McChrystal resigns

I'm dumbfounded.

Hopefully the conversation went something like:

Obama: "Look here, I'm the President of the United States...."

McChrystal: "That's great. Maybe you should start berkeleying acting like it."

Obama: "Apparently you didn't hear me: I WON! I'M THE PRESIDENT!"

McChrystal: "And I'm the bad mother berkeleyer who's about to stick a size 13 military issue straight up your presidential ass sideways."

At least that's how it goes in my head. Thoughts?

How about it isn't a good idea to criticize your boss to the press, and don't be surprised if you are asked to leave after wards.

Honestly, want a tissue for your issue?

But when you are told you will reinact the Bataan Death March with guns and no ammo with enemy snipers lining the trail..... I can see why some might see why he says what he says. Especially when all that is on the news is another "news story" that X soldiers have been killed. Basically this whole thing has become a very quiet very unwinable PC battle in a desert, mostly through inaction and appeasement.

i'm not dumbfounded at all. any general who makes those kinds of comments in a magazine, no matter who the president is, is going to pay a heavy price. i don't care if the president at the time is Obama, Bush, Nixon or Eisenhower. it's too bad but he should have known better.

if i undermined my boss that way i'd expect the boot, too...i don't care how bad my boss might be doing his job or how much manlier i think i am than him.

Ranger50 wrote: But when you are told you will reinact the Bataan Death March with guns and no ammo with enemy snipers lining the trail..... I can see why some might see why he says what he says. Especially when all that is on the news is another "news story" that X soldiers have been killed. Basically this whole thing has become a very quiet very unwinable PC battle in a desert, mostly through inaction and appeasement.

and you think the general would have put up with similar comments about him from someone under him? i doubt it very much. the proper forum for that is your chain of command, not Rolling Stone magazine.

that behavior puts the boss (any boss) in a bad spot...you can fire the guy and suddenly you "can't take any criticism." or leave the guy in place and you "are a wimp and have no backbone."

Mebbe McChrystal had tried talking sense to his overlords and was getting nowhere. That wouldn't surprise me even a little bit.

So now The O will hire a buttkisser, things will go to hell and at least McChrystal can say he dodged a bullet. And The O can't blame this one on Bush.

EDIT: MSNBC says O fired him, McChrystal says he resigned. Also, The O jumped on him last year for being blunt about needing more troops so it wasn't like there hadn't been sparks. Petraeus is being tapped to take over, at least temporarily.

McChrystal resigned his position but keeps his commission; he still can't really spill the beans on the POTUS (and crew) internal non-working policies.

Petraeus is now in charge (in Afghanistan), but follows the orders of the tards who robustly debated and demeaned his plans for a "surge" in Iraq.

This still smells like making a pig's ear out of a silk purse.

Anyone who has been in the military for more than 15 minutes knows that you don't openly criticize the command and you don't have any 'right to free speech' while wearing the uniform.

For one who is supposed to be among the smartest guys in the military, this was an incredibly stupid move. There is absolutely ZERO chance that he wouldn't be fired.

(puts on tin-foil hat) Unless that was his plan....

I cannot fathom why he had to be summoned to the White House in the first place. As soon as that story broke I would expect the Pres to be on the phone and tell the dude he is fired.

The General's comments may be true, but they certainly do not belong in a magazine - I have to think that McChrystal knew what he was doing and just wanted a way out of a bad situation. You don't get to wear a bunch of stars on your collar by being unaware of how to play the game.

well, this exchange only works when kept in private inside the chain of command.

As soon as it gets 'out', Obama is forced to react. so he isn't resigning, he's being relieved.

McChrystal raised doubts about how things were being run and got sacked for it. He doesn't want to be another Westmoreland, who wasn't allowed to pursue a proper military course of action in Vietnam. What better way than to get cut loose for doing what you think is right in spite of the boss getting pissed?

A good boss will listen to the minions because in many cases they are MUCH more aware of the realities than those in the ivory towers. You ignore those underlings at your peril. You also 'kill the messenger' at your peril as well. If The O let McChrystal's smartass comments get to him enough to think he should fire him, then he has a much thinner skin than is needed to do his job. Public reprimand, yeah I can see that.

