Dear General McChrystal, you have huge balls!

An interesting camp to get support from:

Afghan officials rally behind embattled general
Say firing McChrystal would jeopardize pivotal operation against Taliban
NBC, msnbc.com and news services

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan officials said Wednesday that firing Gen. Stanley McChrystal would disrupt progress in the war and could jeopardize a pivotal security operation under way in Taliban strongholds in the south.

At the end of a one-hour video conference Tuesday night with President Barack Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his confidence in the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said.

McChrystal is prepared to offer his resignation over disparaging comments made by him and his aides about Obama administration officials, NBC News reported on Tuesday.

Obama said that McChrystal displayed "poor judgment" and summoned him to the White House on Wednesday to hear from him first-hand and consider whether to fire him.

If not insubordination, the remarks in a forthcoming Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander.

"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor ? showed poor judgment," the president said Tuesday, surrounded by members of his Cabinet at the close of their meeting. "But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."

According to two senior administration aides, McChrystal informed his superiors that he is prepared to offer his resignation but had not done so, NBC News reported.

Afghan support
While McChrystal was harshly scolded by his superiors in the United States, officials in Afghanistan rallied to his support, saying he had increased cooperation between Afghan and international troops, worked to reduce civilian casualties and gained the trust of the Afghan people.

"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," Omar told reporters.

"We hope there is not a change of leadership of the international forces here in Afghanistan and that we continue to partner with Gen. McChrystal."

The controversy erupted as June is on track to becoming one of the deadliest months for U.S. and international forces in the nearly nine-year Afghan war.

It also comes just as NATO and Afghan forces are ramping up security in and around the key southern city of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban.

Ringing endorsement
Karzai's younger half brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, the head of the Kandahar provincial council, gave McChrystal a ringing endorsement, telling reporters in Kandahar that McChrystal's leadership would be sorely missed.

"If he is fired, it will disrupt the operation," Ahmad Wali Karzai said. "It definitely will affect it. He (McChrystal) started all this, and he has a good relationship with the people. The people trust him and we trust him. If we lose this important person, I don't think that this operation will work in a positive way."

In Kabul, Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi also publicly voiced his support for the general, who is prepared to submit his resignation to Obama, according to two military officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the issue.

"Since Gen. McChrystal took over the job as commander of the international forces, there have been a lot of changes in different departments, which are very important and positive," Azimi said. "For example, there has been a decrease in the numbers of civilian casualties and we're still working jointly with McChrystal to decrease it further."

Azimi spoke at a regular news conference held with Brig. Gen. Josef Blotz, spokesman for the NATO command in Kabul. Blotz declined to discuss McChrystal's fate or the magazine article, which reported deep rifts between the top commander in the war and the U.S. administration.

"Let us be a little bit more patient," Blotz said.

?Significant mistake?
Back on home turf, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said McChrystal had "made a significant mistake" in participating in the Rolling Stone profile in which aides called one top Obama official a "clown" and another a "wounded animal" and the general himself made disparaging remarks about officials.

McChrystal was quoted saying he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan. He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about the reliability of Afghan President Hamid Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed.

McChrystal publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in interviews for the magazine. He then left Afghanistan to fly to Washington for Wednesday's meeting with the commander in chief.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama acknowledged McChrystal's apology and believed he deserved a chance to explain himself. A decision on McChrystal's future will be announced by the White House after Wednesday's meeting, Gibbs said.

Wisconsin Democrat 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 that approved McChrystal for the job, was among three prominent Republican senators to criticize the general and say a decision about his future should rest with Obama.

Obama appointed McChrystal to lead the Afghan war in May 2009. Despite a continuing troop buildup, progress has been halting, with U.S. casualties rising, public support waning and tensions growing between Washington and Kabul.

The first victim in the controversy was the Pentagon's PR official who set up the interview with McChrystal. NBC reported that Duncan Boothby, a civilian member of the general's public relations team, was "asked to resign."

Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he had confidence in McChrystal's ability as a general. However, he said the issue was whether the article would impact his ability to have a relationship with Obama and the rest of the national security staff.

Kerry, speaking on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown," declined to say whether McChrystal should step down.

McChrystal, for his part, on Tuesday issued a statement saying: "I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," the statement said. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened."

Lone wolf?
The Rolling Stone article depicts McChrystal as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration and unable to persuade even some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the war.

