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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Did you read the article?

What exactly in it did you have an issue with?

May this be a lesson on trusting reporters. All it takes is a few ambiguous quotes and they will fill in the rest however they like. This is why soldiers get training on how to speak to the media.

reply to post by Styki


Trusting reporters?

Having read the article, I think thats the least of my worries.

Gen. McChrystal for PRESIDENT!!!!

Sky is reporting that he has indeed been relieved of his command...

President Axes General Over Magazine Article

CX.

[edit on 23/6/10 by CX]

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I haven't read the article, but I heard excerpts from it on the news. It's a matter of professionalism, trust and confidence. These were lacking. Someone can do a GREAT job, but if they aren't professional, they won't get the job. You can have the very highest qualified person, but if he's not willing to show the proper respect and create confidence in his troops, etc, he doesn't belong there. Gen. McChrystal has created just the opposite, from what I've heard. Granted, I have yet to read the article.

CNN is currently reporting that General Mc Chrystal has been officially relieved of his duties. There isn't a link as of yet but there will be one soon I'm sure. CNN is reporting it as of right now!

I have no further comments at this time on the matter except that Obama is abusing his power to prove something regardless of the detrimental outcome of his decision.

Edit to palce link. AP source: Obama replaces McChrystal with Petraeus

General McChrystal relieved of duties!

The only bad thing the General did was apologize about his comments. Forget that!

The truth is: the truth is the truth!

[edit on 23/6/10 by Intelearthling]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I posted the article earlier in the thread.

I implore you to please read it.
www.rollingstone.com...

He made one comment at a press conference in jest about Biden. The conference happening well before the article was published.

The other remarks were made by staff and aides. Their comments were aimed at the Ambassasdor to Afghanistan, special envoy to Afghanistan and the National Security advisor. None of which are in the Chain of Command.





[edit on 23/6/10 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Doesn't the General pick his staff and aides?
Isn't he responsible for their words, actions and conduct?
Did he see anything worthy of a reprimand when he read the advance copy supplied to him by Rolling Stone?
What's the bottom line here?

I agree with the comments he made, however he shouldn't of made them. Obama is his commander. To publicly attempt to deface your superior is quite insane.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
He made one comment at a press conference in jest about Biden. The conference happening well before the article was published.

The other remarks were made by staff and aides. Their comments were aimed at the Ambassasdor to Afghanistan, special envoy to Afghanistan and the National Security advisor. None of which are in the Chain of Command.

I will read it. But it's not just about what he said. It's about the attitude of disrespect he engendered in his aides and staff. VERY unprofessional!

reply to post by OldDragger


He may have reprimanded them. We don't know. I would ask though should he reprimand them over remarks about the Ambassador to Afghanistan, the Special Envoy, or the National Security Advisor?

Two of them work for the State Department and none of them are in the Chain of Command.

The only remark made in reference to Obama was that an aide said that the General was disappointed after meeting Obama. Bear in mind the General was looking forward to the meeting, he had afterall voted for Obama.

IT'S OFFICIAL. HE RESIGNED.

It's also been made official that Obama is an idiot.

reply to post by OldDragger
I really doubt that a General shot his mouth off.......

without expecting exactly what happened to have happened.

I think we should watch what he does in the future, I don't think this will be his big story.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Two of them work for the State Department and none of them are in the Chain of Command.

The entity of the military has come to think that they are "above" the civilian leadership and that the ONLY thing that matters in the military chain of command. This is not true. The civilian leadership is an important part of the whole picture. McChrystal did not engender an attitude of respect and the code of conduct that our military should have, not only for people in the chain of command, but in the civilian leadership as well.

I read the article. My opinion has not changed.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
Generals are a dime a dozen.

Soldiers are like dogs in the sense they are always the servant and never the master.

(actually dogs are a lot cooler than soldiers. I love dogs and did not mean to demean them in any way, only trying to make a point. All of the great men who ever lived added together would not amount to a good dog.)

General Whathisname needs to go. The cemetary is full of people who can't be replaced.

I see no point at all here other than you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. So do you just hate men in general?...hehe Don't demean a dog, but demean all men....lol

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The military respects the civilian chain of command.

It begins with the Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Then the Secretary of Defense.

It ends with the POTUS.

Nowhere is the State Department involved in that.

[edit on 23/6/10 by MikeboydUS]

I think that Obama is making the right decision, regardless of my personal feelings about Obama or McChrystal. First, I'd like to point out that I don't like Obama at all and I have a ton of respect for McChrystal. With that being said, you can't effectively command if you don't have a working relationship with your generals, to include trust and loyalty. If you don't have generals that you can trust and count on, then you need to change your command structure. We can't even imagine to be effective in this war, irregardless of whether we support it or not, if our command structure is not working in tandem.

Last night, I was trying to put myself in Obama's shoes to imagine what I would do if I was facing the same situation and I must say, I would have done the same exact thing, though I wouldn't have replaced McChrystal with Petraeus, as Obama is only going to find himself in the same position, just not as publicly known. Petraeus is famous for being "politically accommodating".

So, irregardless of my personal likes or dislikes between the men, I think that Obama made the right strategic choice. As far as politics, if Obama would have kept McChrystal on, it would have made him look weak, reinforcing the comments made by the general's aids, thus this choice was also the right one, politically speaking. Of course, politics should be kept out of the equation, though we know that isn't realistic. All in all, Obama made the right decision both strategically and politically speaking.

--airspoon

Note: I think it's also important to take into consideration that McChrystal's aids may have not said anything. This could have been a ploy by Obama's political enemies to make him look bad, in collusion with Rolling Stone magazine. We can't really dismiss that theory. I could just see the neo-cons pulling a stunt like that. Apparently, the general's aids were anonymous when speaking to Rolling Stone so it could have been anyone. Think about this for a minute... Would the general's aids really risk their careers with something that they know would come back down on them? It's possible I guess but it's also possible that this was a hit-piece by Obama's enemies designed to make him look bad.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I hear what you're saying, I just disagree that respect and military code of conduct should stop at the chain of command. This is not the first time McChrystal has publicly shown disrespect for his own country's leadership. He has overstepped his bounds several times and was warned. He sets a very bad example to those who report to him, while expecting them to show him complete respect and obedience to HIM. By military standards and code of conduct, McChrystal is in the wrong to engender this disrespectful attitude among his staff and aides.

That's all I have to say about it.

reply to post by airspoon


Politically I think this may end up blowing up in the Administration's face.

If the war effort fails spectacularly and it can be connected to the removal of McChrystal, Obama will have a huge mess.

If McChrystal then capitalizes on that, making a run for the Presidency, it will be an easy ride to the White House.

Only time will tell.