I think McChrystal is just happy to be out of the whole mess. Too bad the troops on the front lines who ultimately bear the brunt of poor decisions in Foggy Bottom can't get recalled and fired.

I'm somewhere in the bludroptop/Jensenman camp of interpreting this. I suspect that he's tried hard to fight on the political side, realizes that battle is not winnable, even if Afghanistan/Iraq could be, and has decided to go out with his credibility intact.

but jensen, if this had stayed behind closed doors, I don't think this would be any issue. I'm confident Obama would've been annoyed, but otherwise would have left him to keep going because he gets along with other key military figures from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Its not that he disagreed with him or even annoyed him, but that he undermined the chain openly.

I am asking this in complete sincerity, and not with any agenda behind it at all:

Is there any sort of publicly available "Mission statement" as to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like, is there someplace I can go and there's something at least semi-official that says: "Our troops are deployed to Afghanistan to eliminate the threat of so and so and to promote the expansion and such and such and weaken the infrastructure of this and that while strengthening the infrastructure of this other thing"?

I've been looking for something along those lines, or even recent mentions to the press of the "why" part of the equation, and I can't really find anything that deals with the big picture. I'm just curious what the current message being forwarded is.

jg

I'm conflicted on this one. He was certainly wrong in doing that, but in an era of overkill PC, I kind of appreciate his honesty. That's something that is severly lacking in politics these days.

Duke wrote: I'm somewhere in the bludroptop/Jensenman camp of interpreting this. I suspect that he's tried hard to fight on the political side, realizes that battle is not winnable, even if Afghanistan/Iraq could be, and has decided to go out with his credibility intact.

in which case the honorable thing to do would be to simply resign; not make comments in a magazine and wait to be called on the carpet for it.

madmallard, I understand your point completely. But there comes a time when trying to do things within the chain of command don't get you anywhere. Supposedly doing things 'behind closed doors' is what led to the current BP unpleasantness in the Gulf.

So what does a person in a position of responsibility do? Keep rolling with the punches behind closed doors knowing that will get him nowhere, or say 'dammit I cannot in good conscience keep this charade up' and risk it all?

jg, I'd like to see a mission statement as well. If anybody finds such an animal, please post a link. To my knowledge we are in Iraq to hold back the insurgency while the government is being rebuilt and we are in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from taking the country over again. But you are right; I have never seen anything concrete.

Whatever happened to "He's the commander in chief. The man deserves respect!" Something along the lines of if you can't respect the man then respect the office? Isn't that a conservative line? Hell, as always I could be wrong.

I think this is a ruse. I think McCrystal said these things because he wants out. That doesn't bode well for a war anywhere if the Commander is willing to commit political suicide to avoid the cluster that is unfolding in his lap.

Buzz Killington wrote:

Duke wrote: I'm somewhere in the bludroptop/Jensenman camp of interpreting this. I suspect that he's tried hard to fight on the political side, realizes that battle is not winnable, even if Afghanistan/Iraq could be, and has decided to go out with his credibility intact.

in which case the honorable thing to do would be to simply resign; not make comments in a magazine and wait to be called on the carpet for it.

But what if he honestly saw a continuation of current strategy as dictated by Foggy Bottom as a losing proposition? By making comments in a magazine with the circulation of Rolling Stone, he'd maybe embarrass the powers that be into acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, there's more than one way to view the whole thing.

I'm glad he did it. It laid bare the disconnect between the White House and the guys actually doing the dirty work.

Jensenman wrote: Mebbe McChrystal had tried talking sense to his overlords and was getting nowhere. That wouldn't surprise me even a little bit. So now The O will hire a buttkisser, things will go to hell and at least McChrystal can say he dodged a bullet. And The O can't blame this one on Bush.

Except for the fact that Bush started this whole affair half-ass because he was too busy hunting down his daddy's enemy in Iraq. Bush is completely responsible for berkleying this thing up in the first place. Huh, kinda like the rest of the country's problems? Even God can't fix what Bush broke...

I hope McChrystal did do this on purpose to get out. If not, we've had a retard running our troops up til now. You can't really think that pounding a few drinks and spilling your guts to a hippie journalist isn't gonne bite you in the ass.

