Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of forces in Afghanistan

reply to post by hawkiye


hahaha I remember when I was a boot in the corps and my senior marines used to say "you see a reporter, and they want to know anything tell them your content and proud to serve the country refer all other inquires to either the plt sgt or plt cmdr, your right to free speech was signed away with your soul on that little contract... get out and push!" Maybe the general should listen to lance corporal Rocha

This thing makes no sense as played

Either McChrystal is incredibly naive or this was on purpose. Look at the Krauthammer interview for one view of this. Krauthammer believes the most charitable explanation is that McChrystal was not used to being a public figure. But even that makes no sense to me. Rolling Stone did not screw up here. They actually read the quotes back to make sure they had permission to use them. This went through McChrystal's aides as well as himself and the whole thing was approved every step of the way. Are you telling me NOBODY thought this might cause issues?

In my opinion, impossible. That leads me to believe it was on purpose with McChrystal as the sacrificial lamb. Who comes out ahead after the dust settles? The military. The military took the brunt of criticism over Vietnam and they are not going to let the same thing happen again. Now everyone knows what the real issue is. Obozo and his clowns are interfering with the military to the extent that they are being asked to fight a war with no bullets.

It's really too bad McChrystal apologized. He could have said, "I stand by what I said. Obozo is an idiot and the worst CIC we've ever had. I quit." and then have a couple more generals do the same thing. THAT would be something!

And that comment above that "we shouldn't have war mongers in charge of our military." TOO funny! Maybe they should just use Airsoft guns. Thanks for the laugh.

Originally posted by Brotherman
I still think that they should've put general Mattis (USMC) out there as the CG of MNFA and ISAF,

Yes!

I wonder if this will bring up any debate about a Special Operations Command general in command versus a non-SOC like Mattis or Petraeus.

reply to post by schuyler


Uh. Didn't McChrystal determine strategy, not Obama?
A flaw in your rant?

reply to post by desert


If that was the case I'm sure General Hummer would be a great candidate as well I'd like to see a Marine CG in there for once, Its a shame that all the SOC-G and ISAF got in that big pissing contest with each other earlier on we truly do need experts in unconventional warfighting tactics to run this show. Hell at this point those SEAL's that got court martialed for punching a detainee would be great too

reply to post by muzzleflash


You have totally jumped the shark with this one!
You obviously don't know jack about the military, politics or....
let's just say all you are interested in is hating Obama.
By the way, if a Rep were President, and the same thing happened, I would back the President all the way.

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
I wonder if Gen. MacChrystal intends on keeping a vow of silence. It could be a very noisy couple of months if he decides 'to let it all hang out' so to speak.

McChrystal resigned from his current position, as far as I am aware he is still in the military. As long as he stays in the military and Obama is the President, he will have to be mindful of what he says.

An update on the situation.

Apparently General McChrystal did not resign from military service. He has only resigned his command in Afghanistan.

In other words, as of right now he is remaining in the military. He will be reassigned. I will update as soon as I get more info on potential reassignments.

There is the vacancy at CENTCOM.

reply to post by Brotherman


Yes, that "pissing contest" was what I was thinking about.

General Hummer could have a chance at it, if maybe McChrystal was just not the right SOC to send in.

Re unconventional ....Petraeus earned that title in Iraq

You know, I was thinking that the bigger picture here is that, technically, we're not "at war", no declaration, no treaty to sign at "end", but rather, we have a "military engagement" in a country with a huge amount of geopolitical import. That has it's own military reality that maybe Petraeus and Mattis understood better; I'ld like to believe McChrystal understood it, but just couldn't keep his mouth shut.

reply to post by schuyler


McChrystal is not naive. From my understanding of the situation, the journalist had been following McChrystal around for a while jotting down notes here and there. This was not an interview where everything was planned and said intentionally. It seems like the combination of days worth of listening in on McChrystal and his aids.

Like I said in another thread, a general loses his job while a journalist gets a raise.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Styki]

reply to post by jam321

IMO it will be an exit strategy.

I hope you're right jam.

David Petraeus wrote the book on counter insurgency however...which is the current strategy that is in effect.

He was also "promoting" the Trillion dollars of minerals recently found (which is BS) in Afghanistan.

I fear there will be no change...although I really REALLY hope I'm wrong...because this war is not winnable.

McChrystal had Rolling Stone Mag follow him for a month. Is he stupid? No.

Does he understand the political direction Rolling Stone Mag has taken...aka...Wall Street? Yes.

Is Hastings anti American? not (he is the RS pointman)

Hmmm....
So the General is not stupid, nor is Rolling Stone...

Well how does that all add up.

Wait...what about the K man in Afghanistan how did he see it? Oh..he and the General are chums.

Did the General see victory soon in the same way Patton and MacArthur saw victory? I believe he did...in fact a few days ago I commented to a friend that the Afghan war is basically over.

The Chinese..yes the Chinese want some of the spoils as well.lol



Looks like the P man fainted fro a reason.

