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

[JimboDaMan]

Riiiiight.

What blog dropped that nugget in your lap?

Technically he's right. But if we followed the letter of the law who would be left to command the troops?

[Redskins Diehard]

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.

It is not a good situation. As I mentioned earlier that placing McChrystal in charge of the Afghan operation was a 2 thumbs up decision in my opinion. Originally I thought there was no way he would survive this. Now I am not so sure. It wasn't an interview. And many of the things that "McChrystal said" are actually things that either his staff said or things that a source said he said. President Obama is doing the smart thing here. Call him in and get to the bottom of it. McChrystal SHOULD be apologetic, even if not for his own words then for those of his staff. Bite Me and "the dinner is gay" is no issue if Rolling Stone isn't around.

[Fergasun]

I think its still an issue, even if Rolling Stone isn't around. In fact if the problem is "who would be left to command the troops", well that shows a serious issue with civilian control by the military. The fact that McCrystal didn't go on record or even on "deep background" means nothing, it's obvious he shares the same thoughts as his staff, otherwise he would've been perturbed by the comments and the article would've made note that McCrystal did not approve of the comments by his staff.

[twa]

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.

Yes, perhaps this will be a catalyst to change the 'diplomatic' side of the equation...the current adversarial bs between the departments is not helping.

I'm not holding my breath though.

[Fergasun]

I hope Obama calls him in with the intention of telling him, "you're fired!". Its the only option he has at this point. Of course he should get to the bottom of everything and understand what's going on, what strategic things are not working... but there's a lot wrong with the article, especially the presumption that there will be a surge in 2011, really guys?

The military has to respect civilian control, period.

[Thiebear]

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.

The diplomat is not doing interviews with Rolling stone and disrespecting the chain of commnand... Seems to me he should not be punished because the General hates civilians he has to work for/with.

[Redskins Diehard]

I think its still an issue, even if Rolling Stone isn't around. In fact if the problem is "who would be left to command the troops", well that shows a serious issue with civilian control by the military. The fact that McCrystal didn't go on record or even on "deep background" means nothing, it's obvious he shares the same thoughts as his staff, otherwise he would've been perturbed by the comments and the article would've made note that McCrystal did not approve of the comments by his staff.

Still an issue sure. Barely a blip. Of course he has opinions. You don't think senior leaders had thoughts of Rumsfeld? You don't think commanders and staffs talked about him? And Bush. And Cheney. And Gen Meyers. Of course they did. These people are not "on" 24 hours a day. They should be "on" when the media is around.

[mardi gras skin]

I read the rolling stones article and the whole tone of McChrystal's inner circle was shocking. But what exactly did McChrystal say? I got from the article that a meeting with Obama went poorly. McChrystal felt Obama wasn't prepared and that Obama seemed to be intimidated by the top military leaders.

Was there something else?

And why was a Rolling Stones reporter given access anyway?

[JMS]

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

I agree with you. McChrystal is a very respected guy. If he's fired over this it will be a lose. I'm still hoping this is a woodshed moment, and not a career ending moment.

I heard it wasn't even McChrystal who is quoted as saying the objectionable things. It was offercers on his staff. McChrystal should be given every opprotunity to back away from the offending statements, and if he does that this episode should be over. If not, then he should be fired. It's all about whether they believe he can be trusted to follow the Presidents orders.

[Redskins Diehard]

The diplomat is not doing interviews with Rolling stone and disrespecting the chain of commnand... Seems to me he should not be punished because the General hates civilians he has to work for/with.

Probably because nobody wants an embed with the diplomat. Find the disrespect that came in an interview. Even the articles about the article say that he really didn't say anything about Obama. And all he said about Biden was "Biden? Who's that?"

[HSW]

I agree with you. McChrystal is a very respected guy. If he's fired over this it will be a lose. I'm still hoping this is a woodshed moment, and not a career ending moment.

I heard it wasn't even McChrystal who is quoted as saying the objectionable things. It was offercers on his staff. McChrystal should be given every opprotunity to back away from the offending statements, and if he does that this episode should be over. If not, then he should be fired. It's all about whether they believe he can be trusted to follow the Presidents orders.

