Suggest people read RS article before commenting on whether McChrystal was disrespectful.

[jody]

I read the article and did not find a quote from McChrystal that was disrespectful. Just a person with incredible stress on him letting off steam with his most trusted staff preparing for a press session in which he expected reporters trying to trap him, a game he reluctantly has to play.

The link below to the RS article was provided by many other DUers yesterday.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

[yourguide]

1. Bullshit. n/t

[BrentWil]

61. You really want to way bullshit to something that simply says you should read something before

commenting? Not that you have to go one way or the other, but just to be informed?

[fishwax]

65. that's not all the OP says

[yourguide]

84. I read the article and called bullshit on the OPs assertions...

as did many who responded in this thread.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

2. I read it and you are absolutely wrong

And why are you spamming this so much?

[liberal N proud]

3. He was disrespectful

Obama is the Commander in Chief, McCrystals comments were insubordination.









I read it.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

67. I read the article, and he was way, way out of line.

[OhioBlue]

90. I read it too - I actually didn't see any quote from

McChrystal that was directed at Obama. His aids recounted McChrystals impression of their meeting, but I couldn't call that insubordination on the General's part. Now, his Biden comment could be seen as such.

I don't think this story indicates insubordination. I do think it displays as the President stated very poor judgment, not befitting a General.

[AtomicKitten]

4. "Special Ops Officers Shocked by McChrystal Comments"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8617596

It's not a coincidence that those who routinely disrespect Pres Obama would find no disrespect in the article.

[jody]

6. What sentence(s) in the RS article constitute "disrespect" in your mind? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

7. I suggest you read it again. Slowly. nt

[jody]

10. LOL. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

14. +1.

True.

[Chulanowa]

5. My dad always told me to let off steam by lifting weights or raking the yard

Not by stomping around and bitching about it.

If my dad, in a casual job as a self-contracted carpenter, could figure that much out, then I imagine the general in charge of military operations in an entire country can also figure it out. he's under stress? Rub one out, jog for a few hours, adopt a kitten, whatever

[jody]

9. Please quote in context the RS sentence(s) that constitutes disrespect by McChrystal. n/t

[PavePusher]

96. I have to ask...

Do you know anything about military life? In a combat zone? Or Special Operations?

[moondust]

8. Culture of insubordination.

He apparently created it or at least allowed it to exist.

[vaberella]

12. Yup. That's why some of his head guys resigned. n/t

[Lil Missy]

11. insubordination is disrespectful

[gleaner]

13. I think you are mistaken ....

I am not a great fan of President Obama, but the fact remains that he is McChrystal's Commander in Chief. This check of civilian authority over a vast military is absolutely necessary. I wonder how McChrystal would react to comments like that from his subordinates? Not well I think.

I have to remind you of General MacArthur who was a good General and very well liked by the American people. But when he began publicly criticizing President Truman's policies, Truman relieved him of his duties. I agree with that decision and I hope that Obama removes McChrystal or that McChrystal resigns of his own accord. There is a big difference between "venting" and insubordination. Venting would be saying he didn't like how things were going or that he was frustrated with events in general. Calling your command structure names is insubordination and should not be tolerated. Obama is in command and whether McChrystal likes him or not, the office of the Presidency deserves better than the comments he was making. As civilians, we have a lot more leeway to dissent and disagree with Obama's policies, but the military is different. They are a part of the government, but a subordinate part to the Administration in command. They have the right to refuse to obey an illegal order or to commit crimes against humanity, but they know when they enlist much less work their way up the ranks to the position that McChrystal has achieved that they answer to the elected government. He knew what he was doing and made a choice to do it. He is responsible for what he has done to himself and his career if Obama asserts his rightful authority and removes him.

[vaberella]

36. +Infinity. n/t

[ieoeja]

46. MacArthur was not fired for publicly criticizing policies.

He was relieved for lying about the first Chinese offensive, secretly using UN forces as bait to lull the Chinese into a 2nd "surprise" attack, ordering those forces to cut-and-run, then ordering the local SAC commander to drop atomic weapons on the Chinese positions while falsely claiming the White House had authorized the use of atomic weapons.

