

nomix - I agree that it was (very) stupid of him to do. The rest is just down to personal opinion - I don't think its as huge a deal as its made out to be, although it seems a lot of people disagree with me there. Just opinion

 

[jetsetter]

Had Obama not actually announced a withdraw date and kept ambiguous, as he should have, dismissing McChrystal would be a substantially easier task.

 

[Dogbert]

Keeping him would be a sign of strength, a sign that Obama actually cares about the outcome of the conflict. To dismiss him in order to save face is the easy move and could ultimately be the more damaging.

A sign of strength? Where's the strength in keeping someone who has called you out in public, associated himself with damaging your credibility, and clearly doesn't know his place as your subordinate? If a lower General had gone to Rolling Stone and criticized McChrystal, regardless of whatever he'd said, I bet you everything I own he'd at least be removed from his command, if not the Army. The dynamic between Obama and McChrystal is no different; just because some people in this country don't like Obama doesn't mean he can say whatever he wants about the way Obama does things.

His job is to take orders from the President and give orders to every soldier in Afghanistan, not go onto second-rate rags and tell the world what he thinks. If he can't do that job, Obama needs to find someone who can.

Had Obama not actually announced a withdraw date and kept ambiguous, as he should have, dismissing McChrystal would be a substantially easier task.

Why? The way I see it, that actually makes it easier. If McChrystal doesn't think he can have the country ready by the withdraw date, as he's now said so, Obama should be finding someone who can make that happen.

I know several people in the Military, and everyone I've talked to has agreed that McChrystal violated one of the pretty basic rules of the Army: in one guy's words, "You do what you're told. If you can't do the job you're given, there's always someone who will be happy to take your place, and there's always something worse you can be doing instead."

 

[brydie76]

Also didn't read the whole article, as I have an 2 exams over the next 2 days that are taking 99% of my time and attention, but I doubt this guy will be around much longer. From reading the first page, he's already been told to be quiet before and now him and his boy's club (rugby league analogy there sorry!) of aides are going around and feeding off each other's anger and contempt- in front of the press. Bad idea, mate. You are all just asking for your butts to be kicked doing that. Didn't get to much of the sledging or anything, but if it escalates from what I read on the first page, he went too far IMO.

And Rolling Stone- thanks for the "we are the only people over in Afghanistan now" comment. Australia has had the most casualties of servicemen since the Vietnam War over there this month. And I haven't seen too many "We should get the fuck outta there" comments in our press/directed at Krudd. Anytime you want to remeber us/the UK/any of the other countries helping you over there with minimal complaining, feel free.

 

[jetsetter]

A sign of strength? Where's the strength in keeping someone who has called you out in public, associated himself with damaging your credibility, and clearly doesn't know his place as your subordinate? If a lower General had gone to Rolling Stone and criticized McChrystal, regardless of whatever he'd said, I bet you everything I own he'd at least be removed from his command, if not the Army. The dynamic between Obama and McChrystal is no different; just because some people in this country don't like Obama doesn't mean he can say whatever he wants about the way Obama does things.

This late in the game (damn that pesky deadline!!!) bringing in a new commander would cause significant problems. Strategies are in motion that require the oversight of those who created them. If there was no deadline, or just more time, a new commander could be brought in and that commander could formulate a new strategy.

Why? The way I see it, that actually makes it easier. If McChrystal doesn't think he can have the country ready by the withdraw date, as he's now said so, Obama should be finding someone who can make that happen.

There is not enough time. These plans take years to implement with success coming slowly. I was never under the impression that this would be a quick conflict. It could take twenty years to fully deal with the current problems. Nation building is an arduous and time consuming process. Our problem (ie the USA) is that we do not have patience for this type of operation. Nine years could just be the beginning, to do this thing right it will take longer.

 

[Dogbert]

This late in the game (damn that pesky deadline!!!) bringing in a new commander would cause significant problems. Strategies are in motion that require the oversight of those who created them. If there was no deadline, or just more time, a new commander could be brought in and that commander could formulate a new strategy.

Why? McChrystal clearly doesn't have a good strategy, otherwise he wouldn't have gone on record saying so. That's my entire point; he can't do his job, and Obama needs to find someone who can implement his strategy.

You seem to be forgetting that Obama is, in fact, a Commander with a strategy. McChrystal is just tasked with carrying out that strategy; he is an implementer, not a planner.

It could take twenty years to fully deal with the current problems. Nation building is an arduous and time consuming process.

But we as a nation also can't afford to go around and do "nation building". We can't even maintain our own nation's economy; what makes you think we can spend another twenty years making another one?


Here's an excerpt from a good article which outlines exactly why McChrystal's idea was a terrible one...
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-mcchrystal-afghanistan-rolling/2010/06/22/id/362756

The bipartisan consensus is that the article was a huge blunder for McChrystal, who may not survive the mistake.

