WaPo: Gen. Stanley McChrystal coming to Washington to explain anti-administration comments

[Redskins Diehard]

So he would have been forced out w/o running his big mouth? Puleeze.

You seem to be confused about that whole cause-and-effect thing.

Out of curiosity...how much of the article did you read? Or did you read newspaper accounts of the article. In your opinion...what was it he said when "running his big mouth" cost him his job?

[Redskins Diehard]

That man was taken down by his own actions, not by the reporter.

Keep in mind, even if nobody had reported this, the culture within the general's staff seemed to be that everyone non-military was an idiot. Not just in general terms, but specific people were "clowns", etc. The counterinsurgency strategy involves a kind of "holistic" military-political-economic-social effort that requires coordination between different groups with different mindsets. Not easy to work effectively with a team when you are openly mocking the other members.

And I am sure NOBODY in the embassy is talking about the snake eating non-thinker knuckle dragging trigger pullers that have a different vantage point of the whole thing than the enlightened diplomats.

If you read through this thread you would see that I generally agree with the fact that he is responsible for what happened. I am surprised that he and his staff were so casual and informal around this journalist.

[Burgold]

How long did it take for them to get a percentage of the manpower they requested?

I was once told that when it comes to military budgets or personnel requests that the DOD usually doubles or triples the amount they actually want or figure they need b/c they know that Congress or the Pres is bound to give them less than what they ask for. I think that is part of the game.

You know, a shoot for the stars so you can at least land on the moon kind of thing. I believe very few proposed budgets or requests are minimalistic.

[twa]

If you read through this thread you would see that I generally agree with the fact that he is responsible for what happened. I am surprised that he and his staff were so casual and informal around this journalist.

Just for clarity I agree he is ultimately responsible(and did what HAD to be done as a result) and it was a stupid to allow that kind of access w/o control of the published piece.

[JimboDaMan]

Out of curiosity...how much of the article did you read? Or did you read newspaper accounts of the article. In your opinion...what was it he said when "running his big mouth" cost him his job?

You're missing the point, or maybe you're making it for me. It isn't the specific quotes from the general that appear in the article. Its the overall attitude of disdain in the general's office for the other players. Its the fact that this attitude is so accepted they don't even see the problem in carrying on in front of a reporter.

And yes, I expect there's an attitude in the embassy that the military just doesn't grasp the problems. But I don't know that for sure, because they so far haven't been foolish enough to let that leak out of their own circle. If they start talking publicly about Army GI Joes with bullet-sized brains I expect there'll be some changes coming there also.

[twa]

But I don't know that for sure, because they so far haven't been foolish enough to let that leak out of their own circle. If they start talking publicly about Army GI Joes with bullet-sized brains I expect there'll be some changes coming there also.

So now you agree the cause was the reporter?

[Redskins Diehard]

You're missing the point, or maybe you're making it for me. It isn't the specific quotes from the general that appear in the article. Its the overall attitude of disdain in the general's office for the other players. Its the fact that this attitude is so accepted they don't even see the problem in carrying on in front of a reporter.

And yes, I expect there's an attitude in the embassy that the military just doesn't grasp the problems. But I don't know that for sure, because they so far haven't been foolish enough to let that leak out of their own circle. If they start talking publicly about Army GI Joes with bullet-sized brains I expect there'll be some changes coming there also.

I am trying to figure out if you have a problem that the attitude exists or if you have a problem with the fact that you know the attitude exists. You seemingly acknowledge that the attitude likely exists in the embassy. I suspect you haven't read the leaked Eikenberry communication. We know what Eikenberry thought of the position that President Obama eventually decided to proceed with(McChrystal's/Petraeus' recommendation)

The reason why it isn't the specific quotes is because as it turns out there really aren't any out there. I can't believe a "another email from him...don't want to read that" is actually getting so much play. Who hasn't said that about an email from a colleague, or superior, or subordinate?

[Redskins Diehard]

Just for clarity I agree he is ultimately responsible(and did what HAD to be done as a result) and it was a stupid to allow that kind of access w/o control of the published piece.