By the time Truman got around to okaying the 13th Pentagon request to replace MacArthur -- the 1st was on the 1st day of the conflict at Eisenhower's recommendation-- the USMC and all UN allies had already pulled their forces from under his command. The only thing he nominally commanded in Korea was the US Army. Even one USA division was refusing MacArthur's orders (their CO & XO having already abandoned them in the field at the start of the 2nd Chinese offensive at Mac's orders). And Ridgeway reported soldier's across the country carrying bullets with MacArthur's name written on them.

Ridgeway assumed command in Korea of the 24th Division the day he arrived (the day after the start of the 2nd Chinese offensive and the death of the 24th's CO). Using that position he assumed overall command of all UN forces. He did keep MacArthur in the loop, but both men knew it was just pretense. MacArthur reportedly never gave Ridgeway a single suggestion during the interim before his firing.

The only duty Truman truly relieved MacArthur of was military governor of Japan.

I suppose Truman might have left MacArthur in Japan, a job he was actually good at, had he been willing to shut his trap. But I doubt it. He tried to use atomic weapons without authority! Kind of tough to ignore that. Not to mention that leaving him in control of Japan would have been a major slight to our UN allies.

[gleaner]

70. Thanks for the info ....

I had never heard this before. I had always read and been told that MacArthur was fired because he wanted to invade China against Truman's policy lines. It is really scary that he was able to get away with so much for so long. Especially the desire to use atomic weapons without authorization or agreement from the government. I agree with you that he should not have been allowed to stay on even as a figurehead.

This is one reason that I like posting here. I always learn something that I didn't know before. I'm 62, but I have only slight memories of my parents talking about Truman, and they sure didn't teach us this in school.;)

[ieoeja]

108. It was classified information until sometime in the 80's (I think).

A retired US Army general who knew about it filed an FOIA request then wrote a book. My dad bought the book, and it since made its way to me.

My dad was a Marine sent into the DMZ days after they signed the final ceasefire. Some USA unit is officially recognized as the first to serve on the DMZ. But my dad's USMC unit was in there previously as a stop-gap measure. There certainly weren't enough of them to actually stop anything. They were just there to give warning in case anything happened.

He did "capture" a Chinese officer who was defecting. Saw him hidden in a bush my dad was pissing on! Finished his business then grabbed his rifle and started shouting for help.

They wandered into North Korea one night. My dad as a corporal was 2nd to the squad's sgt. He kept telling him they were too far north, but the sgt thought otherwise. The squad pressed him to report it the next day. So they led the officers on the same path the next day. By the end of the day there was one less sgt in the unit.

[jody]

72. Please provide a credible link to support your assertion "relieved for lying". Thanks. n/t

[ieoeja]

107. The Forgotten War

I forget the author. I'll try to remember to look that up when I get home.

There is such a book at Amazon.com, but I don't think it is the same one as the author of that book served aboard a submarine while the author of the book I was quoting is a retired Army general. In the 80s he filed the FOIA request that unsealed a lot of the secrets about MacArthur's misdeeds during the war.

MacArthur lying? For three days the advance north was stymied when the Chinese launched their first offensive. By the 4th day they were on the retreat and melted back into the mountains to wait for reinforcements. At that point we had over 10,000 Chinese POWs. MacArthur told the Pentagon it was just a few volunteers.

The POWs made no such pretense. Nor did anybody else.

In total, the Pentagon requested permission to remove MacArthur 13 times. The first such request came on the first day of the war. Eisenhower, retired but in the city for a checkup, reminded the people at the Pentagon that (1) MacArthur had had no updated training on newer weapons and tactics in decades and (2) the Pentagon's own study concluded the invasion or seige of Japan would have occurred well before the invasion of Germany if not for MacArthur.

[cleveramerican]

15. too much mouth will get you in trouble.

is what my mother used say

[Webster Green]

16. He seems to be not thinking very clearly.

He drinks Bud Lite Lime. :wtf:

[Xipe Totec]

17. How about this one to start

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

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

[jody]

20. Agree with your selection as the most damming quote in the RS article. McChrystal was preparing to

be grilled in a Q&A session and he and his most trusted staff were trying "good one-liner".

