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

[Deleted member 24525]

Afghanistan is a sinking ship...anyone who is near it sees it. Good on McChrystal for getting out of this shitbox.

the article IS BAD. He HAD to get fired...no other option, and no other President would have or should have done differently, No other options...anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Note: In the Navy a Major Command is an O-6 level command following O-5 Command. Typical Major Commands are bases or Carrier Air Wings or even Program Offices in NAVAIR.

or DESRONs or CG's. These are guys with 20-25 years of commissioned service....O-6 officers filling their second Command tour.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

How long before someone asks the president, vice president, and sec state to account for these earlier comments?

About 2 years.

Actually, about 5 months....but who's counting? Oh yeah...I am.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I gotta think if word got out that a some CO was talking shit about an Admiral in public enough that a reporter heard, there'd be a nice "F You, I'm in charge mother#*#$&" conversation. A lot of this is being hyped for the purpose of selling papers.

Ok, so what did the General say that disparaged the President?

 

[gparks1989]

Ok, so what did the General say that disparaged the President?

I read over the article and can't find a single quote that directly disparaged the President....only that the General seemed disheartened by the politics of war back in DC. His "insult" to the VP also leaves me wondering what exactly he said that was so bad. It seems that the real culprits, if you will, were his civvie advisers. The problem that this article seemed to present to the President is that it unleashed a storm of typically unwarranted punditry which led to conclusions of weakness on national security or toleration of a "runaway" general. It was the media reaction that he had to react to, not necessarily what the general said.


As a side-note: The guy who let the anti-war, Rolling Stone journalist to tag along for a few days with the general was rightfully sacked. You would think they learned from the media incident with Admiral Fallon....

 

[Recovering LSO]

Ok, so what did the General say that disparaged the President?

I'm thinking it was the overall indignant tone given by the general and his staff.

I'm never a fan of "well they did it too", but it is interesting to think about how this would have been covered if it happened during the Bush administration. The outspoken general would have been lauded by the media as a brave intellectual who "got it". If he was replaced it would have been spun and covered as being a result of an insecure WH who couldn't take the heat. Numerous retired generals and even a former president or two would have come out to publicly support him.

It has been maddening to watch how this has been covered by the media. It seems like there is some confusion about what civil authority over the military means - its elected officials not talking heads on television or print media.

 

[ryan1234]

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) called McChrystal the latest in a list of “reckless, renegade generals who haven’t seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design [it].” ​

:icon_rage:icon_rage

 

[Spekkio]

That said:
1) Petraeus actually is the best man for the job. He will get confirmed quickly and easily. He literally wrote the book on COIN. Just saying that the timing doesn't suck for the Chicago crew.
2) I believe the Administration is trying to make the best out of a shitty situation.
3) The whole thing is gonna get much worse before it gets any better.

Yep.

The worst part is that the majority of the American public isn't worried about the war in Afghanistan; they're worried about job security. If the next Presidential nominee runs on a platform of expanding the war, even if it is the right answer, he is going to lose. So while it's nice to speculate that Patraeus was making a Presidential run, I don't think Obama would have to worry too much about that kind of candidate, so long as we don't sustain a major attack from another country.

The next election is going to be centered around economic recovery. For Obama to have any chance of being dislodged, the opponent is going to have to convince the public that they are worse off today than they were 4 years ago.

 

[helolumpy]

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) called McChrystal the latest in a list of “reckless, renegade generals who haven’t seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design [it].” ​

I don't think you'll find a civillian politician who will defend a military commander saying (or condoning) disparaging comments about the civillian leadership regardless of which political party is in power.

Politicians will never advocate for a military that is not completely under their control, and rightly so. If politicians start allowing military commanders to speak their minds publicly, then the General/Admirals will become political figures in their own right. The Press will start going to the Pentagon for opposing view points to all sorts of issues and the military doesn't want to be in that mess.

The military is best when we are apolitical and because of that GEN McChrystal has to pay the price for speaking out, or in his case, condoning dissention from his staff to the US leadership.​

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Yep.

The worst part is that the majority of the American public isn't worried about the war in Afghanistan; they're worried about job security. If the next Presidential nominee runs on a platform of expanding the war, even if it is the right answer, he is going to lose. So while it's nice to speculate that Patraeus was making a Presidential run, I don't think Obama would have to worry too much about that kind of candidate, so long as we don't sustain a major attack from another country.

Petraeus. If we're going to speak about a high ranking officer let's try to at least get the spelling of his name right.

The next election is going to be centered around economic recovery. For Obama to have any chance of being dislodged, the opponent is going to have to convince the public that they are worse off today than they were 4 years ago.

Hah! At the rate we're going that won't be hard to do.

 

[ryan1234]

I don't think you'll find a civillian politician who will defend a military commander saying (or condoning) disparaging comments about the civillian leadership regardless of which political party is in power.

Politicians will never advocate for a military that is not completely under their control, and rightly so. If politicians start allowing military commanders to speak their minds publicly, then the General/Admirals will become political figures in their own right. The Press will start going to the Pentagon for opposing view points to all sorts of issues and the military doesn't want to be in that mess.

The military is best when we are apolitical and because of that GEN McChrystal has to pay the price for speaking out, or in his case, condoning dissention from his staff to the US leadership.

I just find it ironic that the then would be Administration blasted Petraeus and now puts him in charge.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Another good column on this:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/06/23/last-chance-saloon/#more-9543

A follow-on comment by the author of the column:

"Some wag wrote that the President can spare 10 minutes for Afghanistan, 20 minutes for the oil spill and maybe an hour for the economic crisis. But nothing gets his attention like a threat to his prestige and authority. For that he will meet with aides both day and night. What the McChrystal crisis turned up was that this was one of those things which he was truly scared would get out of hand. This was an ‘ouch’ pressure point.
What follows is pure guesswork and is based on nothing but a hunch. Petraeus was sent in part because of his prestige with the men; one his main tasks is to get all the sneerers and infighters under control. He is there to restore faith and morale and maybe, discipline. Probably Petraeus knew this already but couldn’t act until the top brass got scared enough to take it seriously. I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t warning signs all along which we are going to belatedly discover. Now he’s got his hunting license and he’s going.
Lastly, my guess is there is a collision on the ground between the strategic imperatives of Washington empires. Petraeus will go down there and pull one wriggling critter after the other from the drain and exhibit it to his superiors, forcing them to make hard choices among their monstrous progeny, which they won’t make. In other words he will inevitably open a can worms. I can’t think of a better man to do it. The only problem is: where will it go?"

 

[HeyJoe]

I just find it ironic that the then would be Administration blasted Petraeus and now puts him in charge.

Welcome to politics and the proverbial "strange bedfellows" that result. Big difference between campaign banter to draw votes and being in charge and wanting results.

 

[The Chief]

... in other words he will inevitably open a can worms. I can't think of a better man to do it. The only problem is: where will it go?"

Compelling arguments. At the very least this "incident" brings the war back to the TV screens, news papers for a while anyway. I think Rolling Stone stated that this was their objective.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Compelling arguments. At the very least this "incident" brings the war back to the TV screens, news papers for a while anyway. I think Rolling Stone stated that this was their objective.

It gives the President an opportunity to get rid of the deadline, and Eikenberry, if he wants. This would provide him at least limited cover with his base, which he seems very hesitant to cross.