The military will NEVER have control over the published piece. NEVER. Minus a clear violation of operational security.

[twa]

The military will NEVER have control over the published piece. NEVER. Minus a clear violation of operational security.

Which is why it is stupid to allow behind the scenes access at that level

[Redskins Diehard]

Which is why it is stupid to allow behind the scenes access at that level

I would agree that it is foolish to allow access for that long of a period of time. Again, I am very surprised that the staff either lacked the discipline or awareness to allow the reporter to hear the things he did. That kind of access can be beneficial...or it can turn out like this.

[Redskins Diehard]

I was once told that when it comes to military budgets or personnel requests that the DOD usually doubles or triples the amount they actually want or figure they need b/c they know that Congress or the Pres is bound to give them less than what they ask for. I think that is part of the game.

You know, a shoot for the stars so you can at least land on the moon kind of thing. I believe very few proposed budgets or requests are minimalistic.

Why am I not surprised that you are presenting the argument that Obama actually gave McChrystal what he wanted or needed even though it was significantly less than what he asked for?

I once heard that Obama actually was forced to give a lower number of resources than was requested just to prove that he was in charge. A "you'll get what I give you" move. That keeping up appearances instead of actually doing what is required for the mission is part of the game. That is what I once heard.

[Burgold]

You don't think that when people write up budget proposals that they ask for more than they need? Really? You think the requests made are the absolute essential and minimum or even the ideal numbers?

Almost every section of the government does this. It ain't military exclusively and it didn't start with Obama. The only guys who produce a minimum budget are the guys whose program is on the chopping block.

[Redskins Diehard]

You don't think that when people write up budget proposals that they ask for more than they need? Really? You think the requests made are the absolute essential and minimum or even the ideal numbers?

Almost every section of the government does this. It ain't military exclusively and it didn't start with Obama. The only guys who produce a minimum budget are the guys whose program is on the chopping block.

What is it called when you take an issue about one thing(personnel requirements) and turn it into another thing(budget requests)?

[Burgold]

I imagine the principle is the same, don't you?

Do you think they ask for the exact number, the absolute minimum number of people they need?

[Redskins Diehard]

I imagine the principle is the same, don't you?

Do you think they ask for the exact number, the absolute minimum number of people they need?

No, I think they present options. And they tell the President what they can do with the various levels of troops. And then the President makes a decision. And that is pretty much how this one played out.

[JimboDaMan]

So now you agree the cause was the reporter?

Its ridiculous to blame this on the reporter.

[twa]

Its ridiculous to blame this on the reporter.

True, the decision to allow access is the main problem.

The General and staff were simply following their nature...as was the reporter with a scoop.

Cause is not the same as blame.

Talking crap by the General and staff nor a reporter reporting in and of themselves is a problem and are natural to a degree.

Combining the two is idiocy.

[Fergasun]

Redskins Diehard,

As a citizen the best thing I can do is look at things from the Republican and Democratic perspective. I also think its worth having an understanding of how the White House works. Any speech or statement from the White House or cabinet member is managed by senior advisers working on policy. They figure out what's going on and how it fits with what the President is doing (or what they think the President should be doing), and advise the tone and what type of speech it should be.

The President wants to ensure that everyone is working on that July 2011 pull-out. Certainly there is friction between him and the military. There is no need to make that friction any more evident than already is. Consider that part of the "big picture" was Obama seen as more diplomatic than Bush, and contrast it with McCrystal's attitude toward meeting with allies.

Like I said before; the President is in charge of everything. Yes, he's in charge of the military, he's also in charge of the ambasadors, special envoy's, and what not. Everything. McCrystal, Eikenberry, Holbrooke all serve at the pleasure and will of the President (and his shadow advisors). To have a military general who thinks that there will be another surge in 2011, and can simply spout off about other folks who quite frankly may be doing what the President wants is not wise.

We can debate over whether this is the best way to run the country. Since we've never elected a real independent over a partisan (the last chance was Perot), we'll never get even non-partisan neutral policy. The politicians have to play to the base, and rule to the "mandate" they make up.

[Burgold]

How long did it take for them to get a percentage of the manpower they requested?

