EPTI only read a bit of it, but yeah, don't see what the surprise is. Though the whole scapegoat bit is interesting theory.
Obama fires McChrystal, installs Petraeus - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
QuanticHawk
United States32083 Posts
I only read a bit of it, but yeah, don't see what the surprise is. Though the whole scapegoat bit is interesting theory. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7290 Posts
| ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:18 ViRo wrote: Generally the Brass publicly agrees with the President's plans. Their personal opinion is not really suppose to be heard in the public. The problem with this is that it leads to those in charge being able to put all the blame on their lessers. The only way for there to be any personal responsibility is if those who are taking action are vocal about it. Hence why it is not insubordination, and why it should be encouraged to voice dissent. | ||
|
Deleted User 30223
3104 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 30223
3104 Posts
not to mention if obama didn't take action, future generals could take that in the event of any unpopular situation, whether it be a war, or invasion, or whatever, they could openly speak their minds against administration and whatnot and get away with it. | ||
|
Deleted User 30223
3104 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
“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.” Source | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
wrong thread | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:21 itzbrandnew wrote: The problem with this is that it leads to those in charge being able to put all the blame on their lessers. The only way for there to be any personal responsibility is if those who are taking action are vocal about it. Hence why it is not insubordination, and why it should be encouraged to voice dissent. Right or wrong, the military should keep its opinions private. Trashing the administration sends all the wrong signals to everyone, especially our enemies (like the Taliban). For that reason, McChrystal had to go. That said, the criticisms levelled by McChrystal and his staff are basically right. The administration is full of idiots who have no idea what they are doing in Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if McCrystal let the Rolling Stone article air "as is" simply because he was fed up with the crap that he was taking from above. Hell, Obama wouldn't even meet with McCrystal during the first ten months of his presidency. What more needs be said? | ||
|
oBlit
United States22 Posts
This is purely speculation, but what I feel happened is that you have an administration that doesn't know how to do much of anything, much less run a war (actually that is fact, not speculation). You also have a general trying to win a war and protect the lives of his troops. The administration is running the war as they see fit and not in the way the general was asking them to (for instance, not giving him the troop numbers that he needs). He realized it was a lost cause and decided to, in a sense, get the information out there that the current administration is inept. That is the reason he agreed to the interview in the first place. Generals are not stupid people. He knew the reprecussions of doing the interview. I would assume this was all calculated on his part. If this had happened when Bush was President, the entire media would probably be praising the general. | ||
|
Cleomenes
United States138 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:17 bakesale wrote: I'm in the army, and we don't have any special insight on this. We get the same news, and are just as smart/stupid as everyone else. "The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal." Its the idea of moments like this that made me believe that military men would have a fresh opinion. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:27 Mystlord wrote: No question. Breaking chain of command, breaking rules of conduct... I agree with the decision. Yup. We have civilian control over the government. Any grievances should be done in private with the President or whoever you have a problem with. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
oBlit
United States22 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:36 Romantic wrote: Yup. We have civilian control over the government. Any grievances should be done in private with the President or whoever you have a problem with. We do technically have civilian control over the military. That being said, I know members of the military serve and protect us unquestioningly and do their duty for their country. That being said, if I had a commander in chief balking on what really needs to be done to finish the war and bring as many of my fellow soldiers home safely as possible (which is what all Americans want), I would also question him and wonder if I should be risking my life as well when my hands are being tied by my own government. McChrystal should have talked to Obama, but guess what, Obama hardly ever made time for the general and did not give the general what he needed to be successful. McChrystal has to go to sleep every night with those soldiers on his mind. You could say the same thing about Obama, but I honestly don't believe he cares. I agree that McChrystal should be removed for speaking out, but the truth about the war needs to be known one way or the other and I support the general fully. I want those soldiers home safely and to not have their lives given needlessly without support from the government. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:27 Mystlord wrote: No question. Breaking chain of command, breaking rules of conduct... I agree with the decision. Yeah... if this were just a random, "mouthed-off where reporters could hear" it would be easily forgivable, but giving an interview to Rolling Stone is clearly a premeditated act. You cannot have your active generals playing political games. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:31 oBlit wrote: He realized it was a lost cause and decided to, in a sense, get the information out there that the current administration is inept. That is the reason he agreed to the interview in the first place. Generals are not stupid people. He knew the reprecussions of doing the interview. I would assume this was all calculated on his part. How patriotic. <_< He thinks stuff is going poorly, so instead of doing his job, he makes a big mess and accomplishes absolutely nothing in the process. On June 24 2010 04:50 oBlit wrote: McChrystal should have talked to Obama, but guess what, Obama hardly ever made time for the general and did not give the general what he needed to be successful. McChrystal has to go to sleep every night with those soldiers on his mind. You could say the same thing about Obama, but I honestly don't believe he cares. Its impossible to take you seriously when you are comfortable saying the president doesn't care about the troops. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
| ||
|
General.S.McChrystal
2 Posts
| ||
| ||