He is done. He already got his "get-out-of-jail" pass after the

Pat Tillman death/cover-up incident. He was the senior General

in that mess.

[Fergasun]

I'm sorry that's BS. The article shows a whole lack of respect.

Let me count the ways of disrespect:

- We don't really have allies, we are just pretending to work with other countries. There's no doubt about that now.

- I don't want to take on the task of continually selling the war to other people. Even though it is my war, I'm the highest General in the country, and it is my responsibility (or at least someone higher than me thinks it is).

- Meeting with our allies, like the French is "gay" (well, McCrystal wasn't around for that comment).

- Even though the President told me to "shut up and keep a low profile", I'm not going to.

- Let's openly joke and laugh about the Vice President, forgetting that he's part of the chain of command, and deserves respect with the position (and its likely Biden was speaking on behalf of the White House). I already got in trouble for doing that once, I'm going to do it again.

- Let's openly question whether the President is fit to be Commander-in-Chief; I thought he was intimidated by the military.

- Let's also question the President's diplomatic efforts as well.

- We can also be presumptious that we'll get another surge in summer 2011.

Now, here's the question for those who think he should keep his job. Is the President in charge, or the military? In our Constitutional system, the President is in charge of everything, and in fact it is the Executive who is most able to run a single unified policy. If the military is not focused on executing the policy, rather works to undermine the policy, well Obama has every right to fire them.

[MEANDWARF]

Not happy on how this country is being run, and I like McChrystal, but Obama should fire him. The president will show weakness if he doesn't. IMO.

[Chicken Fried]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm sorry that's BS. The article shows a whole lack of respect.

Let me count the ways of disrespect:

- We don't really have allies, we are just pretending to work with other countries. There's no doubt about that now.

- I don't want to take on the task of continually selling the war to other people. Even though it is my war, I'm the highest General in the country, and it is my responsibility (or at least someone higher than me thinks it is).

- Meeting with our allies, like the French is "gay" (well, McCrystal wasn't around for that comment).

- Even though the President told me to "shut up and keep a low profile", I'm not going to.

- Let's openly joke and laugh about the Vice President, forgetting that he's part of the chain of command, and deserves respect with the position (and its likely Biden was speaking on behalf of the White House). I already got in trouble for doing that once, I'm going to do it again.

- Let's openly question whether the President is fit to be Commander-in-Chief; I thought he was intimidated by the military.

- Let's also question the President's diplomatic efforts as well.

- We can also be presumptious that we'll get another surge in summer 2011.

Now, here's the question for those who think he should keep his job. Is the President in charge, or the military? In our Constitutional system, the President is in charge of everything, and in fact it is the Executive who is most able to run a single unified policy. If the military is not focused on executing the policy, rather works to undermine the policy, well Obama has every right to fire them.

The President runs the military.(most of the people that you appear to think are in the "chain of command" actually are not. But that is beside the point) It is completely the President's prerogative to keep him or fire him. And McChrystal, foolishly in my opinion, has given enough reason to justify it. That doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

May be a good idea to reread the article and understand what GEN McChrystal said. What the author has said(the whole keep up the image that we actually have allies is the author "editorializing"). And what the McChrystal supposedly said to an unnamed aide who in turn share it with the journalist.

Oh and you forgot to mention he put up his middle finger...the horror of it all.

[Thiebear]

Image is everything diehard: spin as you might... his image is done.

.002% of the people will re-read the article 7 times to try and parse out the 'good' points.

[JimboDaMan]

I think its still an issue, even if Rolling Stone isn't around. In fact if the problem is "who would be left to command the troops", well that shows a serious issue with civilian control by the military. The fact that McCrystal didn't go on record or even on "deep background" means nothing, it's obvious he shares the same thoughts as his staff, otherwise he would've been perturbed by the comments and the article would've made note that McCrystal did not approve of the comments by his staff.

I don't see that it shows a serious problem with civilian control of the military. I doubt its any defferent than it ever is. Military brass always thinks their civilian commanders are pinheads. The breach is in openly displaying this disrespect. Its not that they think this way, its that they think its OK to give the civilians the finger in public.

