| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
number1gog
United States1081 Posts
On June 24 2010 12:02 T0fuuu wrote: lol america is so fucked. Generals cant even communicate with their president.... I don't think communication was McChrystal's issue. I think it was that no one was listening. | ||
|
Not_A_Notion
Ireland441 Posts
On June 24 2010 12:35 NukeTheStars wrote: I don't think this is nearly as bad as some people think. It certainly seems like McChrystal wanted to be let go. He knew the consequences of the interview and he forced Obama's hand. I think this was more McChrystal's decision than anything. He offered to resign before he and Obama even met. Maybe he didn't want his name on the war, maybe he didn't think he could accomplish their goals, or maybe he was just tired. There could be a lot of reasons, but I don't think we'll know the real reason until he gives another interview several years down the road. He could have resigned for phoney baloney health reasons. Would have been less damaging that bad-mouthing those around you. Disgraceful behaviour by a General whatever his motivations, had to go, pure and simple. EDIT* Now as long as Petraeus doesn't come out moaning about his psuedo-demotion^^ | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:04 itzbrandnew wrote: You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this. It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases. Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to? When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is... A ton of other people have already mentioned it, but there's a difference between dissent and public criticism. At that pay grade in the military, they're supposed to question orders or resign if their conscience doesn't meet the task (in practice, not necessarily true) but the commanding general of Afghanistan does not do it to Rolling Stone, nor do his aids. If a similar comment were made by someone in the White House, they'd be gone without question and no one would complain about it. The firing hurts morale, but his comments did even more. This was being openly talked about in the White House and Pentagon, which is a terrible atmosphere to have. Would there be repercussions? If the President does nothing, then that sets a whole new precedent where dissension could become much more prevalent and damaging. Some joint statement would have just seemed canned. Plus, you don't know what really happened behind the scenes between Obama and McChrystal (I don't mean at the 20 minute meeting, but at other JCS stuff.) What if he had previously overshot his expectations for the war in previous meetings, while secretly harboring those thoughts? Let's also not lose sight of the fact that his job security rested on the success of the Marja offensive, no matter what. If it had been a wild success, he probably could've said anything he wanted, and still would have a job. | ||
|
oBlit
United States22 Posts
As I said earlier in this thread, McChrystal is a soldier's general, not a politician's general, and he knew he couldn't get what he wanted for his troops. Petreus has enough support as of right now that, in McChrystal's mind, when he analyzes the situation and goes back to tell the administration what he needs, Petreus may be able to get what McChrystal couldn't. I really feel that McChrystal fell on the sword, so to speak, to help his troops over there. Edit - I don't feel generals should not speak out publicly against the president, but it is also very well known that McChrystal basically got zero time with him. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44373 Posts
On June 24 2010 12:26 dogabutila wrote: Ahh, so you don't know about his efforts to wipe out the Kurds. Which was exactly "deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group" I believe the word genocide in the root of this discussion was applying to Desert Storm which, as far as I know, wasn't a systematic destruction of the Kurds. So you don't know how to read the topic. Which was exactly what we were talking about. Saddam attempted genocide. The United States did not and even if it kills 10x the people Saddam did it still won't be genocide. | ||
|
tryummm
774 Posts
| ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
On June 25 2010 04:03 KwarK wrote: I believe the word genocide in the root of this discussion was applying to Desert Storm which, as far as I know, wasn't a systematic destruction of the Kurds. So you don't know how to read the topic. Which was exactly what we were talking about. Saddam attempted genocide. The United States did not and even if it kills 10x the people Saddam did it still won't be genocide. OHOHOH *I* don't know how to read the topic? *whoosh* That was the point going over your head. On June 24 2010 22:35 buhhy wrote: If you don't remember, the US put Saddam in power to counterbalance Iran. They also supplied arms and supplies to the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the 1980's to counter the Soviet invasion. This has what to do with attempted genocide? | ||
|
Deleted User 30223
3104 Posts
| ||
|
stork4ever
United States1036 Posts
However, the fact that it was leaked to a Rolling stone reporter opens the door to a string of possible behind the scene manipulations. As was state in previous posts and even a perfunctory look at his service record McChrystal is a smart and effective leader. Just the public info we have on him with his black op command shows that he is not someone to be out maneuvered and outsmarted easily. I don't believe he was outsmarted by a Rolling stone reporter following him around. So if he did do this to save his legacy, maneuver for more troops, or some other motive (plenty theories in this thread and all over the net) we will see how it plays out and if he succeeds. It should not suprise anyone if ultimately it is McChrystal that "wins" this chess game. McChrystal wanted more troops then he was given and different policy with regards to ROE and tactics. So he was not seeing eye to eye with Obama but his job requires him to do what he is ordered. He might see this as his last ditch effort to get out of a job he can't do and hopefully get some changes he sees as required for winning the war. on a side note, this guy is similar to Maximus in the Gladiator. He has their respect so I find it irresponsible of him to try to pull any of the stunts I'm alleging him in this post. Soldiers from all ranks do see his actions and hear his words, to see him undermine our CIC in public really conflicts them and makes us question what exactly we are doing and who we should be listening to. While Obama is our CIC and ultimately has the final say, a four star General is well regarded and has our respect base on rank alone and to tack on his relationship with his men, I really hope its a lapse in judgment (its supported by his previous run in's with his mouth) because this kind of manipulation really confuses me, as an officer in the US army. | ||
|
XazXio
United States356 Posts
 | ||
|
oBlit
United States22 Posts