I see nothing in the RS article where McChrystal used that statement in public.

IMO there has to be something more damming than the quote you and I found in the RS article to justify Obama reprimanding McChrystal for something supposedly in the RS article.

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

[Xipe Totec]

18. And this one

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. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

[jody]

21. You did note that Holbrooke is not McChrystal's superior and insubordination would be impossible.

If you mean disrespectful, IMO people would laugh at anyone who wanted Obama to reprimand McChrystal for the RS cited incident.

[Xipe Totec]

25. Go back and read your own OP

you claimed he was not disrespectful and asked us to show you where he was being disrespectful.

If you meant insubordinate, you should have said so.

[jody]

27. Mea culpa, you are correct but it's too late to add insubordinate. LOL at my mistake. n/t

[pnwmom]

19. To whom are he and his aides NOT disrespectful?

He approved this article, so he approved what’s in it. The question really should be – to whom are he and his aides NOT disrespectful?
McChrystal views Karzai with more respect than anyone in the Obama administration. McChrystal and his aides consistently portray their team as capable and in charge – as opposed to the flaky leaders on the civilian side. But McChrystal is supposed to be backing up his Commander-in-Chief – not trying to run him or his Administration down.

The article is strewn with self-serving, disrespectful quotes. Here are a few.

On Biden:

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

On Obama:

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 fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

On the civilians who let McChrystal “call the shots.”

This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan.

[jody]

22. Who has allowed "diplomatic incoherence" that "hampered efforts" in Afghanistan? Perhaps those

persons should be called to account for their dereliction but wait, that can only mean Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, President.

We don't want to go there so why don't we create a media sideshow and talk about a General and hope We the People never look behind the curtain.

[karynnj]

40. That comment also showed a complete incoherence in McChrystal's logic

If there is diplomatic incoherence, why is one of the few people he praises the Secretary of State - the top diplomat.

In addition, his comment on Kerry and McCain, that they meet with Karzai then have airport press conferences where they criticize him was completely untrue in Kerry's case. He was with Karzai for long hours over 5 days and he convinced him to agree to a runoff - that was a diplomatic breakthrough that helped McChrystal. In addition, the only press conference was with Kharzai with Kerry praising Kharzai.

My alternative explanation of why he praises Clinton and smears Kerry? HRC supported him and agreed with him on everything. Kerry (and Reed) led an effort that questioned if the Afghan government had sufficient ability to provide enough good enough governance and security in areas that we "won". their concern was that if Afghans could not do this, the Taliban would simply return (defeating what we accomplished) and would kill anyone working with us. In other words, VIETNAM.

[jody]

54. The RS article did not say McChrystal said "incoherence" and H. Clinton works for Obama, not

McChrystal.

[karynnj]

58. I never suggested otherwise

but both Holbrooke and Eikenberry report to Clinton - how can he be happy with her and site diplomatic incoherence - when the three main people are Clinton, Eikenberry and Holbrooke.

[jody]

63. You said "complete incoherence in McChrystal's logic"using RS words "This diplomatic incoherence

has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan" to describe McChrystal's intent about which we know absolutely zero.

I accept your statement that you did not mean that McChrystal was incoherent in the sense used by the RS article's author but that prompts an obvious question, what do you mean in using the word "incoherence" that must mean something quite different from the RS article's author?

[POAS]

23. Maybe you can

reconcile the Generals statements with this


888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

[jody]

24. Please cite the RS quote attributed to McChrystal that you believe violates the UCMJ. n/t

[POAS]

26. Are you saying he was respectful in all

his statements?

I could quote everyone of his statements as they appear in that article as being, at the least, disrespectful in the context of the above mentioned portion of the code.

[jody]

28. Issue in the media/forums is the RS article. You use the UCMJ so what statement in the RS article

that quotes McChrystal will you use in accusing him of violating the UCMJ?

[POAS]

29. What part of "all of them" do you NOT understand...

Your being deliberately baiting and did not in anyway try to justify your position as it relates to my quoted portion of the code. I asked you directly to say why you think his, and his staffs remarks (left uncorrected) made in his presence with a reporter present, were NOT disrespectful. The statements do NOT need to be insubordinate to violate this section they merely need to be disrespectful.