Xceler8x wrote: Whatever happened to "He's the commander in chief. The man deserves respect!" Something along the lines of if you can't respect the man then respect the office? Isn't that a conservative line? Hell, as always I could be wrong. I think this is a ruse. I think McCrystal said these things because he wants out. That doesn't bode well for a war anywhere if the Commander is willing to commit political suicide to avoid the cluster that is unfolding in his lap.

You're not completely wrong. The OFFICE certainly deserves respect, but the man with the title still has to earn it.

McChrystal screwed-up and he's immediately out. The President is in for another 2 1/2yrs, regardless of how he scews-up.

Cone_Junky wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Mebbe McChrystal had tried talking sense to his overlords and was getting nowhere. That wouldn't surprise me even a little bit. So now The O will hire a buttkisser, things will go to hell and at least McChrystal can say he dodged a bullet. And The O can't blame this one on Bush.

Except for the fact that Bush started this whole affair half-ass because he was too busy hunting down his daddy's enemy in Iraq. Bush is completely responsible for berkleying this thing up in the first place. Huh, kinda like the rest of the country's problems? Even God can't fix what Bush broke... I hope McChrystal did do this on purpose to get out. If not, we've had a retard running our troops up til now. You can't really think that pounding a few drinks and spilling your guts to a hippie journalist isn't gonne bite you in the ass.

Hope you get over that BDS problem sometime; there's a big disconnect between your perception and reality/history.

Good luck to you!

Jensenman wrote: But what if he honestly saw a continuation of current strategy as dictated by Foggy Bottom as a losing proposition? By making comments in a magazine with the circulation of Rolling Stone, he'd maybe embarrass the powers that be into acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, there's more than one way to view the whole thing. I'm glad he did it. It laid bare the disconnect between the White House and the guys actually doing the dirty work.

Or it just shows the disconnect between the military and the man who gets to make those decisions. Don't forget "Commander in Chief". When McChrystal gets elected in a national election he can talk all the e36m3 he wants

Although I'm sure he is signing a contract with FauxNews right now. I'm sure we'll soon hear everything he has to say...

Jensenman wrote: A good boss will listen to the minions because in many cases they are MUCH more aware of the realities than those in the ivory towers. You ignore those underlings at your peril. You also 'kill the messenger' at your peril as well. If The O let McChrystal's smartass comments get to him enough to think he should fire him, then he has a much thinner skin than is needed to do his job. Public reprimand, yeah I can see that.

And a good minion will know that once you make your opinion made, then you are done. If they listen or not is not up to you, and going to the press and yelling about it is not good recourse.

Had Obama let him get away with it, it would take some away from the civilian rule over our military. Which affects all sides. I have yet to hear any credible expert sat that this wasn't expected, and some (former military people themselves) said that it was more than needed.

Too bad for McChrystal, but he and his close minions earned it.

Xceler8x wrote: Whatever happened to "He's the commander in chief. The man deserves respect!" Something along the lines of if you can't respect the man then respect the office?

Apparently the last President took that with him, kinda like the Clinton's pocketing the silverware.

Look, it isn't like this is anything new.

"On April 11, 1951, President Harry Truman fired (General Douglas MacArthur) for making public statements that contradicted the official policies of the United States Government, especially with regard to Truman's order to restrict military interaction with the media."

And yes, listening to your people on the ground is good management. Listening to them call you names in the press is idiotic. I'm with T.J. - I'd have fired him over the phone.

oldsaw wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Whatever happened to "He's the commander in chief. The man deserves respect!" Something along the lines of if you can't respect the man then respect the office? Isn't that a conservative line? Hell, as always I could be wrong. I think this is a ruse. I think McCrystal said these things because he wants out. That doesn't bode well for a war anywhere if the Commander is willing to commit political suicide to avoid the cluster that is unfolding in his lap.

You're not completely wrong. The OFFICE certainly deserves respect, but the man with the title still has to earn it. McChrystal screwed-up and he's immediately out. The President is in for another 2 1/2yrs, regardless of how he scews-up.

Unless you are in the military, then the respect isn't deserved, it's the law. None of us have to respect the President (some of us do, some don't)- once you put on that uniform and take your oath- you have no choice. That's how the US works.