[Fergasun]

That was my attempt to synthesize between McCrystal and his staff. Just because he never went directly "on-record" doesn't mean anything, those were clear thoughts on page 1 I gleamed from McCrystal, and the existence of this article. The President runs the whole country. So when you insult the Vice President's strategy (which no doubt was approved by the President, went through his office and advisors, etc.), you are insulting the President. That's the whole point of calling McCrystal back the first time and meeting him on AF1.

Do you think Obama's cabinet and officials up there act independent of the White House? While it's true they can have internal debate, no doubt there was White House (ergo Obama) approval prior to Biden putting his strategy on the table.

Why does UCMJ Article 88 mention the President, Vice President, other cabinet level positions? Because those are other top-level civilians and insulting them or showing a lack of respect for them and their positions undermines the cilivian-military control.

This article was pre-cleared to be run and I have no doubt that when the author wrote he he cleared it through McCyrstal's staff. Whether McChrystal personally cleared it in its form is another question, however that's why the staff member got fired.

[DCranon21]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

He should of went off the record then or just not have them onboard the plane with him in order for this all to happen. That is his fault.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

See below. It's in the UCMJ.

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.

[The 12th Commandment]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

He bears no responsibility for his own actions? I bet he would disagree with you very strongly and be offended that you even suggest this.

[Fergasun]

Navy Times: Special Ops Officers Shocked by McCrystal CommentsComments are from a special forces officers who worked with McCrystal previously. It's a good article, but obviously I agree mostly with the final point.

“I was surprised they would speak like that, even amongst themselves,” said another special operations officer who has worked extensively with McChrystal and his staff in Afghanistan. “I know all of his inner staff…[and] I never heard anybody say anything politically negative about Obama. Nobody ever said anything incendiary about Obama… or about the administration.”

...

The field grade SF officer with extensive experience in Afghanistan said he wasn’t surprised at the nature of the comments attributed to McChrystal and his staff. “I’m sure that stuff happens on every staff,” he said. “I’m sure it happens in the Oval Office.” What shocked him, he said, was that the officers apparently felt comfortable making the comments in the presence of a Rolling Stone reporter.

...

The negative remarks about civilian administration officials that were attributed to McChrystal and his staff ought to seal the general’s fate, the field grade SF officer said. “I don’t see how McChrystal is ever going to be able to interact with Holbrooke or [u.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl] Eikenberry or the president or Biden or anyone else that was disparaged in this article again,” he said. “And that makes him ineffective and that’s why he needs to go. I’m going to be disappointed in Obama if he doesn’t fire him.”

[Thiebear]

You know its not going to be good when the interviewer says this:

One of the most vivid scenes in the stories comes when you are out with the general, his wife, and his team for a night on the town in Paris. His team is entirely forthright with you, did that surprise you?

Well, they were getting hammered, I don’t know at that moment if they were being the most forthright. Of course it was surprising. A lot of the reporting that is getting most of the attention happened right away in the first few days in Paris. So I was surprised—because they didn’t know me.

[Jumbo]

All those the comments being made on foreign soil...turrible turrible :evilg: :pfft:

[Madison Redskin]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

Rolling Stone didn't end General McChrystal's career, General McChrystal did.

[MEANDWARF]

I hope Rolling Stone is proud of themselves. They just ruined the career of the greatest thing to happen to the Iraq war. He is responsible for the deaths of top Al-Qaeda leaders such as Al-Zarqawi. His resume is amazing. He's proven himself to be an excellent commander. It's a shame a little punk writing for a magazine can ruin him. What's more is that our brave soldiers are now at a strategic and moral disadvantage. They just lost their top commander who they could trust to make intelligent strategic decisions.

Also, I don't know all military protocol, but this doesn't seem to be a breach in chain of command. McChrystal didn't disobey orders; he criticized. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

I am surprize that McChrystal let a Rolling Stone reporter hang with them.

Like him or not, criticizing the Comander and Chief is not good. But I agree McChrystal is a fine military man. Said he had to go base on an article by an "Entertainment" Magazine.