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

[Fergasun]

At some point, all Wars end. The problem here is that if we pull out on the President's time table, we are putting ourselves in a very bad position. Attacks are becoming more prevalent. If these planned attacks are financed with the kind of money Al Qaeda had available to them when they were running drugs, like they were previously, that's a very dangerous combination. Not just politically but for the country. You really have to think about what pulling out means.

You have to ask yourself the question, does pulling out mean that terrorists will not come back to the U.S. or does it mean that it only provides more resources with which to work? If another 9/11 attack happens, that means that you have to go through the expense and all the rest of redeploying etc. That's not something our economy can do at this point. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's as easy as just pulling out.

Yes, but the attacks are coming from other places and other people. So what's to say that being in Afghanistan is deterring anything? I think the problem was and remains airport security, no fly list, surveillance of terrorists, etc. It's not like we had no idea there was some plan to attack us and were completely blindsided. If we spent as much money on working on tools that help us connect the dots instead of country building.... who knows. I hope we have goodwill from the Iraqis and Afghanis, I really do, and for them our money is worth it. But at some point we have to admit reaching diminishing returns.

You're point would advocate us being in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, or elsewhere since someone wants to attack us. I think we need to work on a better defense.

[Special K]

I just saw a Rick Sanchez interview on a colleague's laptop that was just aired with the article's author, and wow, the number of things/people commented on in this matter, and the nature of the comments, really does make this a real "wtf were they thinking" moment above and beyond the general topic of these players in this context being critical in public. There is really some odd (to be cautious for now in use of terms) judgement shown.

Be grateful it is not worse

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544314-mcchrystals-pr-man-resigns-how-rolling-stone-got-more-access

Yeah, I'd say the heavy boozing could explain these comments....

[Fergasun]

Wait a minute. You absolutely can have an attitude about your Chain of Command. You just can't display in a manner that undermines that chain of command. You can ***** to confidants, complain to friends, heck even post on message boards when you are not identified. And yes SSGs ***** about their chain of command to one another.

(OK these word censors are just too sensitive - the female dog word is taboo?).

Can the SSG ***** about the GEN to the PFC? McCrystal ****ing about the President to his staff strikes me as much. Is his staff made of subordinates or is it made up of peers? I'm pretty sure it is made up of peers. Certainly I think there is some level of ****ing, however the comments showed a lack of respect.

This may be an extreme thought, but do I really want to find out if the Army is more loyal to McCrystal or Obama?

The President has a unique role. He's in charge of everything dealing with and controlling the Executive branch. Anyone this far out of control deserves to be gone. It's sad that Obama has been put in this situation by no power of his own, in fact direct insubordination. If he doesn't accept the resignation he looks very weak...

[twa]

Just for clarity it was not O he was mainly ****ing about.

Still foolish to allow reporter that kind of access

[Redskins Diehard]

Can the SSG ***** about the GEN to the PFC? McCrystal ****ing about the President to his staff strikes me as much. Is his staff made of subordinates or is it made up of peers? I'm pretty sure it is made up of peers. Certainly I think there is some level of ****ing, however the comments showed a lack of respect.

This may be an extreme thought, but do I really want to find out if the Army is more loyal to McCrystal or Obama?

The President has a unique role. He's in charge of everything dealing with and controlling the Executive branch. Anyone this far out of control deserves to be gone. It's sad that Obama has been put in this situation by no power of his own, in fact direct insubordination. If he doesn't accept the resignation he looks very weak...

A commander's relationship with his staff is a little different than a squad leader's relationship with a rifleman. No his staff is not made of peers. He literally has no peers in the country.

I have looked at part of the actual Rolling Stone article and have to say that my thought that he had to be fired has softened a bit. It seems that most of what he "said" was actually passed on to the reporter by "sources". If that is true then it changes some. His staff, and to some degree him, was WAY to informal with the guy from Rolling Stone. You have to know that he is not there to paint a flattering picture of the military.

[nonniey]

Can the SSG ***** about the GEN to the PFC? McCrystal ****ing about the President to his staff strikes me as much. Is his staff made of subordinates or is it made up of peers? I'm pretty sure it is made up of peers. Certainly I think there is some level of ****ing, however the comments showed a lack of respect.

This may be an extreme thought, but do I really want to find out if the Army is more loyal to McCrystal or Obama?

