Gen. Stanley McChrystal: on the job market soon ... ???

[Recovering LSO]

He bad mouthed the boss (well his staff did) publicly.
In any line of work, if you insult your boss, you can expect to be fired.

The IG investigation was tied to "did he break the UCMJ" type of issues.
Since he wasn't quoted as saying anything negative, he was cleared of wrong doing.
While at the same time, his staff was insulting the President; therefore the President fired him.

So, what I guess he did wrong was he didn't stop his staff for making personal comments about our national leadership.

Agreed. You can't do what he (his staff) did. We beat that to death a few months ago. That being said, it sill gave me a a chuckle when I read it.

 

[Sapper!]

Agreed. You can't do what he (his staff) did. We beat that to death a few months ago. That being said, it sill gave me a a chuckle when I read it.

Exactly, the funny part is that everyone in theater felt the same way McCrystal's staff relayed it. So alot of people enjoyed it, plus most of us felt like it was a small victory when McCrystal stuck his neck out before the surge was announced, even though we all know that is not the way to conduct business.

 

[SWACQ]

Exactly, the funny part is that everyone in theater felt the same way McCrystal's staff relayed it. So alot of people enjoyed it, plus most of us felt like it was a small victory when McCrystal stuck his neck out before the surge was announced, even though we all know that is not the way to conduct business.

I still find it odd to think that we consider 30,000 to be a "surge," when it could easily be 10 times that and still be about half of what we used for Gulf 1.

 

[A4sForever]

General McCrystal is presently being 'cleansed' for any past lapses or "indiscretions" (real or imagined) ... on either his part or the part of anyone on his staff.

Why??? So he can participate in the 2012 Obama campaign, that's why.

Don't think so ??? Well, we will see, won't we?? And I'd believe him being put forward anywhere from VP to local dog catcher on a Democrat 2012 ticket. If it happens, you heard it here first.

Just my $20 worth ...

 

[Sapper!]

I still find it odd to think that we consider 30,000 to be a "surge," when it could easily be 10 times that and still be about half of what we used for Gulf 1.

I'm with you on that one. Back when Franks was planning the invasion he called for nearly 300k, since then CENTCOMs have called for increases in the 100k range on more than one occasion.

Oddly I can say this for sure, the logistical infrastructure will just not handle it I think. Not to say it couldn't if they wanted it, but it just seems like it would stretch everything thin. It was so bad in Kandahar at some point the base double it's occupancy and the enemy keyed in on that and started wailing IDF and if it hit in the base, someone got killed or wounded. Even then it seems the powers that be couldn't get troops out to their operating bases in any kind of an expedient manner.

Further we have been stretched so thin we are pulling out of places where a lot of blood has been shed. We were stretched when we were occupying it in the first place (Kowkay, Korengal, etc) we all thought to ourselves, "what in the &#* are we doing out here anyway". So units lost a ton of people up there, like the 173 namely (30+ something soldiers), only in the end, we left, citing that it wasn't strategically important. I mean couldn't we have at least finished the road in the valley first that we were supposedly there to build over the last 8 years?!

Economy of force mission in an economy of force war