McChrystal resigns

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

Good luck to you!"

I think your Fox news perception is more off than mine. I wish everything Bush did magically came undone when he left office, but it didn't, so President Obama is left cleaning up his mess. I imagine the country looks a lot like Bush's frat house did after an all night cocaine/booze fest.

In reply to Cone_Junky:

How does quadrupling the deficit help clean up the mess? He's driving us into bankrupcy.

Cone_Junky wrote:

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...

You seem to be unaware that the President and McChrystal were both in agreement for the current Afghan strategy. The "devil-in-the-details" is that POTUS delegated a lot of responsibilities to underlings who didn't support the policy and/or were in constant CYA mode.

Your conjecture of McChrystal's pending employment shows your ignorance that the man is "out" in Afghanistan, but still an active member in the military.

alfadriver wrote: 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.

While technically true, the FIRST oath is to the Constitution. the 2nd is to the potus.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Cone_Junky: How does quadrupling the deficit help clean up the mess? He's driving us into bankrupcy.

The real difference here is that Obama is being honest with the costs of Iraq and Afganistan, Bush never was, so that the actual deficits were always hidden in bills to pay for the war instead of the budget. IIRC, none of Bush's budgets ever had the two war costs in them. None.

The deficit may have gone up to get us out of the mess, but not nearly as much as many R's like to pretend.

Unless you were part of that hidden war bond drive to pay for the two wars that spanned 6 of GB's years....

found at: http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/dosstrat/2004/23503.htm with about .2 seconds of googling with "afghanistan mission statement"

US State Dept. said: A Stable and Democratic Afghanistan: Helping Afghanistan to achieve peace and stability will require a continued commitment by the Department, USAID, and international donors to four interlocking objectives: (1) Afghanistan must establish internal and external security to ensure economic reconstruction, political stability, and stem the rise in opium production; (2) we must work to establish a stable, effective, and broadly representative central government; (3) economic development must bolster this new government and reduce dependence on donors; and (4) we must help the people of Afghanistan meet their critical humanitarian needs while reconstruction proceeds.

JG Pasterjak wrote: 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

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Cone_Junky: How does quadrupling the deficit help clean up the mess? He's driving us into bankrupcy.

A Bush supporter has no right to criticize on defecit spending.

Pre-Bush= surplus

Post-Bush= huge deficit that doesn't even take into account war spending (I guess he just forgot to pencil that in...)

At least Obama's spending is on the American people, not the killing of them.

alfadriver wrote:

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.

We're not in disagreement, here. The military acts under orders from the CIC.

OTOH, there have been many instances where military commanders have scuttled careers because they followed orders (and even succeeded), but mouthed-off to the wrong person at the wrong time.

We saw the results today.

I'm surprised it took so long. Bashing the boss in ink is neer a good idea.

Strizzo wrote: found at: http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/dosstrat/2004/23503.htm with about .2 seconds of googling with "afghanistan mission statement"

US State Dept. said: A Stable and Democratic Afghanistan: Helping Afghanistan to achieve peace and stability will require a continued commitment by the Department, USAID, and international donors to four interlocking objectives: (1) Afghanistan must establish internal and external security to ensure economic reconstruction, political stability, and stem the rise in opium production; (2) we must work to establish a stable, effective, and broadly representative central government; (3) economic development must bolster this new government and reduce dependence on donors; and (4) we must help the people of Afghanistan meet their critical humanitarian needs while reconstruction proceeds.

JG Pasterjak wrote: 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

Good find. My googling skills are not strong on this one apparently. Interesting that opium is specifically mentioned. I wonder how the recent discovery of unobtanium deposits with affect the mission?

jg

True, the 'boots on the ground' MUST obey orders even if they do not like the person they are coming from. And they are expected to temper their remarks. But it does not mean they cannot voice their opinions; to do so would mean a muzzling of their First Amendment right to free speech. Several of the soldiers involved in the Black Hawk Down incident voiced their displeasure with Clinton's wishy-washiness publicly and were not reprimanded.

The funny thing is that the CIA suppossedly provided assistance in proper poppy growing techniques back in the 80's to ensure the Afghans had money to fend off the Russians. Now we want to stem the rise of opiuim production? When we learn to mind our own business and that things we do have unintended consequences?