[jody]

32. Not baiting at all. I'm very familiar with UCMJ, I've read RS's article and IMO it does not quote

McChrystal or his immediate staff saying anything that could be called disrespectful or insubordinate.

I ask you again, please cite the RS quote that causes you to disagree with me about whether McChrystal was or was not disrespectful or insubordinate.

IMO your best support would be the following so please offer a better statement.

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh.

"Who's that?"

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

[leveymg]

30. The OP makes a good point - Gen. M really didn't actually say anything that is insubordinate - but,

he clearly tolerates a culture of insubordination and wisecracking disrespect by his aides. There is one "top advisor", in particular, who's comments are beyond impolitic and really could be categorized as such (and possibly chargeable) under the UCMJ. All that Gen. M had to do was say, "watch your mouth while the journalist is around." But, apparently he didn't, or the message wasn't received.

Look, we have to understand that all these remarks were on "deep background", but as is so often the case with journalists, that "rule" isn't observed. Things that are said on the spur of the moment by the water cooler often get back to the boss. Managers, like Generals, can catch hell for what subordinates say. Gen. M seems to have not cared about, or thought he was above, that rule of common sense bureaucratic survival. He's now catching hell for it, even if it is just a convenient excuse for Top Management to close down a losing product line.

That's all this is - office politics with Hellfire missiles.

[jody]

33. Touche "office politics with Hellfire missiles". n/t

[vaberella]

37. And that "top advisor" resigned. n/t

[OhioBlue]

91. Agree completely. n/t

[mwb970]

31. So So McChrystal should skate away, using the Ken Lay defense?

"I was in charge, but I had no idea what was going on, so you can't blame me." Sorry, that doesn't work for me.

In any case, as others have pointed out here, McChrystal was in fact disrespectful himself. Maybe you read a different article?

[WeDidIt]

34. I read it and he clearly violated Article 88 of the UCMJ at least three times n/t

[jody]

35. I found one, quoted below, that some might use. What are the other two?

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh.
"Who's that?"

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

“The Runaway General” (RS) also asserts “diplomatic incoherence" "hampered efforts" in Afghanistan.

Sounds like dereliction of duty to me so who can fire them for that offense?

Only three people can allow “diplomatic incoherence" and "hampered efforts" -- Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and President.

The assembled men may look and sound like a bunch of combat veterans letting off steam, but in fact this tight-knit group represents the most powerful force shaping U.S. policy in Afghanistan. While McChrystal and his men are in indisputable command of all military aspects of the war, there is no equivalent position on the diplomatic or political side. Instead, an assortment of administration players compete over the Afghan portfolio: U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not to mention 40 or so other coalition ambassadors and a host of talking heads who try to insert themselves into the mess, from John Kerry to John McCain. This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan. "It jeopardizes the mission," says Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supports McChrystal. "The military cannot by itself create governance reform."

[karynnj]

42. John Kerry, the chair of SFRC, and McCain, the Ranking Member of Armed Services are "talking heads"?

I agree with you, the people in charge were the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and the President. Now, he is ok with Gates and Clinton - so this is clearly an attack on Obama - and his ambassador Eikenberry, a former general himself, who disagrees with McChrystal, and Holbrooke, who has been a leading Democratic diplomat.

What it sounds like is that McChrsytal thinks that he should have be the military and diplomatic architect - and resents anyone who does not 100% agree with him.

[jody]

55. The Commander in Chief's staff includes Sec. Defense & Sec. State. The author of the article asserts

without attribution "This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan."

The president as Commander in Chief alone has the authority to order Sec. Defense and Sec. State to work together.

If the author of the article is correct in his assertion, then the fault lies with Obama not McChrystal.

[karynnj]

56. That assumes that you believe McChrystal

It may be that he sees the diplomatic incoherence being that they disagree with him. (It actually seems an attack on Eikenberry and Holbrooke because he seems happy with both Gates and Clinton - and they both report to Clinton. The only other person he could be criticizing is Obama himself.

