It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gen. McChrystal Called In to Explain His Anti-Administration Comments

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by antonia

Well antonia, your opinion will not be popular, but it is correct.
Having said that, there is obviously a problem with this "war". When I was a Staff Sgt. in the military, I felt that two of my responsibilities where one; take care of my troops and two; follow the orders of my superiors. At times these two priorities clashed. If an order was given that was not in the best interest of those under me, which was seldom, I went to bat for my troops. But there is a correct way to do that using the chain of command and proper courtesy.
Now I was not in a war zone and I have not had that experience. I honestly think that I would not have done well because I was so protective of the men and women under me.
There are many problems in the Army. Most of the officers I knew were so concerned with padding their jackets for their career goals that they considered very little the troops that were under them. Well, I'm starting to ramble.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by Imightknow

Have always thought the same thing.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:15 PM
I highly recommend people read the Rolling Stone article and get an objective view of the matter.

Here are some very interesting quotes from it:

The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority.

McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."

Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "

He went out on dozens of nighttime raids during his time in Iraq, unprecedented for a top commander, and turned up on missions unannounced, with almost no entourage.

It doesn't hurt that McChrystal was also extremely successful as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, the elite forces that carry out the government's darkest ops. During the Iraq surge, his team killed and captured thousands of insurgents, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. "JSOC was a killing machine," says Maj. Gen. Mayville, his chief of operations. McChrystal was also open to new ways of killing. He systematically mapped out terrorist networks, targeting specific insurgents and hunting them down – often with the help of cyberfreaks traditionally shunned by the military.

The article is here:
The Runaway General

There is nothing insubordinate in the article. There is nothing violating OPSEC.

After finishing it, I realized a number of people on ATS have not read it at all, making subjective BS comments.

So I ask everyone who comments on this issue: Read the Article!!!

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:17 PM
edit: nevermind holding off on judgment right now.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by nunya13]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:21 PM
ITT: Americans who think their lives are worth more than other peoples because they are Americans.

To me you also trivialize the sacrifices of these soldiers who died for the sake of peace around the world. You make it seem like their deaths are less meaningful because they get killed by an IED and not in some open battle.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:28 PM
"patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourself with lethal force."

You wouldnt want our soldiers getting in the way of the Opium harvest, would you?

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:30 PM
This isn't about Obama, or Mc Chrystal or whether Gen Mc Chrystal was right or wrong in his assessment of his CIC. The bottom line is he is completely in violation of UCMJ article 88.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by josheboyxiii

We have fungus taking care of the poppy fields right now. The stuff is fairly effective and wiping large swaths of it out in a number of the provinces.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:32 PM

As I was looking at this article on Yahoo! News, I came across this...

June 22, 2010: A congressional report finds that the U.S. is paying millions of dollars in protection money to Afghan warlords — and potentially to the Taliban — to provide security for convoys. The U.S. practice of outsourcing supply transports has "fueled a vast protection racket run by a shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials," and provided "a significant potential source of funding for the Taliban," the report said.

Does anyone else find this slightly mad?
I mean, from what Ive been told over and over again by mass media, we we're fighting the taliban insurgents, and now all of a sudden it's "Oh yeah, by the way, we were possibly funding them.".

And sorry if this seems alil off subject, Im new to this, and happen to come across the same article as the OP posted, yet from Yahoo!, and felt the need to share, and being as I cannot yet post my own thread, I felt this was the best way to spread knowledge.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by peter vlar
This isn't about Obama, or Mc Chrystal or whether Gen Mc Chrystal was right or wrong in his assessment of his CIC. The bottom line is he is completely in violation of UCMJ article 88.

Read the article and show me where the General violated UCMJ.

Its right here:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:33 PM
I approve of Obama's actions.

They show that Nation Building is a totally flawed ideal and the NO NATION has any business conducting offensive operations in a country they aggressively invaded.

Sorry for the troops that we've lost. It's sad. But, so was Vietnam.

I hope America learns it's lesson about Imperialism.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by tyranny22]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:37 PM
I would have much preferred a reprimand but it appears he has turned in his resignation.

Drudge Report... Developing...

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by 1curious1

I ask everyone to read the article before making judgement.

The article is here:

I saw no violations of OPSEC or UCMJ. There is some seriously dirty maneuvering going on here, especially if the General has been forced to resign over it.

[edit on 22/6/10 by MikeboydUS]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:41 PM
Just a thought...

This sounds so much like "cleaning house" in business. A new "boss" comes in and pretends to be everyone's friend. Then, he does things to make the employees hate the managers. He does things to make the customers dislike the employees. He makes decisions that make the managers critical of the employees, etc., etc., etc.

Then, the infighting starts. You look at who blindly follows the "boss" and fire the others...or allow them to voice their objections and then fire them. You don't have to worry about rules (like freedom of speech) because it becomes a matter of "who is trustworthy" and who is "reliable". After a while, you get employees (or in this case, a military) that is blindly loyal to the "boss". Not their managers, not their fellow employees and not the customer.

In a country where the military is sworn to protect the country (and therefore the people and way of life), this would make some sense if you were the "Commander In Chief" and wanted to secure a military that will blindly, unquestionably do your bidding. Maybe even within the country itself and maybe even if it were actions against the country's best interest...including shooting citizens.

But like I said...just a thought.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by antonia

AHH yes the general should have known better, BUT wars are not the perview of politicians. Especially one that is being fought for appearance. The "rules" of engagement are a handicap and the military leaders know it. They have to follow the directives of the nice comfy politicians back in the US. Hell all that the pc crap they have put our troops through has prolonged this war. McChrystal will be a casualty of the administrations desire for a pretty face.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by AllIsOne

Aw come on! To be fair not one single North Vietnamese aircraft ever penetrated Texas airspace!

Neither did common sense, that shiz just flops dead ten meters pre border, catches fire or gets shot post boarder, praise the lord.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211

I know the answer to your OSAMA-OBAMA picture below your profile!!!

What is the Bush's?


where's my $$$

Very creative play on word for a neocon

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:59 PM

Nothing like war talk to bring out the neocon in the freedom loving patrioticals!

we need to leave that place, hows that? lets do it!

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:04 PM
I read the Rolling Stone article, and didn't see any comments directly attributed to McC. that were "insubordinate" to the CinC.

What I got from it was that the reporter seems to have spread the "interview" over a relatively long period of time, and most of the "juicy" quotes came from staff, who were at a bar, enjoying adult beverages.

But, I am no military expert. Isn't a certain amount of grumbling, gallows/operating room/ black humor common when relaxing and imbibing?

I assume that Rolling Stone will be given a pass on this by the media, and not scrutinized about the accuracy of their reporting.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by antonia

I'm sorry because there's also a certain level of competancy expected out of the CIC... and those he appoints.

If you think that "Avoid going into areas where you aren't nearly certain that you won't have to ue deadly force" is any way to competently run a war, then you really have no business commentating on it. That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.

"Ummm. Yeah, we're going to war.... Kill anybody???? no.... what if they shoot at us???? hmmm, well we're going to try to go places where no one will shoot at us...."

Well then why don't you just stay HOME!!!!!!


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in