The President has a unique role. He's in charge of everything dealing with and controlling the Executive branch. Anyone this far out of control deserves to be gone. It's sad that Obama has been put in this situation by no power of his own, in fact direct insubordination. If he doesn't accept the resignation he looks very weak...

As I said (earlier) Gen McChrystal crossed the line as he most certainly did undermine the President and made him look clueless. I see no way he can nor should retain his position.

Our duty would be to the President before any subordinate officer.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I just saw his comments on the news....wow, he really let Obama have it.

[Veretax]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being trumped up to try and get pressure off Obama's PR nightmares of late?

[Wrong Direction]

I think McCrystal should be fired, though his resignation is more likely to be accepted. You just don't do this to our CiC in a time of war. My question is, did he do this on purpose?

If yes, he did it w/o honor. He could have resigned very publicly with his criticsms. Instead, he went to Rolling Stone of all places? Very weak.

If he didn't do it on purpose, he's probably freaking punch drunk from all of the war. I'm not sure I could ever trust his judgement if he can be so reckless.

This has already raised the debate about our strategy in Afghanistan back into prominence. The left is saying we should leave, the right is saying we might not have gone strong enough. The President is in an incredibly difficult position on this issue. I just hope he looks at this through the eyes of a CiC, not through the eyes of a politician.

[Madison Redskin]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being trumped up to try and get pressure off Obama's PR nightmares of late?

General McChrystal is effectively in charge of the war in Afghanistan and he criticized the Commander in Chief and the Vice President of the United States on the record in an interview with a member of the press. He might resign or be relieved of his command. It's a ******* HUGE story.

[Wrong Direction]

Am I the only one who thinks this is being trumped up to try and get pressure off Obama's PR nightmares of late?

This is another nightmare for Obama, is it not? I mean his head General in Afghanistan just called his national security team and VP a bunch of clowns. That doesn't exactly instill confidence in our leadership.

[zoony]

I know Kilmer and others are correct (and Fox and FoxNews/moron-fans are going to do the same brain-donor dances they always do), but I personally like intelligent dissent even at the top. But I defer to the valid points ya'all make on the matter and well know the military chain of command needs to be different for proper functioning. There are appropriate ways you express dissent in that realm. And I remember how Johnson and Nixon took plenty of heat about politicized/strategic choices and their own "field competency" during Vietnam. But while getting crucified in public venues, they didn't suffer their top military staff fragging the CIC or his cronies in the media.

I agree with this.

People who are saying that there "is a chain of command and that is that" I don't think fully realize the political implications of being a General or Admiral.

What I do have a problem with, however, is the way this general went about providing the feedback. At best, it's extremely poor judgement.

[Redskins Diehard]

General McChrystal is effectively in charge of the war in Afghanistan and he criticized the Commander in Chief and the Vice President of the United States on the record in an interview with a member of the press. He might resign or be relieved of his command. It's a ******* HUGE story.

I thought the same thing until I read through the article. Most of the criticism of the CiC was stuff that "sources" relayed to the journalist. It is not the same as him going on the record with the press.

[The 12th Commandment]

McChyrstal, Internet Champion of the far right, 2012 presidential candidate (even though he's apparently a dem) and political medal of honor winner - not too popular with the troops? Yeah, it' the NYT so the spin will be questioned and it's the presidents policy too but he's more than a willing participant, it's an interesting read. A bit discouraging as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23troops.html?ref=global-home

“I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon,” he said to a reporter in the back. “Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it’s like.”

The sergeant was speaking of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and the circle of counterinsurgents who since last year have been running the Afghan war, and who have, as a matter of both policy and practice, made it much more difficult for troops to use airstrikes and artillery in the fight against the Taliban.

No matter the outcome of his meeting on Wednesday in Washington over caustic comments he and his staff made about President Obama and his national security team, the general, or his successor, faces problems from a constituency as important as his bosses and that no commander wants to lose: his own troops.

As levels of violence in Afghanistan climb, there is a palpable and building sense of unease among troops surrounding one of the most confounding questions about how to wage the war: when and how lethal force should be used.

Since last year, the counterinsurgency doctrine championed by those now leading the campaign has assumed an almost unchallenged supremacy in the ranks of the American military’s career officers. The doctrine, which has been supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations, rests on core assumptions, including that using lethal force against an insurgency intermingled with a civilian population is often counterproductive.

