McChrystal's Comments: Insightful or Sedition?

McChrystal's Comments: Insightful or Sedition?

www.military.com

WASHINGTON - Gen. Stanley McChrystal has turned up the heat on the White House, lobbying forcefully for more troops for Afghanistan and putting his commander in chief in a tough spot.

Now Washington is asking him to button it, raising questions about just how far the military should go in pressing its view.

(visit the link for the full news article)

in Afghanistan from the troop-heavy prospect of building a state that can resist Al Qaeda to the narrower, less troop-intensive approach of targeting terrorists is "probably ... short-sighted."

A day later, President Obama summoned McChrystal to a meeting aboard Air Force One in Denmark, where Obama was attending a meeting of the International Olympic Committee.

I find this very interesting. Military.com. Throwing words around like 'SEDITION' when speaking of comments made by the commander on the ground in Afghanistan and his difference of opinion with the POTUS.

This almost seems to much like foreshadowing to me. I don't think I have read this word used in this 'war' yet. I wonder if McChrystal is a 'low-level terrorist' for speaking out against the administration.

I didn't see the article's support of that 'almost implied allegation,' but geez, when you put it in the headline...what are they trying to do?



www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I totally disagree with Obama on most things, including his apparent weakness on Afghanistan, but I do think the General needs to show more respect to his boss, the President of the United States.

reply to post by StinkyFeet


How do you know the General needs to show more respect. He may have had orders to give this press conference. Members of the military do not do things like this WITHOUT ORDERS from someone above!!!

BO is such an ultimate light weight on the affairs of the military and its roll in American history, the POTUS should be all ears, (no pun intended).

As a 1960's vet, my advise to the community organizer is to listen to his military leaders with GREAT RESPECT and put your ego in your back pocket. With no previous military experience whatsoever, he has EVERYTHING to learn from his military and to ignore their advise comes at his own peril.

He comes from what I call Chicago Thug Politics and I think Obama may find the military leaders and advisors have little time for that BS. They know how to handle those types. Too bad Gen. Smedley Butler isn't around.

Plus the alienation of the military by the Obama administration only strenghtens the hand of "We The People" if SHTF scenario ever arises.

Keep ripping the military BO, you may find you have no clothes, along with your no experience.

If it is his professional military opinion that more troops are needed for Afghanistan, he is duty bound to inform both the President and Congress. I do not doubt that he would at least have the support of the Sec Def(in this case a Republican no less) in any press release he has chosen to make. If McChrystal is not happy with the response of his superiors, then he should make his disagreement known and publicly resign rather than waiting to be spitcanned and replaced by a more compliant General.

Obama's idol, Lincoln, unceremoniously replaced many generals until he found Mead and Grant who could accomplish his goals. Obama is within his rights as Commander in Chief to replace any general he wishes. Given Obama's associates and Czar appointments I'm currently undecided on whether Obama's goals are as noble as Lincoln's (preservation of the union).

Pissing contests between generals and presidents are nothing new to American history. Think Lincoln and some of his generals; MacAuther and Truman: or Eisenhower's "I am not William Tecumseh Sherman" statement.

Of a more conspiratorial nature, perhaps Mc Chrystal has ambitions beyond a higher command and is being courted by political opposition to Obama. I doubt this and would think Petraus would be a better choice. With the possible exceptions of Shwartzkopf and Powell I can't name a general since Eisenhower who could have possibly been well known and liked enough outside of the military to aspire to move into the CINC role. Wes Clark tried but was not well known enough publicly to succeed against lifelong politicos.

Obama and Gates do have one thing IMHO that is better than how Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield treated Shalikashvili when he requested from them a large number of troops for the Iraq invasion, they haven't announced his replacement after he gave them his professional military opinon.



[edit on 6-10-2009 by jefwane]

The General should give advice, not his opinion, his advice as well as others should be weighted and the current administration should devise a strategy accordingly.

The least we need right now is a publicity hungry General trying to engage this administration in a public arguement. It seems now that since Cheney and Rummy left Generals all of the sudden grew their stuff back.

When asked during an interview about when he last talked to his CIC, I recollect his response was, "seven months" ago.

We really have a winner here folks.

We have our priorities right in line.

The man is obviously ready to retire.

A General running the war for a president that knows nothing about military matters should give his opinion and advice as much as possible. ultimately it is up to Obama. But it is important for our generals to educate the Administration and public when necessary.

I can see his frustration. He was the replacement for a very capable General who was thrown under the bus.

The American public is not the only ones tired of reading the body counts everyday that the MSM is quick to make headline news.

This man sees them too.

And he knows to make any progress on this battlefield he has been placed, HE NEEDS MORE TROOPS.

Originally posted by projectvxn
A General running the war for a president that knows nothing about military matters should give his opinion and advice as much as possible. ultimately it is up to Obama. But it is important for our generals to educate the Administration and public when necessary.

Who was the last President that knew anything about military affairs?

What got me with this whole thing, was why use the word 'sedition?'

Do you guys think they are fixing to run him out?

What effect is that going to have on morale on the ground?

Do we need to commit more troops, different strategy, or just get out?