This was the statement that caused our mini-discussion. A statement that you didn't contest.

No, I think they present options. And they tell the President what they can do with the various levels of troops. And then the President makes a decision. And that is pretty much how this one played out.

So, which is it? Did the they get a lower percentage of the manpower requested or did the President choose amongst the options granted? You're playing word games. The DOD requests a number that they know is unlikely to be funded and a series of other options. The President and his advisors mull through the numbers and rationales and make a pick, but the number that is generally published is generally the "dream" number and not the one the DOD actually expects or needs.

[Redskins Diehard]

This was the statement that caused our mini-discussion. A statement that you didn't contest.

So, which is it? Did the they get a lower percentage of the manpower requested or did the President choose amongst the options granted? You're playing word games. The DOD requests a number that they know is unlikely to be funded and a series of other options. The President and his advisors mull through the numbers and rationales and make a pick, but the number that is generally published is generally the "dream" number and not the one the DOD actually expects or needs.

I am playing "word games" and you are claiming that the military padded the troop requirements and asked for "x" troops when all they really needed was "y". We are talking about troop requirements and you go off on some tangent about budget requests(which by the way a parallel could be drawn, you just haven't done it). They absolutely got a lower percentage of manpower to execute the mission that the President assigned(the mission that McChrystal recommended) I know this is Obama's decision so it is unlikely to get objective criticism from his supporters so lets look at a recent example that I am sure you are more willing to be critical of. In the lead up to the Iraq invasion GEN Shinseki said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq post invasion. While the commanders were given enough troops to accomplish the mission but it obviously came with increased risk. It didn't work out so well there did it?

It is absolutely the President's prerogative to send any number of troops he wants. But it is his decision and he owns that one. Only in a support Obama at all costs world would the rationale be "the General I picked is padding his numbers so I am going to assume that he could actually do it with 50% of the troops he said he required because that is what he really needs to do the job"

[Burgold]

and you go off on some tangent about budget requests(which by the way a parallel could be drawn, you just haven't done it).

Well, I thought I did. I certainly see and understand the parallel as apparently did you.

It is absolutely the President's prerogative to send any number of troops he wants. But it is his decision and he owns that one.

Yup. For good and bad.

Only in a support Obama at all costs world would the rationale be "the General I picked is padding his numbers so I am going to assume that he could actually do it with 50% of the troops he said he required because that is what he really needs to do the job"

Ugh. That level of rhetoric really helps no one, you know. I believe that all numbers presented are inflated unless the entire program is on the chopping block. Everyone always wants more. Do they inflate by 10%, 50% 300% I don't know, but the numbers requested are always inflated. I think it is consciously done and consciously understood. Do you think that the DOD really wanted to pay 300 dollars for those infamous hammers or forty dollars per infamous nail? There's padding that goes on.

[Redskins Diehard]

Ugh. That level of rhetoric really helps no one, you know. I believe that all numbers presented are inflated unless the entire program is on the chopping block. Everyone always wants more. Do they inflate by 10%, 50% 300% I don't know, but the numbers requested are always inflated. I think it is consciously done and consciously understood. Do you think that the DOD really wanted to pay 300 dollars for those infamous hammers or forty dollars per infamous nail? There's padding that goes on.

Okay so did the White House and Pentagon agree on the percentage of increase ahead of time so that in the end the commander could get the number of troops he thought he needed? The unwillingness to say Obama decided to give a different number of troops because that is the decision he made helps no one in my opinion. Instead of saying well he choose a less number but it actually really was the number they wanted. I wonder if you had the same viewpoint when GEN Shinseki was not given the number of troops he asked for in Iraq.

[ZoEd]

Can't help but wonder if the same disdain would have been levied against a General who spoke out against Bush.

[Redskins Diehard]

Can't help but wonder if the same disdain would have been levied against a General who spoke out against Bush.

Maybe same disdain...but definitely different people.

[ZoEd]

Maybe same disdain...but definitely different people.

If it were Bush the same people with their panties in a bunch would be breaking their arms patting themselves on the back yelling "I told you so!"