[jody]

57. Do we disagree on the authority of a Commander in Chief? n/t

[karynnj]

60. of course not- and he just fired the person most contributing to discord apparently

[jody]

62. Hope you are correct and we can see rapid progress toward the goals set by Obama, ""We have a clear

and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Concurrently voters can expect rapid progress "and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve" as asserted in the RS article.

I hope the families of our troops who will die understand your willingness to sacrifice their sons and daughters lives for your dream.

[karynnj]

73. My dream? you are making some big assumptions there - and they are wrong

It was McChrystal/Hillary/Gates who bought the second larger goal It is rather ironic that a Hillary supporter is somehow implying that I am for a broader effort than they are - when she was far more hawkish on Iraq and far more in support of the grandiose second goal than I am - or than people like Kerry and Reed are. (they made more sense to me)

I don't think the majority of voters agree "concurrently" to do the second.

[jody]

74. WHAT! You mean our Commander in Chief is not responsible! Has there been an amendment to our

Constitution that says a president is not responsible for everything in the executive branch?

I had no idea that voters had made such a momentous change in the "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Thanks so very much for the information and I hope you aren't offended if I confirm your assertion.

[karynnj]

76. When did Obama argue for that goal - it seemed he has cited much more limited goals

I did not say that voters make any decisions - other than via elections.

[jody]

79. Please read the RS article that some accept as credible. When Obama appointed McChrystal he approved

the COIN doctrine of defeating an enemy and building a government.

Either Obama knew what he approved or he ignorantly approved it.

A Commander in Chief is responsible for all decisions made by him/her and the actions of those under him/her whether through knowledge or ignorance, just as McChrystal is being held responsible for all decisions made by him/her and the actions of those under him/her whether through knowledge or ignorance.

On the other hand some might want to hold presidents to a lower standard of performance than generals.
:shrug:

[karynnj]

81. I read the RS article

The fact is the full COIN strategy that McChrsytal wanted called for over a 100,000 troops - he asked for 60,000 and then 40,000. Obama dialed down both the goals and the troops.

His speeches have not claimed that they will completely rebuild Afghanistan and create a modern, western allied country - the goals were more modest. Last fall, I watched the 4 SFRC hearings that spoke of the range of possible strategies and their pros and cons.

The fact is that you attacked Obama in a near PUMA fashion in 2008 - and it appears your opinion has not changed. What is not clear is what yoy think should be done in Afghanistan.

[jody]

83. Thanks for the exchange. Have a pleasant evening and goodbye. n/t

[zipplewrath]

38. You're splitting hairs

More than one talking head has mentioned that "most of the quotes come from his staff". And that is true, if you read carefully, the "best" quotes are from his staff. But honestly, I'd never be allowed by my boss, especially in front of anyone BUT his staff, to make jokes like that. And even then I'd probably get a laugh, and then a correction to my attitude.

Quite honestly, I suspect that Obama isn't calling him back to discuss the "juicy" quotes. He's calling him back because the entire article exposes a pretty serious situation in which he and his staff aren't working well with anyone around them. Not the Ambassador, not the special envoy, not the commanders in the field, and the truth is he is "losing" the boots on the ground as well. It exposes a desire on the part of some to hopefully extend the mission well beyond July, and to some extent that the tactics are changing. If this is the first time anyone at the White House has heard this, you can bet they didn't like reading it in Rolling Stone. If they had heard it and there were on going discussion about what to do, you can bet they didn't like reading about it in Rolling Stone.

You can't read that article from any view point and be happy. The juicy quotes just make it easier to give 'em hell.

[rocktivity]

47. DING DING DING! Zipplewrath, you're our grand prize winner!

I'd never be allowed by my boss, especially in front of anyone BUT his staff, to make jokes like that. And even then I'd probably get a laugh, and then a correction to my attitude.

And I seriously doubt you'd do it in front of a reporter!

:rofl:
rocktivity

[NatBurner]

49. all good points

[Vattel]

39. Good point.

Yesterday I was calling for his head and predicting his ouster, but I should have been more careful before joining the feeding frenzy. Only the remark about Biden ("Who's that") is disrespectful. Of course, his aides were much worse, probably violating UCMJ, and he apparently didn't do much to keep them in line. I still strongly suspect that he is on his way out, especially because this is a second offense, but we will see.

