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

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I don't know how to respond to that really and I'm not exactly sure how you would define a "real man." I do agree that they don't fall into the category of a crooked politician who would send men out to fight and die.

I also like your signature; I assigned that book for my history class last semester!

My own definition of a real man is one who knows their values and lives by them, regardless of the consequences. By that measure, I never would have sent a solider to Iraq at all and only a few to Afghanistan to take out bin Laden and then go home. The problems within their society are their problems to solve and we will surely never force a solution on them.

So, maybe I'm simply seeing where you stand on all of this. If I'm not I apologize.

The military is waking up just like the citizens to the the fact that these wars (Iraq and Afghan) are nothing but corporate adventures. Now we have the highest of the leaders of the military speaking out and maybe we should be supporting him.

Want to add.. think about this:
The high military (generals and below all) know that we are know longer looking for OBL since Bush himself announced it. So consider this when you try to understand their frustration.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Coolaid]

Obama did the right thing, despite the knee jerkers blubbering here.
Why did Truma fire Gen. MacArthur?
Here's why!

''I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.''

The same applies to this clown, no matter who is President, the chain of command is to be respected.

Originally posted by OldDragger

The same applies to this clown, no matter who is President, the chain of command is to be respected.

How can you reduce a general (who was appointed by the President himself) and all of the other high ranking officials who support him to nothing but clowns?

Obama shows up for meetings unprepared and disengaged, glad someone said it who knows.

Rolling Stone editor: All quotes dissing Obama admin came from McChrystal's "inner circle"

For instance, the "bite me" quote slamming Joe Biden, and the one hitting Middle East envoy Jim Jones as a "clown," are both sourced to "aides." The quote ripping Richard Holbrooke is attributed to a "member of the general's team." And the source for the damning assertion that McChrystal was "disappointed" by Obama is described as an "adviser."

McChrystal's first meeting with Obama:

According to sources familiar with the meeting, "McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.



McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama:

It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his #ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy:


"The wimps in the White House."

The article begins with an anecdote about General McChrystal’s complaining to an aide about having to attend a dinner with NATO Allies in Paris in April.

“The dinner comes with the position, sir,” says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.
McChrystal turns sharply in his chair. “Hey, Charlie,” he asks, “does this come with the position?” McChrystal gives him the middle finger. …

“I’d rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner,” McChrystal says. He pauses a beat. “Unfortunately,” he adds, “no one in this room could do it.”

While preparing to speak at the dinner, the general reportedly joked with an aide that if he was asked about Vice President Joe Biden’s thoughts on Afghan war strategy he might say, “Who’s that?” Mr. Hastings wrote that the aide had a different idea for a one-liner:

“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: Bite Me?”

In one of the most damning passages, Mr. Hastings wrote:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his [expletive] war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”

According to Mr. Hastings, the military team around the Pentagon’s top man in Afghanistan also resents the president’s national security adviser, James Jones; his envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke; and two senior senators who were decorated for their service in Vietnam:

One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a “clown” who remains “stuck in 1985.” Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, “turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it’s not very helpful.” 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.’

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. “The Boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” says a member of the general’s team. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

Andy Barr of Politico notes that the article was no surprise to General McChrystal:

Rolling Stone’s executive editor on Tuesday said that Gen. Stanley McChrystal did not raise any objections to a new article that repeatedly quotes him criticizing the administration.

Eric Bates, the magazine’s editor, said during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that McChrystal saw the piece prior to its publication as part of Rolling Stone’s standard fact-checking process — and that the general did not object to or dispute any of the reporting.
atwar.blogs.nytimes.com...
Asked if McChrystal pushed back on the story, Bates responded: “No, absolutely not.”

Nothing there I disagree with, go play golf Obama.

[edit on 103030p://bTuesday2010 by Stormdancer777]

Most military people view that kind of talk as treason within ranks. Unfortunately Obama doesn't have the balls to fire the guy, or send him up for court marshal like he should. Obama will never get the proper presidential respect until he shows some balls. I would have had the general's head on a platter (figuratively).

Sure Obama is proving inept, but that's for us civilians to decide. In the larger picture, all of these disasters have sprung from the Bush / Cheney administration.

I haven't read this entire thread. I don't see the need to. My reply is directly related to this situation.

