top u..s commander in hot water

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is from the Rolling Stone Article:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his ****ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Rupert: This does not make Obama look very good.

Riot: I disagree

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

ya think..

[Danzig]

after reading the article, i disagree that he should be fired. but, no one in the position to decide will be asking me!

[Danzig]

just read this from slate:

Should Gen. McCrystal Keep His Job?


Even before "The Runaway General" was posted on Rolling Stone's website, General Stanley McChrystal hit the phones to apologize for the article, which depicts him mocking senior administration officials and dropping scathing remarks about cabinet members. The General was summoned to Washington for a dressing-down, but so far, the White House has kept mum about whether McChrystal will be fired, saying only, "all options are on the table." So the million-dollar question: should McChrystal keep his job? Technically, he could be fired: under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "any commissioned officer" can be court marshaled for "[using] contemptuous words" against the civilian chain of command. The Atlantic's James Fallows says he should be booted, arguing that McChrystal ran afoul of the military's intolerance for "disrespect and insubordination," and potentially undermined U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. The Washington Post's Jonathan Capeheart agrees, as does Foreign Policy's Tom Ricks, who predicts that he'll be out in a week or so. "Forget about his damaged reputation," Wired staff writes at Danger Room. "By giving these inflammatory interviews to Rolling Stone, General McChrystal has risked the entire outcome of the war." At Firedoglake, Spencer Ackerman concedes that over the last few years, "the pattern of generals not losing their jobs over offenses that would get their subordinates chucked out has relaxed considerably," but still thinks that McChrystal will probably get to stay. "Firing him carries its risks," Ackerman writes. "There's only a year to go before the July 2011 date to begin the transition to Afghan security responsibility and the Kandahar tide is starting to rise. It'll be hard to fire McChrystal without ripping the entire Afghanistan strategy up, and I've gotten no indication from the White House that it's interested in doing that." If he is fired, Small Wars Journal's Robert Haddick speculates that lieutenant general David Rodriguez would be the likely choice to replace him

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by Danzig

after reading the article, i disagree that he should be fired. but, no one in the position to decide will be asking me!

I guess I should have read the article before I said to fire him. My bad.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

I guess I should have read the article before I said to fire him. My bad.

all the talk in advance of the article made it sound really, really bad. but after reading it (and don't get me wrong, there are serious issues here) it's not what it was made out to be in my opinion. a problem? yes? insuborination.....it was certainly what i've read has been said-a gross misjudgement. but i don't think it is enough of an offense to warrant removal.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

after reading the article, i disagree that he should be fired. but, no one in the position to decide will be asking me!

actually after reading it I have come to this conclusion also. He is much too important to the war than to fire him over this. The article wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. Did find it interesting that Hillary is the only one they respect though.

Also the fact that the man in charge of Afghanastan likes McChrystal more than any other US person makes him impossible, and irresponsible (though the article was also irresponsible) to fire. That is much more important than insubordination / ego.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

actually after reading it I have come to this conclusion also. He is much too important to the war than to fire him over this. The article wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. Did find it interesting that Hillary is the only one they respect though.

i think the thing that angered the military the most about all of it was the end date. you can't tell your enemy when you're going to stop fighting! that was ridiculous. hillary (and i give her many props for this) said give them what they want-which is why they like her. war is hell, as has often been said. you fight to win-if you're not going to do that, then quit wasting time, money and lives and get the hell out. so many mistakes made over the last few years with these two wars. we should never have gone to iraq, all that did was take away from afganistan. it also has elevated iran, which causes more problems. way to go george bush!

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the thing that angered the military the most about all of it was the end date. you can't tell your enemy when you're going to stop fighting! that was ridiculous. hillary (and i give her many props for this) said give them what they want-which is why they like her. war is hell, as has often been said. you fight to win-if you're not going to do that, then quit wasting time, money and lives and get the hell out. so many mistakes made over the last few years with these two wars. we should never have gone to iraq, all that did was take away from afganistan. it also has elevated iran, which causes more problems. way to go george bush!

We're compassionate killers.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the thing that angered the military the most about all of it was the end date. you can't tell your enemy when you're going to stop fighting! that was ridiculous. hillary (and i give her many props for this) said give them what they want-which is why they like her. war is hell, as has often been said. you fight to win-if you're not going to do that, then quit wasting time, money and lives and get the hell out. so many mistakes made over the last few years with these two wars. we should never have gone to iraq, all that did was take away from afganistan. it also has elevated iran, which causes more problems. way to go george bush!

the article did make a good point.. what is considered a "win" in this war?

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the article did make a good point.. what is considered a "win" in this war?

Spreading democracy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the article did make a good point.. what is considered a "win" in this war?

i don't know. because i really don't think it's ultimately a winnable war. as soon as we said 'we're leaving july 2011', the enemy realized they just had to wait us out. i read one article that said no one has successfully invaded afganistan since the mongol horde and genghis khan. thing is, we're not fighting a country. you can defeat a country. but we're fighting a movement that is intact in many countries...it's not a conventional war, it can't be fought in a conventional way. plus, we are dealing with civilians who don't want us there, who have to deal with tribes and groups who really run these villages, they have opposing views from us on a variety of subjects, including educating half their population. they just have to wait...within months of our leaving, it's all going to change again. we need to turn over the country to the un and get out. then the un will have to leave because the place will explode. but whether we wait one year, ten years...i don't think the outcome will be any different.

[Riot]

McChrystal met with the Joint Chiefs, then Obama, then "left abruptly" before the monthly Afghanistan meeting. He's gotta be out.