The interview describes McChrystal, 55, as "disappointed" in his first Oval Office meeting with Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama appointed McChrystal to lead the Afghan effort in May 2009. Last fall, though, Obama called McChrystal on the carpet for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops.

"I found that time painful," McChrystal said in the article. "I was selling an unsellable position."

The article also reported:

* One anonymous aide said McChrystal seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."
* One aide called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four star general, a "clown" who was "stuck in 1985."
* On Holbrooke, an aide is quoted saying: "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to be fired, so that makes him dangerous." McChrystal is also described as exasperated on receiving an e-mail from Holbrooke. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don?t even want to open it."
* Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. And the White House's troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.
* McChrystal's team disapproves of the Obama administration, with the exception of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who backed McCrystal's request for additional troops in Afghanistan.
*

A member of McChrystal's team making jokes about Vice President Joe Biden, who was seen as critical of the general's efforts to escalate the conflict and who had favored a more limited counter-terrorism approach. "Biden?" the aide was quoted as saying. "Did you say: Bite me?" Biden initially opposed McChrystal's proposal for additional forces last year. He favored a narrower focus on hunting terrorists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37866754/ns/us_news-military/
 
BBC News is reporting that he's been shown the door.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington A senior administration official has confirmed that Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of his duties. Gen David Petraeus is very highly regarded and his appointment to the top job in Afghanistan will be very well received.
original article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8756334.stm

fuller article from the BBC

US Afghan commander Stanley McChrystal fired by Obama

The top US military commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, has been dismissed by President Barack Obama after he criticised leading administration officials. He had earlier agreed with Mr Obama that his statements in Rolling Stone magazine showed "poor judgement". News that Gen McChrystal was standing down came after he met Mr Obama at the White House. He will be succeeded by General David Petraeus, US officials say. Mr Obama said he had made the decision as Gen McChrystal had failed to "meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general". He insisted: "I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, nor on any personal insult."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai had indicated he did not want Gen McChrystal replaced, with a spokesman describing him as the best commander in nine years of US military operations in Afghanistan. Gen McChrystal quickly apologised for the magazine article, The Runaway General, written by Michael Hastings and due out on Friday, extending his "sincerest apology" and saying it showed a lack of integrity. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgement and should never have happened," he said. Gen McChrystal was due to face those he and his aides had criticised at the administration's monthly meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan on Wednesday, but apparently left the White House after a 30-minute meeting with Mr Obama. Their targets were:
* Joe Biden. Gen McChrystal had mocked the vice-president when asked a question about him. "Are you asking about Vice-President Biden? Who's that?"
* Karl Eikenberry. Gen McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" by the US ambassador to Kabul during the long 2009 White House debate on troop requests for Afghanistan
* James Jones. One of Gen McChrystal's aides says the national security adviser is a "clown... stuck in 1985"
* Richard Holbrooke. Gen McChrystal says of an e-mail from the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan: "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke... I don't even want to open it"
original article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10395402.stm
 
Last edited:
His "huge balls" really helped him out there.
 
ah i think Petraeus did an article for foreign policy magazine on Afghaniistan. He's one smart cookie. I approve :thumbsup:

EDIT: WSJ has picked it up too

Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the military's Central Command and the architect of the surge of forces into Iraq in 2007, will take over as the commanding general in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama said.

The shakeup followed comments by Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his aides disparaging the president, his national security team, and U.S. allies.

The decision to put Gen. Petraeus in command sends a signal that the president stands behind the counterinsurgency tactics pushed hard by Gen. McChrystal and championed by Gen. Petraeus.

source
 
Last edited:
jetsetter, your "replacing him will cause disarray" argument went out the window the second Petraeus got the job. That was really a move that satisfied the best of both worlds; it shows Obama can actually drop the hammer every once in a while, and it doesn't disrupt operations in Afghanistan.
 
Behind closed doors I think most people would be amazed what flag officers really have to say, both conservatives and liberals alike. In public though? Hooo boy. I'll be sure to talk about this with the 3-Star that's dropping by this weekend, should have interesting comments. I'll pass along what I can.
 
jetsetter, your "replacing him will cause disarray" argument went out the window the second Petraeus got the job. That was really a move that satisfied the best of both worlds; it shows Obama can actually drop the hammer every once in a while, and it doesn't disrupt operations in Afghanistan.

Petraeus was the only real choice this late in the game however I thought him out of the running due to his current position as CENTCOM commander. Before this most recent news people were worried (me included) that Petraeus was running himself down (see his fainting in the Senate recently). I still think Obama's choice was a poor one. Two good commanders are better than one and now Petraeus will have even more responsibility on his shoulders (quite capable shoulders to be sure).
 