But beyond McChrystal, the larger concern is how the gaffe might impact U.S. troop morale and the conduct of the war.

A Taliban spokesman reacted quickly to the McChrystal furor, saying the recall indicates a division within the U.S. command structure.

 

[jetsetter]

Here is an article that explains my position:

The McChrystal Mess
The general is guilty of bad judgment, not policy insubordination.
JUNE 23, 2010

The political rush was on yesterday, from the left and right, to urge President Obama to exert his command over the military by firing General Stanley McChrystal for an impolitic interview with Rolling Stone magazine. But our advice would be that the President put any personal pique aside in favor of asking whether sacking General McChrystal on the eve of a crucial military offensive would help or?more likely?hurt the war effort in Afghanistan.

This is not to say that the General doesn't deserve to be taken, as Ronald Reagan once did to budget director David Stockman, to the White House "woodshed" for his media indiscretions. Why any U.S. officer, much less such a senior one, would invite an antiwar correspondent from an antiwar magazine into his inner councils is one for the PR history books. There's no excuse for military officers to show such disrespect for civilian leaders, including U.S. ambassadors, and especially to a Vice President and Commander in Chief.

These are errors in judgment, albeit of a distinctly political kind in which the General's aides had not been sufficiently trained. It speaks to a failure by General McChrystal to instruct his team on the crucial political nature of modern generalship, and a staff housecleaning on that score is plainly in order.

Yet it's also important to note that the General's own observations about Mr. Obama (attributed to unnamed sources) are limited to a claim that he thought the President looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" at a meeting with military brass, and that he was disappointed by the 10 minutes he got with Mr. Obama in their first one-on-one meeting. These are not flattering, and the President will no doubt demand an explanation.

But they are not differences over war strategy or policy. They are not, in other words, the same kind of challenge to civilian control of the military represented by Douglas MacArthur's criticism of President Truman's policy in Korea, or by former Centcom Commander William Fallon's rebuke of Bush Administration policy toward Iran. On the contrary, General McChrystal has been both apostle and executor of the Afghan counterinsurgency strategy that Mr. Obama settled on last year. Centcom Commander and General David Petraeus aside, General McChrystal is that strategy's best advocate.

If the Rolling Stone article exposes the frathouse antics of some of the General's aides, it also makes clear that the General himself is a remarkably capable officer who inspires profound loyalty and confidence from his soldiers. This is in part because he is a fighting general, not a bureaucratic one, who earned this respect killing terrorists by the thousands in Iraq as the leader of the Joint Special Operations Command. Over U.S. history, some of our best war fighters?U.S. Grant, George Patton, MacArthur?have also been the least diplomatic.

U.S. and NATO forces are currently in a hard fight to control Marja and on the eve of even bigger battle for Kandahar. No individual is irreplaceable, but Mr. Obama needs to ask if he can do without his main commander in the middle of this Afghan surge campaign. If firing General McChrystal will demoralize the men and women fighting those campaigns, then it would be a mistake for Mr. Obama's own war strategy to do so.

It matters, too, that General McChrystal seems to have the confidence of Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's difficult President, who yesterday came out with his support. This relationship is all the more crucial given that most Administration officials, including U.S. Ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry, get along so poorly with Mr. Karzai.

Above all, the President should think beyond short-term political appearances to the difficult hand his own policy restraints have presented to General McChrystal. We have supported Mr. Obama's strategy, but there is no denying his obvious ambivalence to what he once called a "war of necessity." He has invested little political capital in selling it to the American public, and his July 2011 deadline for the beginning of a withdrawal betrays his political doubts.

He has also given General McChrystal fewer troops than he wanted, with Mr. Obama's surge bringing overall U.S. troop strength to 98,000, far fewer than the upwards of 170,000 or so who succeeded in stabilizing Iraq.

This is no justification for military disrespect, but it ought to make Mr. Obama think twice about advice that he sack General McChrystal merely so he doesn't look weak as Commander in Chief. He'll look a lot weaker in a year if his Afghan policy looks like a failure. With a war in the balance, Mr. Obama should not dismiss his most talented commander without knowing who, and what, comes next.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704853404575322811154274520.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The point is that this late in the game a new commander would have little time to implement anything meaningful. And to those who matter, Obama and Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs for example, there has been no accusation that McChrystal is not implementing the official strategy in an effective manner.

 

[tigger]

Coming from a military family, this just astounds me. You do not speak publicly against your commanding officers. You just don't fucking do it. Even if what you're saying "isn't so bad". This was a colossal mistake on McChrystal's part. I think he's done a good job in Afghanistan, certainly better than McKiernan and in line with Obama and NATO's goals for the area. But it seems like we should have left him in the Pentagon running black ops. He was already warned for publicly ridiculing some of Biden's statements, and this is a whole other level of ... fail.