Oorah.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I'm not going to quote your post. All I want to say is that when you join the military you lose the freedom of speech. When you join the military you are basically the property of the US military.

reply to post by Styki


You and I agree...I was typing when you posted.\

Star.

reply to post by desert


HAHA yes indeed Im sure right now the Chamber of Clowns and the TOC are going absolutely crazy right now, I'd seriously hate being on the Generals PSD team right now. I think probably one of his biggest frustrations might be or have been even though its not pubbed in rolling stone is like you said the geopolitcal center especially when it comes to logisitics and operations, I know working with NATO regardless of the situation is always a cluster****, and being this hugely infused ISAF you know thats got to be a thorn in his ass. I remember being deployed to Haiti in 04 was supposed to be there for 6 weeks until NATO showed up to relieve us, we waited on them for 7 months, I can only imagine, I know working as a PSA in MNFI the international forces were always jacked up when it was time for unit rotations, hell I know that a big deal to them was CONNEX boxes for rotating units primarily International/NATO CONNEX always tend to be misplaced I wont say how many or anything like that but just know that tons of weapons and equipment go missing on a massive level. So I can definatley relate what you are saying in those regards I can only dream of how much worse it is over there seeing how some of these places are so remote

reply to post by Styki


case in point. when I was stationed at Ft benning in the early 90's a guy in a different platoon in my Co. got pissed off at his sarge and punched a sink. He was brought up on charges for destruction of government property... he broke his hand and couldn't perform his duties. they court martialed him, sent him to the brig for 60 days and dishonorably discharged him.
When I enlisted back then, McChrystal was a god to us, what he did to the 3rd ranger battalion when he took over in the mid 80's was an amazing 180 degree turnaround. In the 80's the rangers were known more for the littany of training accidents than they were for their fighting prowess. We would have killed anyone that man told us to just because he said so. These days... after his involvement in the Pat Tillman coverup and his archaic COIN program( it didn't work for the french in the 60's or for us in Viet Nam) is a testament to the fact that Mc Chrystal is still living in the past in terms of operational parameters and SOC. He should never have been in the position he just resigned from, especially after Pat Tillman.

reply to post by muzzleflash


McChrystal isn't some politician who represents the American people in his district or state who gets to speak on behalf of those he represents. He is a military man under direct orders from the Commander-in-Chief, who happens to be Obama at this time, whether you like it or not. He doesn't get to voice his opinion in public, especially when the enemy is watching/listening.

As against war as I am, even I know that our military men and women must portray NOTHING less than complete solidarity with the president's and his cabinet member's commands.

reply to post by Brotherman


Your MNF Haiti story reminded me why I did when friends would start talking about UN tanks driving up their Main Street.

Originally posted by Brotherman
I can only dream of how much worse it is over there seeing how some of these places are so remote

Yes. At least the Soviet Army could physically march out over familiar terrain and go home. If our last soldier left, it would be deja vu about the last helicopter leaving VietNam.

reply to post by peter vlar


After a history of manageable, victorious low-intensity-conflicts south of the border in the 80's, with short military actions in Kuwait and Bosnia, maybe our civilian leaders assumed all that military knowledge would scale up to Iraq and Afghanistan. It didn't, and you have a point about McChrystal; his own use of "night raids" didn't seem to help the situation.

I just hope Gen Petraeus is the last commander we'll need over there, but I'm not going to bet on it. Because the last administration shattered the Middle East, and left the mess for the next one, I just don't know if there's enough glue to put it back together. And there'll be no familiar terrain for our soldiers to cross over to get out.

Nice to see the plan for perpetual war is going well.. Just like Orwell dreamed of in his book 1984.. And I know we have people employed to censor information being given to the masses..

We know they spy on us already buy the government making any one doing wiretaps not responsible , and wiki leaks apparently will be getting some info on this out shortly.. (Hurry Up WikiLeaks)

Cant wait for the Propaganda TVs that cant be turned off, the rationed supplies like food and razor blades, and the great arithmetic 2+2=5

I am under the impression that McChrystal has been basically trying to make the policies/approach that Petraeus setup (before McChrystal had the job) work.

So, personality issues aside, maybe it's the over-all approach that's flawed, and McChrystal just got caught ... eh .. "venting" about trying to make it work.

Maybe he started out as a "true believer" in that approach, but over time as realized that it just isn't going to work.

The existing approach is little more than a continuation of Petraeus' plans under the previous Administration. This is not to say that it gives the current Administration a "free-pass" on this issue. They made a decision to continue with it.

So, it's on the new Administration now to either:

1. Make it work, or
   
2. Define a different path
   

While McChrystal's comments are probably inappropriate "out-of-channel" feed-back, the bigger issue is the plan. I would hate for anyone to think that just taking McChrystal out of the picture is really going to solve anything. He's the symptom, not the disease.

[edit on 2010-6-23 by EnhancedInterrogator]