The problem with McChrysal's comment are not that he voiced his views to a reporter

[Perky]

It's that he griped his way down the chain of command not up the chain. That's a huge problem because his views metastasize through put the entire leadership ranks in-theater. and it makes it that much more difficult to purge the thinking.

I don't begrudge him his concerns, I don't even necessarily begrudge him his right to speak to the press to some degree inartful as they may be. Generals can gripe to their peers and up the chain all he want. bu when he starts to share his views with those under his command, he does grievous harm to the war effort.

[Demeter]

1. As I Understand It, A Soldier Isn't Supposed to Gripe At All

[xultar]

2. +1

[hlthe2b]

3. I believe he is expected to take his concerns directly to his CO...

in this case the CIC, rather than airing them publicly. Complaints up the chain of command, not griping publicly down it...

[BootinUp]

4. I don't think most people equate soldiers with Generals

Generals are soldiers that have risen to the highest level of command and are tasked with advising the civilian command. There is nothing wrong with some level of conflict between Generals and the President, in fact its a sign that problems are not being ignored. On the other hand, a General can't publically attack the President's character or competence and expect to continue to serve him.

[tsuki]

25. Or allow his staff to speak to reporters in such a way. This reflects

on McChrystal's leadership if he cannot control his staff.

[zipplewrath]

10. It's actually his right

Complaining is an enlisted man's right, and an officers problem.

[rasputin1952]

17. As a former Plt Sgt, I can tell you it's the exact opposite...

When people stop complaining, you've got trouble brewing.

One of the few things a soldier has is the right to gripe, from chow to ill fitting boots, to a weapon that can't zeroed right, (usually due to Operator Head Space), a soldier will gripe about anything and everything.

The difference is, when you have people of extraordinary rank making stupid remarks, that's a whole new ball of wax...ask MacArthur, Patton, McClellan and a host of others that were relieved.

Smedley Butler refused to talk politics until he retired from the USMC, then he told the truth, and people listened. He did it right. McChrystal is a fool, he'll pay for it.

[The Magistrate]

18. Well Said, Brother

[a kennedy]

24. Ditto Demeter.......Big Ed was saying that too....L O Y A L T Y

to the Commander in Chief first of all above all else...... D*mn this is red meat for the righties as Ed said......just D*MN!!!

[librechik]

5. He's trying to set up the entire military to get behind him and be in opposition to Our President

McChrystal is a traitor and needs to be taken down like MacArthur.

[Perky]

6. I would not call him a "traitor". I would call him stupid, naive and inmature

But I would not call him a traitor,

[SweetieD]

23. You don't get to that rank being stupid and naive. McC knew what he was doing. It was calculated. /

[eleny]

7. +1

[live love laugh]

27. +2

[vaberella]

12. I picked up that sort of implication in his words. But opposition for MORE WAR?!

Is that even possible to do?

[librechik]

14. I think he views Obama as wanting to get out of the conflict ( weak as it seems to peaceniks )

and of course, McChrystal wants to continue the endless war for oil.

[calimary]

20. Well, remember the plight of the department head. One must ALWAYS make sure that

his/her department is NOT downgraded, cut back, de-emphasized, or in any way made less. That makes the department look like it's not worth keeping and/or not as critically important - and makes its chief look the same. One can't have that in the command structure! One can't look compromised or weakened or downsized because it implies that you're not that critical to the overall ops, your position isn't as high as it was, and maybe you aren't needed that much. It looks bad comparing your position and your department to the others around you that may not be getting cutbacks or downgrades. McChrystal and others in his type of position would always want for circumstances to validate his position and his clout, not make it look diminished, or RUMORED to be diminished. After all, one has an image to uphold. So he's always going to advocate for more. More money, more forces, more authority, just - well - more. If you're a leader you don't want even a trace of perceived loser-stench on you.

[Perky]

8. Would you be saying he was a "traitor" if he was criticizing a Bush Policy?

[Lil Missy]

9. If bush were CIC, wingnuts would be calling for the death penalty!

[Perky]

11. But would you?

[Lil Missy]

19. Your point?

:wtf:

[Perky]

21. Sorry was not meant critically or directed at you.

Just saying that DUers would applaud a General who said he thought Bush was wrongly prosecuteing the war. So it seem a bit discerting for us to criticize GOPersfor backing McChrystal

[vaberella]

13. But McChrystal was pushing for more war...that was the whole point.

He doesn't want a time line, he wants more soldiers and no time line. That would be in line with Bush thinking. Obama said hell no. Time line with a this number and no more. It's like he wanted more troops and extended time.

[Gin]

15. imo... he wants out of the mess and wants to get his retirement

even I would know not to talk with a reporter so openly and his aides would know that also.

[704wipes]

26. and run on GOP ticket in 2012?

You know there has been GOP talk of that...

[treestar]

22. Intellectually I would think it was so

I mean, it's the same thing either way.

But I bet DU would be cheering him on. Anyone who dissed Chimpy was all right.

[maxsolomon]

16. MacArthur got canned.

& McChrystal is no MacArthur.