I'm sorry to see that McChrystal is out, but I can understand why he is. Perhaps they'll send him back to the Pentagon. As for Petraeus, he managed the "surge" in Iraq very well and he's definitely a better politician than McChrystal. If anyone can do a better job it's him.
 
Do not be mistaken and be led into the belief that this was some kind of victory for Obama. It is not. Where as before he had two capable top commanders carrying out his will now he only has one. Remember that McChrystal had the faith of almost everyone including Obama, the Joint Chiefts, Petraeus, the Afghans, and the various allied European commanders. His loss is a hit that can not be rectified or repaired. This move just shifts more responsibility onto Petraeus and that is not necessarily a good thing. I do not question Petraeus's capabilities (I believe he is the one of if not the finest military leaders we have today and if he was to run for president I would vote for him in an instant) but I do question the wisdom of giving him more work piled onto of the huge amount he already has.
 
Last edited:
Do not be mistaken and be led into the belief that this was some kind of victory for Obama. It is not.
I don't think anyone is saying this is a victory for Obama... but it's also not a blow to him, either. He's made the best of a damaging situation; so far, nobody who matters has come out against his decision. Not even any Republicans, so far as I can tell.

Had he let McChrystal get away with what was said, he would have been seen (once again) as a weak leader, and it would have given credibility to everything he said.
 
In this case Obama had the chance to shoot himself in the foot or the head, I reckon he went for the head but survived, other may disagree on that. ;) Petraeus gave a speech at my university in March, very impressive man I have to say, I am still crossed with myself for missing the rather exclusive lunch (or was it dinner?) which he also attended.
 
Apparently Petraeus is stepping down from his CENTCOM command to take this Afghanistan position which means in essence that he is taking a demotion. Possible replacements to fill the CENTCOM position include Admiral James G. Stavridis, Lieutenant General John R. Allen, and General James N. Mattis among others.
 
I'm not sure this qualifies as a political move at all for Obama. He followed military protocol. McChrystal publicly bashed his superiors (not the first time; he's already gotten off once), so he gets canned. It would happen to any officer in the same position. Not letting him go would be completely irresponsible.
 
I'm not sure this qualifies as a political move at all for Obama. He followed military protocol. McChrystal publicly bashed his superiors (not the first time; he's already gotten off once), so he gets canned. It would happen to any officer in the same position. Not letting him go would be completely irresponsible.

It really is not as cut and dry as you think. Obama did not have to let him go and military protocol does not necessarily call for dismissal.

Not letting him go would be completely irresponsible.

That is quite debatable as seen in the posts and articles above.
 
You can't critizese the President if you're a general officer in the US military. It just can't fly.

I do agree he could have been kept on, but that wouldn't have been uncomplicated either, and it would also weaken the presidency.
 
You can't critizese the President if you're a general officer in the US military. It just can't fly.
Especially the military, but really any superior/subordinate position.
 
Is anyone here legitimately able to provide flag level hiring/firing/promotion/demotion criticism? We can all see the problem with the officer critiquing the president, that's not an issue of expertise. But being able to offer opinion on high level military staffing seems like something out of most of our leagues. So if you feel like you actually have the ability to offer advice on this subject, feel free to point that out.
 
Is anyone here legitimately able to provide flag level hiring/firing/promotion/demotion criticism?
Yes, I am, for what it's worth.

While I agree with you that the discussion is bordering Armchair Generaling, the "firing" part of that statement is pretty common sense, what with the whole "don't say nasty things about your boss in the press" stuff.

And jetsetter, maybe Petraeus wanted a demotion. I mean, it's not like anyone forced him to go from managing two wars to just one. Maybe his old job sucked.
 
You know, this is a really sad situation. No one gains anything by what happened.

Here's how I look at it. Yes, the General fucked up. Why the fuck would you let that hippie bitch Michael Hastings, from Rolling Stone magazine, into your circle? And then let your staff run off at the mouth in front of him? That's a Picard/Riker double facepalm. The President didn't really have a choice in matter.

On the other side of it, I agree with him. Obama is a weak leader. McChrystal saw it the moment he met him. And Joe Biden is just a fucking tool. A lot of Americans are having buyers remorse with this administration. I think part of it is the general was just so fed up and frustrated, it clouded his good judgment.

I'm sorry to see him go.
 
Top