Since General McChrystal assumed command, he has been a central face and salesman of this idea, and he has applied it to warfare in a tangible way: by further tightening rules guiding the use of Western firepower — airstrikes and guided rocket attacks, artillery barrages and even mortar fire — to support troops on the ground.

- continued at link

[Redskins Diehard]

McChyrstal, Internet Champion of the far right, 2012 presidential candidate (even though he's apparently a dem) and political medal of honor winner - not too popular with the troops? Yeah, it' the NYT so the spin will be questioned and it's the presidents policy too but he's more than a willing participant, it's an interesting read. A bit discouraging as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23troops.html?ref=global-home

- continued at link

Wonder where you got "apparently he is a Dem"...is it because he voted for Obama?

I am not surprised that some of the lower echelons have problems with this strategy. One, they aren't focused on strategy. They are focused at the tactical level as they should be. Two, it puts them at increased risk. Similar to the surge in Iraq. Get people out of giant bases and in armored hmmwvs. It is dangerous. Three, like the article says they complain about everything. It is the way it is.

For what it is worth, the term "Sergeant" has been used by the media to describe soldiers with anywhere from 4 years to 30 years of experience. It is not a very precise term

[The 12th Commandment]

Wonder where you got "apparently he is a Dem"...is it because he voted for Obama?

Yup.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yup.

That's probably a stretch to equate a vote with membership in a party. More likely that he would keep his options open.

[Fergasun]

KAOSkin,

That's odd. In the Rolling Stone article it talks about McCrystal personally going on foot patrol and getting involved at the lower level in response to e-mails sent to him. Additionally talks of him talking to soldiers and not getting a real good response.

This is one of the reasons I think we need to bring them home; I think our military has done a good job to adapt to the COIN strategy, I'm not sure its the best way to use our forces when we have to go COIN.

[The 12th Commandment]

That's probably a stretch to equate a vote with membership in a party. More likely that he would keep his options open.

Hence the apparently and not a statement. Really not the most important part of the post IMO. Just a little pot stirring.:evilg:

This is one of the reasons I think we need to bring them home; I think our military has done a good job to adapt to the COIN strategy, I'm not sure its the best way to use our forces when we have to go COIN.

I sure am starting to lean that way. What are we going to accomplish? Maybe Clinton had something with the just bomb the crap out of them policy but stay off the ground. Probably less effective overall but a whole lot cheaper in terms of lives and money.

[Redskins Diehard]

KAOSkin,

That's odd. In the Rolling Stone article it talks about McCrystal personally going on foot patrol and getting involved at the lower level in response to e-mails sent to him. Additionally talks of him talking to soldiers and not getting a real good response.

This is one of the reasons I think we need to bring them home; I think our military has done a good job to adapt to the COIN strategy, I'm not sure its the best way to use our forces when we have to go COIN.

The notion that Stanley McChrystal no longer understands the "pointy end" of the spear would only be made by someone that does not know that much about the man. His career has hardly been that of a Headquarters Soldier

[Thiebear]

If Iraq is considered to be doing well because of the relationship between the General and the Diplomat. With Afghanistan the opposite.

Seems to me now is a good time to replace the general with someone that will work with the civilian.

Generals are a dime a dozen and this one obviously is not working well with others.

[Fergasun]

Quite frankly McCrystal could be court martial'd over this:

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.”

Article 133

"Conduct unbecoming of an officer."

The problem isn't the personnel. The problem is Afghanistan. If the people don't want us there; well we can leave.

[Redskins Diehard]

Quite frankly McCrystal could be court martial'd over this:

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.”

Article 133

"Conduct unbecoming of an officer."

The problem isn't the personnel. The problem is Afghanistan. If the people don't want us there; well we can leave.

Riiiiight.

What blog dropped that nugget in your lap?

[Redskins Diehard]

If Iraq is considered to be doing well because of the relationship between the General and the Diplomat. With Afghanistan the opposite.

Seems to me now is a good time to replace the general with someone that will work with the civilian.

Generals are a dime a dozen and this one obviously is not working well with others.

Diplomats are a dime for 2 dozen. Especially when you decide not to limit yourself to actual diplomats and instead decide to hire ex-generals as your diplomats. Eikenberry, Karl for example.

Generals with the background of McChrystal are anything but a dime a dozen.

[Fergasun]

I said he *could* (of course he would be tried by his peers...). Certainly Article 133 is a catch-all, but this article clearly points out that there are Article 88 violations at least on his staff.

This is not a very good situation, at all.