top u..s commander in hot water

[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

[Riot]

Rupert: I just make crap up about other posters I don't like

FTFY

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

FTFY

It was a joke. I was only kidding.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2257818/

another, longer article.

In fact, nowhere in the article is McChrystal or any of his aides quoted as disagreeing with Obama's policy on Afghanistan. It would be a big surprise if they were, as Obama's strategic decision in December 2009—to send 30,000 more troops and to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy—was essentially an endorsement of McChrystal's recommendation. (It should be noted that the article's subheadline—which says that McChrystal "has seized control of the war" because he sees "the real enemy" as "the wimps in the White House"—is grossly distorting and may be responsible for some of the early misreporting before the actual article went online. Hastings said in an interview with NPR that he did not write the headline.)





Nonetheless, and this is the damning third point, the fact that it's "just staff officers" talking like this doesn't let McChrystal off the hook. In fact, the story suggests that, on some level (and how serious a level is something for Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to find out), McChrystal's operation is out of control.


but this is what jumped out at me:

The whole business reflects something else at least as serious—the fractured state of this war and the utter disunity of command. and this is exactly what i meant when i called the rolling stone piece 'depressing'.

[Danzig]

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

considering how things went when the troop increase was suggested, by the man in charge of waging the war, and rejected...i'm not surprised at these comments. obama is out of his league, and this is just one more instance that proves it. he had no earthly idea how to proceed, and chose to completely ignore the suggestions and advice from his head man on the ground back right after taking office. this reminds me of how the germans waged war under hitler. now, before anyone gets their panties in a wad, i'm in no way likening obama to hitler...however, the fact that hitler felt the need to have a real hand in the waging of that war directly contributed to the germans losing that war (thank goodness for that).
now, just think if every time pershing in ww1, or eisenhower in ww2, had to go and beg for extra men from their cic's? hell, we'd still be in the trenches on the western front. but no, the presidents recognized that men who had trained since high school for military service, and had been taught planning and logistics, were those best to make these decisions-and they stayed the hell out of the way.

[Riot]

When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001. Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.

I think for a new President taking the advice of the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon isn't a bad thing.

The rest of the article around the one paragraph:

From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve. The theory essentially rebrands the military, expanding its authority (and its funding) to encompass the diplomatic and political sides of warfare: Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps. In 2006, after Gen. David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his "surge" in Iraq, it quickly gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists, military officers and civilian officials. Nicknamed "COINdinistas" for their cultish zeal, this influential cadre believed the doctrine would be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All they needed was a general with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it.

As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the same fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out how your enemy operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody else, then take the ****ers out. After arriving in Afghanistan last June, the general conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn't send another 40,000 troops – swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half – we were in danger of "mission failure." The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was determined to kick the president's ass.

Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position." For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

In the end, however, McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted. On December 1st, in a speech at West Point, the president laid out all the reasons why fighting the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea: It's expensive; we're in an economic crisis; a decade-long commitment would sap American power; Al Qaeda has shifted its base of operations to Pakistan. Then, without ever using the words "victory" or "win," Obama announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to ThAfghanistan, almost as many as McChrystal had requested. The president had thrown his weight, however hesitantly, behind the counterinsurgency crowd.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

considering how things went when the troop increase was suggested, by the man in charge of waging the war, and rejected...i'm not surprised at these comments. obama is out of his league, and this is just one more instance that proves it. he had no earthly idea how to proceed, and chose to completely ignore the suggestions and advice from his head man on the ground back right after taking office.

Not according to the Rolling Stone article.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not according to the Rolling Stone article.

i am still at work, and will read the article in its entirety at home. i just remember, back when extra troops were requested, obama didn't grant everything that the general asked for at that time.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i am still at work, and will read the article in its entirety at home. i just remember, back when extra troops were requested, obama didn't grant everything that the general asked for at that time.

Basically McChrystal said he needed 40,000 more troops.
The administration responded by launching a review of the entire Afghanistan strategy.
At the end of the review the administration embraced most - but not all - of McChrystal's strategy and sent roughly 30,000 more troops to the region.

miraja2's suggestion to pull all the troops out and leave Afghanistan was ignored completely.

[Danzig]

what a depressing article.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not according to the Rolling Stone article.

Let's be clear. The General got the extra troops after a 3 month delay during which Obama did his damnest not to send them and then assigned a pullout date letting the enemy know the end is near. A patented U.N. move by the way.

[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?