[saltpoint]

41. McChrystal is in charge of a specific operation.

He appears to be running a ship of loose-lipped subversives who are in opposition to a stated mission.

McChrystal works for the Commander in Chief. If he doesn't like or believe in what he's doing he should resign.

The president should listen to whatever McChrystal has to say in the context of BEING the Commander in Chief for operations in Afghanistan, and then accept the general's resignation from that assignment.

If the resignation is not offered the president should fire McChrystal.

[WI_DEM]

43. Sorry I read it, and a general cannot be critical of the civilian government the way he was.

[rocktivity]

44. There's plenty of grounds in this article for giving McChrystal the axe.

Allowing and endorsing such contempt and disrespect among his subordinates is definitely an act of contempt and disrespect in itself. He allowed it to happen in the presence of a civilian reporter--it isn't as though he was undercover or hiding behind a dumpster using Mission Impossible-style recording equipment. I don't appreciate his dissing the last of the allies the U.S. has. And this isn't his first offense.

For the record, I was put off by the article's reliance on vague sourcing, speculation, and third-hand quotes. But don't try making the reporter the fall guy--he got more than enough right to merit McChrystal's departure.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[trayfoot]

45. I've read it......General should go!

[NatBurner]

48. read it

seems like his biggest crime was surrounding himself with a crew of gung-ho anti-authority rah rah moto shit-talking assholes

they all seem to be straight out of a vince flynn novel

from what i read, he seems like the type of commander that i would have loved when i was in uniform- they type that's not afraid to get his boots dirty; grab a rifle and go out on patrol

he may deserve a some heat for his biden comments though

we'll see what the fallout will be, but i don't think he should be fired for this

[Tailormyst]

50. I disagree with you

This was insulting and disrespectful and Obama cannot allow that to go unpunished and still be considered the CIC.

[me b zola]

51. Michael Hastings' interview last night with Anderson Cooper reveals intent

From the transcript of that interview:

(HASTINGS) "...So, yes, I was very surprised by this kind of candor, which made assume that they had some sort of other reason for my being there, that, in fact, they probably wanted to shake things up a little bit.

COOPER: You're saying you think he was -- they -- they kind of knowingly and intentionally brought you in and were saying things in front of you that would -- that would -- I mean, what -- to what end result? Why would they do this? Why -- in what way do you think they wanted to shake things up?

HASTINGS: That's just my speculation. I mean, you really have to ask them.
Because of what they were saying seemed to have sort of an agenda to it, in that it -- very critical of many of the civilian policy- makers, as a journalist, you're always trying to figure out, OK, am I being played here, whose agenda they're trying to push. How am I -- I'm trying to be as accurate and fair as possible.

Why are they saying these things in front of me? Is it just bad judgment, or are they trying to get a message out to shake things up in the policy? And I think this is the most -- in my view, I think what has been a positive impact of this piece is that, finally, we're talking about the Afghanistan policy in the United States again, because I think there are quite serious questions that need to be asked and quite fundamental flaws in the policy that aren't really being addressed.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007219&docId=l:1209903074&start=1

[leveymg]

52. That's an excellent point. This may be Gen. M's way of going public and getting the attention

that he thinks this losing strategy requires.

Maybe, though, this isn't so unorthodox an approach - in the old days, when the Pentagon brass wanted to make policy agreements public it would be a leak to Evans & Novak. Now, it's to an independent writer for Rolling Stone. The more things change . . .

[me b zola]

53. The last time McChrystal pulled this kind of public stunt

...was when Biden was suggesting to end the counter insurgency. McC went public with his assertions that all would be lost if he didn't have additional troops--Obama gave him 30,000. As Obama's withdraw date looms, perhaps McC thought he could get away with it again.

[jillan]

59. That's just it - Obama is his superior and if he has a problem he should've taken it to Obama -NOT

the press. Obama deserves more respect than that.

