Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

catnipdipper · 06-23-2010, 10:18 AM

I haven't read the article on the snippets given. NPR had the Rolling Stone reporter on yesterday and he said he was shocked at the comments made and the disdain shown.

I don't feel that this is Truman and MacArthur. I think it is more Eisenhower and Patton.

Make him apologize to the troops and keep him under Petraeus's and Gate's thumb.

All of us have been in situation where we have done really stupid shit and were given another chance. He is a warrior and I hope he can continue.

dirty dog · 06-23-2010, 10:42 AM

Yeah its not going to be good for him, from what I heard he was for the most part complaining that the administration does not listen to him and what he needs to win the war, they are more interested in politics, he complained that Obama's statement that he plans to start pulling out in 2011 is a defacto notice of withdrawl which McKrystal felt worked against him but I must be honest I haven't read it so the information I have is not from a reliable source. He seems to be a good commander and he was Obama's choice, so something must have happened somewhere to cause a change of opinion on McKrystals part. Its never a good thing, to have military commanders in war situations speak out, but its not the first time nor the last I am sure. I am sure that more will be made out of this than should be but thats living in American in 2010.

lacrew_2000 · 06-23-2010, 10:59 AM

I've read the snippets. Frankly, its locker room talk, not very different than how alot of people would talk about their bosses, in private. His problem: he did it in front of a reporter.

As an Army officer, it was drilled into our heads that the civilian leadership had the final say in all decisions, and the Truman situation was used as an example...so there is no question about how that works. What makes this slightly different than the Truman/McArthur situation is the substance of the General's complaint. He wasn't disagreeing with the president over a strategic decision...he was just bitching that Obama didn't seem very interested in the war. So the general acted insubordinate, without committing an act of insubordination...may be a distinction without a difference, but I think his actual complaint is worrisome.

There are rumors that he has already offered his resignation...but will Obama accept it? I tend to think he will.

catnipdipper · 06-23-2010, 12:07 PM

Looks like he is out and Petraeus is in.Lemonade out of lemons.

dirty dog · 06-23-2010, 12:21 PM

Wasn't Petraeus in charge before???

Guest052813-01 · 06-23-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Wasn't Petraeus in charge before???

Gen. Petraeus was in charge of the "surge" in Iraq, as commander of the U.S. Central Command (based in Tampa). Gen. McChrystal was reporting to Gen. Petraeus.

From what I have read, Gen. McChrystal never directly criticized the civilian leadership, whereas his aides did most of the criticizing. Makes no sense to me - you speak the truth, you get fired; you lie - you get elected to the Presidency.

Cheaper2buyit · 06-23-2010, 02:21 PM

I refer all my comments on this to galt

dirty dog · 06-23-2010, 03:54 PM

In all fairness, if you bad mouth the boss you usually get fired.

Omahan · 06-23-2010, 04:30 PM

Sometimes keeping your job is not worth keeping silent about something. Some things are much more important than keeping a job - even a job you enjoy. I think Obama was within his right to fire McChrystal and it was doubtful they could work together any longer. Everything I have ever heard about McChrystal leads me to believe he's a man of honor and I suspect he made his decisions accordingly.

john_galt · 06-24-2010, 12:05 AM

I wonder what cheaper wants me to say...

McChrystal spoke out of turn and did show disrespect (well deserved) but it was wrong. A good commander (I'm talking about Obama here) would have understood about the stress of the situation and made a joke about it like R Reagan. Obama is too thin skinned for that so good bye General.
I have to wonder if McChrystal did this on purpose in order to stop the summer offensive. He had only half the troops he wanted and lost almost three months waiting for what he got. If he is removed from his billet then there is a possibility to postpone the offensive indefinitely and save US lives. Next summer the troops come home (maybe). Of course now we get to see how the left will try to destroy his reputation before he can unload to the press. Which is why Obama may well keep him in the Army for a few months so this can quiet down.

I have to say this; Glenn Beck is talking about the photo of Obama with his fly and I have been dying to say that flies really know their shit and Beelzebub is always accompanied by flies.

Cheaper2buyit · 06-24-2010, 12:32 AM

no john I want you say the only thing that matters McChrystal Has no public talking points to say unless his press officer says so he's to keep personal thoughts to himself. If he wants to vent then have some troups blow something up. keep your mouth shut & your gun clean said one wise chief

KCJoe · 06-24-2010, 01:03 AM

Wasn't there a general who spoke out about the need for more troops for the Iraq invasion and was promptly sacked by Rumsfield?

I don't think there is any deeper meaning to what McChrystal said other than he and his staff got too comfortable around a reporter and forgot that what they were saying might get reported. If he didn't like the civilian leadership decisions, he could have always claimed Obama was foreign born and disobeyed his orders.

lacrew_2000 · 06-24-2010, 07:39 AM

Its worth pointing out that McChrystal has stated he voted for Obama. He was also placed in his post by Obama....some people are painting this as a left vs right thing...its really a domestic dispute between lefties.

I think Obama could have just played it off, said the general needs to zip his lips, but has a job to do...so he keeps his post. They could even go through the drill of the general offering his resignation, but Obama refusing to accept it.

Two things prevented that. First, the article is insulting to France, and that nation is one of the few still 'helping out' in Afghanistan. Second, he reflexively summoned the general to D.C. for a 'woodshedding' (and his press secretary started publicly scolding the general like a five year old). Once that happened, the general had to go.

The replacement is interesting, because the left despised this man a few short years ago. Makes me wonder if the administration had a hard time finding volunteers.

catnipdipper · 06-24-2010, 09:06 AM

I think that given the situation Obama picked the one, best person for the job. I am positive that Gates thought so too. If we were going to fight an all out take no prisoners strategy I would have chosen a Marine. As he said that War is bigger than any one person.

Gates and Clinton are in my opinion the 2 best cabinet members.

The guy Rumsfeld sacked is now head of the VA.

dirty dog · 06-24-2010, 10:52 AM

It wasnt so much that he critisized Obamas decisions he commented on some more personal issues like the President looked intimidated etc. In this case he made the right decision to remove him, his choice of replacement is probably the best one because he knows the general agrees with his stratagy, is familar with the details and would be able to get up to full speed more seemlessly than someone from outside the command.