It seems to me like they're going to crap can him. It also seems to me like they really just want to drag out this operation as long as they can. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally posted by Bunch

Originally posted by projectvxn
A General running the war for a president that knows nothing about military matters should give his opinion and advice as much as possible. ultimately it is up to Obama. But it is important for our generals to educate the Administration and public when necessary.

Who was the last President that knew anything about military affairs?

Geez...FDR? define 'know'

reply to post by KSPigpen


Im currently in the military and I will tell you this. Whatever strategy they devise is has to be one that ends the current rotation of deployments as soon as possible.

We are tired but we move on, we just want a strong leadership that can devise a clear strategy for victory or whatever goal they decide and then stick to that strategy.

But I will tell you this, the damage that is being done to morale with the current pace of deployments is going to be one that would impact the military for decades...you might not see it now because the economy being the way it is people decide to reenlist and join at this time but you will see how bad recruiting and retention is going to be when the economy rebounds.

reply to post by KSPigpen


Thats my point now in these times military knowledge is not that huge of a factor when it comes to choosing our President.

reply to post by Bunch


That's not my point. My point is that a President that knows nothing about military matters needs to listen closely to his commanders. FDR did this. Eisenhower needed no instruction as he was previously a General. If Obama is arrogant enough to ignore his generals he is going to lose this war.

I'd say that the last US President with a competent grasp of military affairs would be Bush the First. His wartime experience coupled with an intelligence background suited him well during the first Gulf War. Before that Reagan (Army but mainly PR/Propaganda), Carter(Navy especially submarines), Nixon (Navy WWII vet), and Kennedy(Navy WWII vet) were more competent than Clinton or Bush II. Really the only 2 Presidents post FDR who I consider competent in matters solely military(not political) would be Eisenhower (no explanation needed) and Bush the First.

However, the distinction between tactical and strategic military competence needs to be made. A president doesn't really need a tactical grasp of military operations he has plenty of officers under him that specialize in that. The strategic picture is much more affected by geo-political realities.

Originally posted by jefwane
However, the distinction between tactical and strategic military competence needs to be made. A president doesn't really need a tactical grasp of military operations he has plenty of officers under him that specialize in that. The strategic picture is much more affected by geo-political realities.

Unfortunately for us currently serving the last administration didnt have a grasp of both and we have paid in blood for it. Hopefully this current administration can devise more clear cut objectives so we can accomplish what ever mission is at hand and we can move on.

reply to post by StinkyFeet

but I do think the General needs to show more respect to his boss, the President of the United States.

When you are put in a position, by President Obama nonetheless, to run a war, you have to take into consideration what is needed to accomplish the job. You ask for it and if you don't get it, you ask louder.

The sqeaky wheel gets the grease.

I ask you what is more important:

Not to embarrass our President for his slow response or protecting our troops and giving them the assets they need to achieve war?

Many Generals chose not to speak out against Bush in Iraq because they valued their career more than their mission or the troops for that matter. If only they had spoken out like this brave soldier with the help of a caring journalist, maybe it could have saved many more of our troops from casualty and death.

The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla., published on its Web site an e-mail attributed to reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press, which states that Pitts worked with the soldier because he was not allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.

“Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have,” said the e-mail, which was sent to newspaper colleagues.

“I have been trying to get this story out for weeks — as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck,” the e-mail said.

The Defense Department issued a written statement Thursday night saying it was “unfortunate” if a member of the press “pressured” Army Spc. Thomas Wilson to ask the question.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

And how about VP Biden, then Senator Biden. My, he speaks so truthfully. Bold emphasis mine.

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.

"I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

Biden argued, "The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly."

archive.newsmax.com...

Maybe he should visit Afghanistan and send Obama the numbers of the very generals and flag officers he meets in Afghanistan. I'm sure they know what they are talking about just as much as the generals in Iraq did under Bush.

Unfortunately, the generals in Iraq were too scared to speak out for what was right. Our troops, IMO, paid a huge price for that. Let's pray the same doesn't happen in Afghanistan.

I like this General.

He knows he needs more troops and the President has only talked with him maybe 3 times on the subject.

The General feels he is being ignored and isn't going to take it lying down. He has been given an objective and hasn't been given the tools to accomplish such objective. He has already seen one great General get thrown under the bus and will not bend over.

Obama knows zero about the military and he needs to listen and listen good to what his military commanders who are on the ground say.

I voted for McCain because I knew that we needed a President who understood wars. Obama cannot give an educated opinion on the subject because he knows nothing about how the military works.

He could have been a great President if he ran in 4 or 8 years. Sadly he isn't cut to be a war time President and if he doesn't listen to those who understand the situation he will completely and totally lose Afghanistan.

reply to post by Bunch

But I will tell you this, the damage that is being done to morale with the current pace of deployments is going to be one that would impact the military for decades...you might not see it now because the economy being the way it is people decide to reenlist and join at this time but you will see how bad recruiting and retention is going to be when the economy rebounds.

That really concerns me. I have a friend in the reserves and he has gone to A.E. three times in the last 8 years. He's always gone for over a year, closer to two.

I hope beyond all hope that if our troops are kept there, they are supported and equipped and ALLOWED to do what is necessary. I don't want to see the military being the scapegoat again for a war that is held on a leash by bureaucrats.