Gen. McChrystal is not a stupid man. You don't climb the ranks and end up in the position he is in by making mistakes. I believe that this was said on purpose to achieve face time with the President. 1-1 no less. Whatever the reasons, we may never know. I believe this was strategic, and calculated.

From what I've been able to gather, when the Rolling Stones reporter arrived, everything said was 'matter of fact'. No joking, just straight to the point. Very seriously.

He choose his words very carefully and there is a divide among many people as to if he actually broke Article 88 or merely walked the line. This supports my belief that what he said had been calculated, analyzed, and discussed.

Like I said, this was done purposefully. The question we should ask ourselves ... is why?

[edit on 22-6-2010 by The Theorist]

[edit on 22-6-2010 by The Theorist]

reply to post by The Theorist

I believe this was strategic, and calculated.

Those were my thoughts.

reply to post by The Theorist


The more i look at the situation the more I agree with you. This is not a Biddenesque slip of the tongue.

I am by no means an Obama supporter, but he should fire McCrystal. If he doesn't he shows his weakness, and loses what little credibility he has on matters military. I don't know if there should be a Court Martial, but I'm sure there is an article in the UCMJ that would be appropriate.

That being said, if McCrystal were to use this as a launching point for a 2012 political run, that would be interesting.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by jefwane]

reply to post by The Theorist


Agreed. Sure he may have had some of his staff/aides talking smack but not really him. I read the article and wondered where all the problems were. GEN M. is no dummy. He is not politically naive. Few Generals are.

There are a few scenarios if we want to go down this road. He fell on his sword for the troops under his command trying to get someone to listen. Maybe. He no longer wanted the position or felt it was a non-winner and went out shooting. Maybe. He drew a line in the sand between the Pentagon and the White House. Maybe. Or something totally different.

I refuse to believe that Command was stupid enough, knowingly on the record, to let a reporter (from Rolling Stone -- Zeeesh) sink their operation with BS comments. If it is true, that is astounding.

reply to post by jefwane


I don't believe he should fire McChrystal. At this time, he is absolutely needed in Afghanistan. The point is mute because McChrystal is most likely going to resign. I also do not believe this has anything to do with political ambition.

No. McChrystal made this decision before today. He knew what the outcome would be and made a calculated choice which led to the events of today. There is a lot more to this story than the public is being made aware of. Of that, I'm certain.

Quick Edit: Tomorrow is June 23, 2010. Wasn't there a conspiracy topic here on ATS about an immanent terrorist attack? Possible disgruntled General? 1-on-1 time with the President? Alone? Discuss.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by The Theorist]

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

this man owes no one any apology.

if you dissagree with my assesment, you are ignorant of what happens in warzones.

words have failed. anybody who is going to tell me this man does not have the right to say what this man feels ... then freedom of speech is dead.

how much does Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal have to do, before he has earned the GOD (Government Of Dollars) GIVEN right to say how he feels?

too soon? 9 1/2 years in warzones and it is too soon?

maybe Generals will earn the right to say what they want to say after 20 years in warzones, or after 30 years in warzones, or after 50 years in warzones, or after 100 years in warzones, or after 200 years in warzones, or after 500 years in warzones, or after 1,000 years in warzones, or after 2,000 years in warzones, or after 5,000 years in warzones, or after 10,000 years in warzones....

If the laws are that the ones who know what they are talking about are not permitted to talk about what they know about...



fire him, retire him, but don't tell the american people it was because of his incompetence or any other reason other than .....
sorry, the law prevents me from finishing that thought...

thoughts, things & stuff,
ET

Originally posted by D377MC

How about the guy recognizes we are fighting a useless, illegal war and is trying to preserve young men's lives...? Anyone consider that option?

This was a calculated decision by the General.

This 'humanizes' him to the general public. He will make a formidable opponent for the Democrat Party in 2012.

In the meantime, he will make a fortune writing a book and becoming a FOXNEWS analyst.

Okay...........I have read all six pages, yes I really have! Here is my take. First of all he (the general) helped cover up the Tillman case. That makes him a bad human being right off the bat. Second it was Bush that got us into this war, so all those claiming Obama is killing our soldiers better realize that Bush has killed more. Third, we are in this war because there is more than opium under the ground over there!

If you all would get your RIGHT WING HEADS OUT OF YOUR A$$ and watch a show that is truly unbiased (ahhemmmm, Jon Stewart....Kieth Olberman) you would know that they have found gold and various other resources under the sand there. In the immortal words of Jon Stewart.....that country is effed!!!!