On June 25 2010 13:51 XazXio wrote: can we fire obama instead Sounds absolutely wonderful to me. Get rid of everyone in Washington while we are at it and get some new people in there. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On June 24 2010 04:04 itzbrandnew wrote: You are not in the military, don't make judgments like this. It was not insubordination, he's the damn general in charge. He can speak his mind however he damn well pleases. Wtf is happening here, our generals overseas are having to be PC? Fuck this administration, I'm having to join up for 4 years following this next year and this is what I have to look forwards to? When your man in charge has to fear being sacked over disagreements then all you get is a parrot in charge. Fuckin bullshit is what it is... I'm a former Marine Corps sergeant. It was insubordination. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice it is a crime to disparage a superior officer, even to a peer, in private. That certainly applies when you are disparaging the commander in chief or his closest advisers in the press. McChrystal wasn't fired because he disagreed. He was fired because he disagreed, was over ruled by his superiors, and then tried to side step them by talking about it to the press. People in the military disagree ALL THE TIME. It's one big perpetual disagreement, but once the highest ranking officer makes the decision, then you shut up and get on board with the decision, whether you like it or not. If the administration wants to play hard ball they can have him brought up for a court martial, and see if he even gets to keep his pension. I don't think they'll do that, but they certainly could. If it was a non commissioned officer or even a non general, that's exactly what would happen. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On June 24 2010 11:30 mmp wrote: Would you care to spell out my contradiction? No this is political cowardice from Obama. Internal politics, but covering his team's asses nonetheless at the cost of leadership on the ground. It's nothing more than a dick-waving contest and Obama, threatened by McChrystal's claims that he lacks manliness, is backed into a corner and forced to assert his presidential endowment. Any commander that doesn't take action against insubordination is a weak commander. What McChrystal did was not merely a faux pas, it was a crime under the UCMJ. He's lucky that he'll be allowed to retire quietly with no loss of pension. I'm sorry that you don't like Obama, but you don't know shit about shit when it comes to the way that things are done in the military. McChrystal (or his aid or whoever) knew very well that they were committing a crime. If that had been a lower level general or a colonel under McChrystal's command, and they or their aid had gone to Rolling Stone to criticize his leadership, that person or those persons would be getting much worse than he is. There is zero tolerance at any level for public dissent in the military. There is zero tolerance at any level to bad mouth your superiors. When a private says that about a staff sergeant he might just get thrashed instead of written up, but when a General says it about his Commander in Chief or members of the CIC's administration, that's a choice to get fired or worse. | ||
|
AzulSeca
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
Ramsing
Canada233 Posts
On June 26 2010 02:27 Wintermute wrote: I'm a former Marine Corps sergeant. It was insubordination. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice it is a crime to disparage a superior officer, even to a peer, in private. That certainly applies when you are disparaging the commander in chief or his closest advisers in the press. McChrystal wasn't fired because he disagreed. He was fired because he disagreed, was over ruled by his superiors, and then tried to side step them by talking about it to the press. People in the military disagree ALL THE TIME. It's one big perpetual disagreement, but once the highest ranking officer makes the decision, then you shut up and get on board with the decision, whether you like it or not. If the administration wants to play hard ball they can have him brought up for a court martial, and see if he even gets to keep his pension. I don't think they'll do that, but they certainly could. If it was a non commissioned officer or even a non general, that's exactly what would happen. Is Obama considered a member of the military though? It seems like if you tried arguing for this in a court you'd be on shaky ground. As a Canadian, all I can say is that I'm glad that we're pulling out of Afghanistan soon. This is quite possibly the worst timing ever and I'd rather not have our troops (or anyones for that matter...) jeopardized because of American politicking. What do I care that an American general spoke truthfully about his own President? I couldn't care less what he says, so long as he can ensure that the troop casualties are minimized and that the push is successful; firing him and throwing in Petraeus, who's experience is mostly based out of Iraq and who will now have to rebuild all the contacts that McChrystal had in Afghanistan, does not seem like the correct way of achieving those goals. I'm sure it's been said before, but this will probably put us back months and doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of NATO for our American allies. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8201 Posts
On June 25 2010 13:51 XazXio wrote: can we fire obama instead Ya, Bush was so much better man. Conservative really rock. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
McChrystal said that he never actually went against Obama. He went against Biden. McChrystal gave them a strategy for what he wanted to do in the Middle East to try and win through with numbers, but Biden didn't want to give him the resources because he thought the strategy wouldn't work. But Obama's the kind of guy who says "You mess with Biden, you mess with me." EDIT: Also, look at the placement. McCain(that's him, right?) is pretty far away, Petraeus is mid-distance, McChrystal is farther, but Biden's so close he's actually behind the president. | ||
|
Butigroove
Seychelles2061 Posts
On June 28 2010 01:07 Ramsing wrote: Is Obama considered a member of the military though? It seems like if you tried arguing for this in a court you'd be on shaky ground. As a Canadian, all I can say is that I'm glad that we're pulling out of Afghanistan soon. This is quite possibly the worst timing ever and I'd rather not have our troops (or anyones for that matter...) jeopardized because of American politicking. What do I care that an American general spoke truthfully about his own President? I couldn't care less what he says, so long as he can ensure that the troop casualties are minimized and that the push is successful; firing him and throwing in Petraeus, who's experience is mostly based out of Iraq and who will now have to rebuild all the contacts that McChrystal had in Afghanistan, does not seem like the correct way of achieving those goals. I'm sure it's been said before, but this will probably put us back months and doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of NATO for our American allies. The President is the Commander in Chief, and is at the very top of every single military branches chain of command. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
The President is a Harvard-educated senator. McChrystal is a General who's been in Afghanistan for some time. Who has more expereince? | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
I hope as we get older, and our children get older we can weed out the ignorance and greed in politics today. | ||
| ||
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Weekly #150 (SHIN Mod Edition)
herO vs ByuNLIVE!
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Patches Events
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