[Diamonique]

64. It's not about what McChrystal said.

It's about the climate/culture of insubordination that he has obviously allowed to grow.

Plus this is the third time he's screwed up since Obama placed him in his current position in Afghanistan.

The military is NOT a democratic organization.

[jody]

66. So, fire McChrystal but will that change Obama's policy and bring troops home as rapidly as safety

will permit from Afghanistan?

I don't give a dam if any person is fired or their careers are ruined if it saves one, just one life of a US troop.

That goes for Generals and Presidents.

IMO the McChrystal thing is just a sideshow that distracts us from the truly serious issue established by Commander in Chief Obama and IMO is the question "Can US troops defeat Al Quaida and can the US build a democratic government in Afghanistan?"

I encourage all who support defeating Al Quaida to go to the nearest military recruiting station and volunteer.

[Diamonique]

68. I don't know the answer to that question, and neither do you.

But this thread isn't about the policy in Afghanistan. It's about the McChrystal kerfuffle.

It might be a good idea for you to start a new thread if you want to talk about the policy..

[jody]

71. But you said " It's not about what McChrystal said." I agree, the major issue is whether Obama

should continue his war "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

IMO the McChrystal incident is a sideshow that distracts voters from the crucial question, "Should We the People, not a president of congress, but We the People continue to fund a war that sacrifices our men and women to fight a war in Afghanistan that IMO will not be won."

TO HELL with McChrystal and Obama and their careers, I want to stop more US troops dying in Afghanistan when the odds and history indicate that we have no chance of building a government based on US ideas.

[FrenchieCat]

69. LOL!

4 star Generals have to find a way of letting off steam
in a way that doesn't denigrate those up the chain of command,
and makes the CIC's job more difficult.

[stevenleser]

75. I didn't even have to go past the first page. What are you talking about?

Do you understand the idea of respect and courtesy as it is supposed to exist in the military?

The below excerpts are just from the first page. The treatment of Obama, Biden and the minister of one of our allies is inexcusable in a member of the armed forces and his staff:



"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

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



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.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

77. There is etiquette

Although this may have happened in many presidencies one does not expect it in the Rolling Stone - blatant!

[JuniperLea]

78. It doesn't matter much how we interpret the situation...

The powers that be, those in charge, and those who make the final determination, are in agreement. It was blatant insubordination, it's against military code. It's done; there was no other choice.

[donco6]

80. Read the whole thing. Disrespectful on multiple levels.

Not only in his own actions, but he observed it and allowed it from his subordinates. Couldn't be clearer.

[jody]

82. I've read the entire article several times. The only thing I read that might be disrespectful is the

part below.

Please quote other portions of the RS article that you believe show McChrystal is disrespectful or insubordinate.

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

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

[donco6]

85. Insubordinate

'How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. "The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.

When your role is defined as requiring attendance at a diplomatic dinner, you don't complain publicly about the assignment. You rarely get to assign your own role. And complaining about assignments is completely disrespectful of those who did.

And then he complains again:

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

There is evidence that he spoke with his subordinates in a way that encouraged disrespect of the Commander-in-Chief:

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 fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Again, speaking this way to subordinates is a really terrible breach. I may have issues with Obama, but I have a lot MORE issues with someone who believes it's OK to basically encourage rebellion against the military chain of command, which I believe this type of talk does.

Have to get to a meeting tonight or I'd talk more. But it's all like this - on and on and on. Publicly ragging on Obama's diplomatic picks, strategies, whatever. As a general, you don't have the freedom to basically incite rebellion amongst your subs. Among your peers - different story. That's just how a military has to run if you don't want to start creating a coup d'etat.

[jody]

86. How is it "Insubordinate" to jest about going to dinner with a "French minister" when McChrystal

probably had personal authority to accept or decline the invitation?

Come on, IMO the major problem We the People have is getting our troops home as rapidly as safety will allow.

I don't care what happens to any general or elected politician or their careers if we can just stop murdering our men and women in an unjustified war against innocent people.

You might disagree with me and support more war and more dying so . . . . .

[donco6]

98. Where on earth do I support more war?

Because I can assure you, I most certainly do not. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. That has nothing to do with anything.