Originally posted by The Theorist
reply to post by jefwane

 

Quick Edit: Tomorrow is June 23, 2010. Wasn't there a conspiracy topic here on ATS about an immanent terrorist attack? Possible disgruntled General? 1-on-1 time with the President? Alone? Discuss.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by The Theorist]

No, sorry. He'd probably gonna run for office or make a living on Fox news. He's not going to kill anyone. I honestly don't think Obama has the spine to sack the guy. He'll keep him around for a few more months and then he will be let go when all the fuss has died down.

As for the whole issue of military conduct: It's that way for a reason. Unless you want to live in a country that is constantly undergoing military coups ala old-school Venezuela.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by antonia]

I don't think that the analogy between Veitnam and Afghanistan is completely accurate.

In Veitnam, Gen. Westmoreland at least had rules of engagement that made sense. Also, the Soviet Union and China gave a lot of assistance to North Veitnam. The NVA had tanks, advanced fighter planes, and anti-aircraft missles.

The Taliban has none of that, yet we still aren't doing well there.

When I heard on the news that Chairman Obama was going to give soldiers medals for restraint, I figured that sounded typical for him. The Rolling Stone article said it was Gen. McChrystal's idea. That blew my mind.

Also, in Nam, if a VC went into a village, we burned the whole village down with napalm. This fool McChrystal doesn't let our guys do what they have to do.

Also, McChrystal's doctrine of counterinsurgency (COIN) is a complete failure. Anyone knows that the objective in a war is to win and pacify the enemy. You can then worry about nation building and winning the hearts and minds.

Gen. McArthur was a genius on how he handled occupied Japan. He forced the idea of a Democratic Republic down their throats. Same with Germany.

McChrystal should have been gone a long time ago, and if we don't have the fortitude to fight to win, we should just leave.

On Fox News Sunday, Sec. Gates was trying to rationalize why we are there. Chris Wallice didn't ask the most important question. He should have asked Gates to explain, on Father's Day, to the children who no longer have a dad, was it worth it?

Where is McArthur and Patton when you need them?

The Rolling Stone article is nothing but meaningless blather to fill up enough pages to sell advertising on so that the ultimate message that Rolling Stone has for the world can be delivered in the last paragraph:

The war in Afghanistan cannot be won.

It's just enemy propaganda. It could have been sent in an email.

While the dust-up between the General and the administration is real, it's not like this hasn't happened before. Can anyone remember General Peter Pace?

How about General Douglas MacArthur?

The deck is stacked against the General and he's smart enough to know it.

I won't be so bold as to suggest what should be done, because as McChrystal said in his speech, if you haven't been there and studied the situation, you can't possibly understand the complexities.

The good news is that McChrystal has taken a page out of the book that the Marine Corps wrote after the Banana Wars and he's taken the time to really understand the history, politics, and culture of the country that we must find and fight the enemy in.

The war in Afghanistan is not the kind of thing that politicians and rock and roll magazines are comfortable with, except to the extent that they serve as a medium for their individual agendas.

The truth is that McChrystal might get a reduction in rank and be forced to retire with his integrity intact, but then the war falls directly into the administration's lap and the results probably won't be pretty.

[edit on 2010/6/22 by GradyPhilpott]

The General is certainly on his way out! I think it is going to be rather difficult to find a replacement General.

This begs the question. What are we doing in Afghanistan? Do we really care if the Taliban repress the people? If we do care are we preparing to "rescue" other people from other repressive regimes?

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Doc Velocity

 

What do you expect from a man who never eevvvveeerrrr served in the military. This fools think if we play patty cake with the bad guys everything will be aok... Well since you dont want to let the Soldiers fight the war bring them home NOW.

Is there a requirement for a President to serve in the military? Does that make him a better president?

Originally posted by OldDragger

Well now!
Who is General McChrystal to be calling anyone anything?
HEY REMEMBER PAT TILLMAN?
Who covered up his death by friendly fire?
who orchestrated the lies?
Why the good General!

Tillman family accuses Gen. McChrystal of cover up.

Hmm, this from 2009 so save your right wing accusations of spin!
Seems the General ain't such a patriot after all! He's a lying clown himself!

Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't follow the details of the Pat Tillman cover up.

^that plus this...

Gen. McChrystal's character is unbecoming of an officer. Now I hope Pres. Obama kicks his a$$.

WE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! /s