Anyway, I don't think this will cost him his job. It puts Obama in a real hard place though. McChrystal has shown that he can effectively execute Obama's goals for US forces in Afghanistan. On the other hand, I'm sure Obama doesn't want it to appear that he can be undermined by brass. There's going to be an utter shit storm from the GOP if Obama fires McChrystal as well.

edit: I'm reading the Rolling Stone piece now, damn there is some stupid shit in here. Gross oversimplification in such a long article is sad.

 

[jetsetter]

Obama Should Decide, Now, What to do About McChrystal
Jun 22 2010, 4:08 PM ET

resident Obama will probably speak about Gen. Stanley McChrystal's Rolling Stone article later in the day, and I expect him to signal two things: 1) that McChrystal's judgment was poor and that Obama is disappointed in him. And 2) what's most important is winning the war, and that question will override any other questions pertaining to a magazine article.

The buzz today inside Washington is that the White House is deliberately letting McChrystal twist in the wind for a day as a way of showing displeasure. I don't think this is true. Nothing about this incident is more harmful to the war effort than the notion that the President and his general are out of sync. The quicker they get in sync, the better it will be from the standpoints of our coalition allies and our soldiers. Strategic communication matters, and this sort of indecision projects weakness in a way that tangibly harms American interests right now. (McChrystal might submit his resignation, pro forma, by the way.)

It's clear that Obama's war cabinet (I'm told this includes Vice President Biden) is quietly advising him NOT to fire McChrystal. Sec. Gates's statement makes clear that Gates does not believe McChrystal committed a firing offense. He pivots very quickly to the need to demonstrate "unity" and talks about "going forward," as if McChrystal's comments were part of a larger pattern. Whether Obama thinks the article stems from malevolence or from staff frustrations compounded by McChrystal's lack of political sophistication, I don't know.

Predictably, many Congressional skeptics of the war effort are calling for POTUS to fire McChrystal; many supporters are making a distinction between publicly differing over strategy and complaining/mocking the commander in chief. I'm not sure that's a very good distinction to make, however, because the latter could in some circumstances be more harmful than the former.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...decide-now-what-to-do-about-mcchrystal/58545/

Something from McCain which I agree with wholeheartedly:

In a phone interview this afternoon, Senator John McCain expanded on his statement from this morning on General Stanley McChrystal and the general's comments to Rolling Stone:

"If the president fires McChrystal, we need a new ambassador and we need an entire new team over there. But most importantly, we need the president to say what Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have both said but what the president refuses to say: Our withdrawal in the middle of 2011 will be conditions based. It's got to be conditions based and he's got to say it."

But McCain says that Obama is worried about the political repercussions of that kind of all-in statement.

"He won't say this because he's captive of his far-left base."

McCain, who holds McChrystal in high personal regard, says he wouldn't presume to tell Obama how to handle McChrystal. But he says that he's got a "pretty good idea" of what's likely to happen.

If McChrystal goes, McCain reiterated, "we need to have a look at the functioning of the whole team."

"All of us in politics from time to time have trusted a journalist we shouldn't have trusted, and I think McChrystal now understands that. The whole thing is just so unfortunate."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mccain-mcchrystal

Obama needs to take that step if he wants to walk away from this with some king of success. It may cost him politically but it is the only option.

 

[Firecat]

I'm conflicted. Sure, the rules may state that one shouldn't speak disparagingly about superiors. But when have "rules" ever stopped us before? I think there is a difference between making political statements (officers should be apolitical), however the military is probably the most important place for candor.

 

[tigger]

Obama needs to take that step if he wants to walk away from this with some king of success. It may cost him politically but it is the only option.

I don't see how the two (withdrawal date and McChrystal's gaffe) are related. The withdrawal date is certainly counterproductive (in my opinion anyway), but that has no relevance to McChrystal's big mouth.

I'm conflicted. Sure, the rules may state that one shouldn't speak disparagingly about superiors. But when have "rules" ever stopped us before? I think there is a difference between making political statements (officers should be apolitical), however the military is probably the most important place for candor.

McChrystal wasn't making serious political statements, otherwise I think there would be no question of his "retirement". And while some candor is good, cutting loose and ripping nearly every civilian calling shots in Afghanistan, in front of a Rolling Stone reporter, is a huge mistake. Not just for his own job security, but for appearances sake. Like others have posted, people see this as a real sign of weakness.

 

[Firecat]

And while some candor is good, cutting loose and ripping nearly every civilian calling shots in Afghanistan, in front of a Rolling Stone reporter, is a huge mistake. Not just for his own job security, but for appearances sake. Like others have posted, people see this as a real sign of weakness.

Which is probably why I am conflicted. There has to be some room in between not saying anything (constrained by rules) and saying too much.

 

[nomix]

nomix - I agree that it was (very) stupid of him to do. The rest is just down to personal opinion - I don't think its as huge a deal as its made out to be, although it seems a lot of people disagree with me there. Just opinion

Not a big deal? A four star de facto critizising the administration? No, that is a very big deal.