[jody]

104. OK you and I agree Obama should bring our troops home as rapidly as safety will permit. Obama fired

McChrystal saying “The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general.” He also said “this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy”.

I do not question Obama's authority to fire McChrystal but if the RS article is the basis as Obama stated in his announcement, then we should consider other revelations in the article.

The article says “diplomatic incoherence has . . . hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan." In context the article highlights “diplomatic incoherence” in the personal staff of our Commander in Chief specifically his Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State and perhaps others.

If the article is the basis for firing McChrystal for allowing his personal staff to be disrespectful and or insubordinate, then the article is the basis for holding our Commander in Chief accountable for allowing his personal staff to flounder in “diplomatic incoherence”.

[donco6]

106. Sounds good to me.

The only one who comes out looking competent in the article is Hillary Clinton. And that's only because she evidently assured McChrystal he'd get everything he wanted.

I don't believe this change will have any impact on getting out of Afghanistan, however - either lengthening or shortening our stay. This is because I don't believe we ever really intended to leave at all. I don't believe McChrystal would ever have agreed to any kind of drawdown. I don't believe Petraeus will either. As soon as any suggestion is made to that effect, you'll hear squeals of complaint from whoever is in charge there.

[jenmito]

87. So you're apologizing to McChrystal like Barton did to BP? n/t

[jody]

88. ROFL, you know I didn't apologize. n/t

[jenmito]

89. You're defending him. n/t

[jody]

93. No, my OP gave the link to RS' article and suggested people read it. How people interpret the

article obviously leads to differences in opinions.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Paladin]

102. Yeah, Right....... (n/t)

[JI7]

92. defending them like Barton did for BP

[jody]

94. ROFL, have a good evening. n/t

[OhioBlue]

95. I read it and I get what you're saying

I don't think any of McChrystal's quotes show direct insubordination. I do think the entire article shows that McChrystal and his team have very poor judgment or like the author indicated... they were pushing an agenda. If it is the latter, then it could be insubordination. I think it is appropriate that he resigned over this. He shouldn't have said the things he did to a journalist about others in the Administration, especially when they are all on the same side during a war. If he has serious grievances, concerns of national security with regard to others, he should take that directly to his CIC. If the CIC doesn't listen, he should have resigned and THEN gone public. IMO of course..

[PavePusher]

97. For all the folks bitchin' about "insubordination"...

you don't seem to know much about how the military works.

Yeah, we all bitch about the boss, just before, or during, following orders and doing the job to the best of our ability, no matter how stupid the orders might seem. It's rather a military speciality. If you don't know, you wouldn't understand.

Does the phrase "recreational bitching" ring any bells?

Edit: At any time, did anyone fail to follow orders or wilfully not accomplish a mission?

[yourguide]

105. So if this is OK

and us idiots don't know how the military works then why did he get relieved from duty?

Why did he admit he compromised the mission?

And why is it that any chance a Repuke gets to shred POTUS, that in this case both parties seemed to think he was out of line.

Article 88:

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”


Seems to me it's you who don't know shit about it.

[jenmito]

111. Did you watch Maddow's show last night?:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88 says, “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of transportation, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37895246/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jennicut]

100. You can't have a guy like him work with people he bad mouthed.

And also disrespected an important ally like the French. This is not about being a personality cultist, if Obama kept him around I would have been severely disappointed as it just would make him look very weak. You had to get rid of him and there was a culture of disrespecting civilian authority with McChrystal and co.

[Jeneral2885]

101. He didn't want the adminstrative nature of the job

the first part tells you so

[CBGLuthier]

103. If nothing else, he showed poor judgement in allowing the reporter access

He needs to go. We can't afford commanders who don't have enough sense not to behave like asses in front of reporters.

After reading his history, he comes across as a real TOOL in all meanings of the word. He had to go.

[hedgehog]

109. The long and the short of it is that Obama can dismiss any

general at any time for any reason, or for no reason. That's why he's called "Commander-in-Chief".

[jody]

112. Agree and voters can dismiss presidents every four years and all congresspersons every two years.

IMO however voters don't exercise their authority often enough.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.