Jensenman wrote: True, the 'boots on the ground' MUST obey orders even if they do not like the person they are coming from. And they are expected to temper their remarks. But it does not mean they cannot voice their opinions; to do so would mean a muzzling of their First Amendment right to free speech. Several of the soldiers involved in the Black Hawk Down incident voiced their displeasure with Clinton's wishy-washiness publicly and were not reprimanded.

Freedom of speech does NOT legally apply in the workplace (if you want to stay employed that is), I cannot imagine it exists in the military... in fact, I would guess it is far more restricted (does don't ask, don't tell sound familiar).

The military is designed to defend democracy, not practice it.

"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."

As I said, they are expected to temper their remarks.

My gut feeling is that he didn't say anything to Rolling Stone that he hadn't said to Obama directly. I'm guessing that this is his version of whistle blowing. I'm also guessing he knew with certainty that it would mean his career.

It wasn't just the Big O he talked badly about, it was a significant portion of his chain of command. A first year recruit could have predicted the result.

If John McCain AND the Big O think McChrystal deserved a firing, I'm good with it.

That's what makes me think that he knew exactly what he was doing. He threw away a long career by openly questioning the way those above him were handling things.

Petraeus (despite being called 'betrayus') has done a credible job in Iraq, meaning that the O will pretty much have to listen to him. Maybe that's why he did it, that way he'd be assured there would be someone running the show that couldn't be ignored.

Look the bad comments weren't said by this guy. They were said openly by his staff in front of the reporters with the boss present.

His feelings aside, by not enforcing the crap that bludroptop posted a few posts up, he pretty much can have the stars ripped off his jacket.

It's one thing for him to criticize, it's another to let his staff get critical openly.

Jensenman wrote: That's what makes me think that he knew exactly what he was doing. He threw away a long career by openly questioning the way those above him were handling things.

I'm with Jensenman. I think he knew what was up and quite possibly let it happen to get out. Would you want to be in charge of that cluster in Afghanistan?

Jensenman wrote:

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.

And especially by doing it in an ultra-liberal rag like Rolling Stone. If he had chosen a conservative mouthpiece it would have gotten dismissed as yet more Republican weeping-and-gnashing about the commie black guy who's running us into the ground. But in a magazine like Rolling Stone, if they are even willing to let somebody talk bad about the Big O at all, then McChrystal's words carry more weight.

Buzz, I agree, the more honorable thing to do would have been just to resign, but that leaves him open to whatever revisionist spindoctoring The O's professional staff can come up with to make McChrystal look like Bob Costas after the fact. This way, even though it is career suicide, he's at least got the credibility of stating his piece clearly.

[edit] And by the way, I agree, he left The O no option but to fire him, so I don't have a problem with the actual dismissal.

Speaking as a veteran, I think McChrystal is going out like a tool regardless of his motivation.

If he wanted to quit, all he had to do was retire. He could speak his mind on Glenn Beck or some other O-hating soapbox after the fact and have been considered a hero.

putting tin foil hat on....

In reading the statements, one of the things that pissed McChrystal off was the questioning of Hamid Karzai and if he could be trusted. From what I understand Karzai's brother is one of the largest drug lords in Afghanistan. Karzai has been constantly accused of corruption.

Could it be that the guy we had in charge over there fell victim to corruption as well? Maybe in defending his "sugar daddy" he stepped over bounds and lost his job.

Or maybe he just has an ego the size of Texas and decided to ignore the chain of command.

trust no one!

What a lot of people are missing is that most of what was said was by his aids, not by himself. I think the only quote associated to him was one not given directly to the reporter, but one overheard. That however does not matter, in that position, you need to be damn sure you are alone before making comments such as those. This was the outcome I expected, even if what was said was true.

For the guy that thinks this is all Bush's fault, wake up dude. Granted he started this and I was no fan (Congress, both dems and repubs, was eager to rush into Afgan too, remember this was RIGHT after 9/11), but the big O is so far worse than W that it is not a laughing matter. The damage he has done to this country is going to be difficult to overcome, and if you think he is giving money to the American people, think again on that one. All he has done is payoff his buddies with your tax dollars and is creating a system that will leave most Americans with nothing in the end. As I always say, follow the money. They make the Bush boys look like the Church Choir.

iggy's right about this: if he let his staff mouth off like that, then he deserves a good ass kicking.