BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest

Subject: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

So, an old seasoned professional General gets sacked for speaking his mind... two thoughts spring to mind -

1) Reasoned debate and free speech no longer exist in America when it doesn't suit the 'national interest'

2) Obama is THE biggest, wettest lettuce you could have elected outside of a greengrocers!!

3) Discuss!

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:59 PM

4. The US is still serious about insubordination in its military.

5. If a private spoke out about the general's war plans on CNN, would that be okay?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:12 PM

Even generals have to take orders from the Commander in Chief. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:16 PM

Your' Commander in Chief' was in short pants when McChrystal started out.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:16 PM

He had a reason for doing this and knew the consequences and spoke the truth as he saw it so the chips will have to fall where they will. mg

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM

Montgomery, DeGaulle and Patton operated outside of polite parameters but they got the job done. ( A bit slowly in Monty's case) Has 24hour news media affected things? Did your current President look up from his lettuce and think' ooh an easy target'

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:24 PM

Obama handled a very difficult situation appropriately. This is not the first time McC aired his dissatisfaction with his civilian superiors publicly. The fact that his underlings joined in the chorus of derision for publication proved him unfit for the sensitive roll in which he served.
They should be sent to a desk job with appropriate supervision.
Mary

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:34 PM

My guess is that he's really being sacked - not for having opinions - but for being stupid enough to express them in front of a reporter.

"Your' Commander in Chief' was in short pants when McChrystal started out."

That doesn't mean shit to a tree. Older doesn't always mean better.

Listen - if you just plain don't like Obama - vote him out of office. You DO vote don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:34 PM

He had a'sensitive roll'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The man was running a gloves - on war on your behalf! No wonder he got a little tetchy. Make your mind up chaps, are you at war in Afghanistan or should you/we pull out and call it a day?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:41 PM

"Disdainful of civilian authority!" Just the kind of general who could lead a military coup in different circumstances. Good riddance.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:42 PM

Ever hear of a general name of MacArthur? Big deal back when.....Thought he was the greatest and from a military family to boot. Yeah, he was quite a guy and he told it like it was to him and decided to run things his way......just like McChrystal. Why Ol' Mac was such a popular guy he had the whole Congress in awe and kissing his ass. Got so that he knew he could save the world and do and say whatever he wanted. Why he even flagrantly ridiculed and just plain ignored his C-in-C.

Then one day his C-in-C, a little guy from Missouri in spectacles and dapper clothes name of Truman, decided he'd had enough of Ol' Mac and fired his ass. Harry Truman knew something that MacArthur didn't......the Constitution.

See Paco, the military ain't in charge in this country and sometimes some of the military guys lose sight of that FACT. Like MacArthur before him, its time for McChrystal to fade straight to fuck away!!!!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:42 PM

Paco Barmy is a Brit, Wesley. You know how they are. (rolling eyes)

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:44 PM

He's not allowed to be "tetchy". He's a general. And "tetchy" generals need to be replaced.

Patton was fired too.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:44 PM

WE all know THAT catspaw! But if you let a dog off its lead SURELY you expect it to RUN! You can't fight a war with mittens on.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:45 PM

trolling...

Hey Ebbie, how goes the war?
M

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:46 PM

Politicians don't win wars, and generals shouldn't have to do politics.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:47 PM

Say Paco, have you ever seen a can of Shinola?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:48 PM

Ebbie - If he's a Brit why is he sticking his nose in our affairs? It's not like you and I have been calling for the Queen to be replaced......

How far would I get starting a thread saying "I'm an American and it's time for the royal family to get out of town"?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:50 PM

Reminds me of President Truman and General MacArthur.
MacArthur was booted, as he should have been, for failure to respect command from civilian leadership.
Obama was correct in booting McChrystall for the same reasons.

Regardless of one's opinion of the war in Afghanistan and/or its conduct, the Commander-in-Chief is in command.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:53 PM

Gee Q.....Didn't I just say that? LOL......Well its still a good thing you said it again 'cause Paco jez don't seem to get the idea!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Skivee
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:00 PM

"1) Reasoned debate and free speech no longer exist in America when it doesn't suit the 'national interest'"
You're saying that this is a free speech issue?...That free speech is allowing a reporter to follow you around for weeks as you and your staff snipe at your commander in chief?
Free speech is what allows the Rolling Stone to publish the article; and you and I to discuss it. There won't be a phalanx of government agents smashing the Rolling Stone presses, or shooting the reporter in the night, or threatening his family.
The fact that the General chose to be insubordinate and allowed his staff the same on the record shows poor judgment. Any officer in the US military know that they lose the right that civilians enjoy to make public statements about the chain of command when they sign up. That right is returned to them when they retire or leave the military.
If the general's resignation is accepted by the president, McChrystal will be free to make his case on Fox news, or MSNBC, or CNN or any other news outlet of his choice...or not.

"Your' Commander in Chief' was in short pants when McChrystal started out.' That may be. I don't know if President Obama ever wore short pants; but he IS the Commander in Chief right now. That means that he the general's boss...period. The same was true when George Bush was the president and made questionable choices.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:00 PM

You're in the military, you have no right to "free" speech, you are not free, and you made that choice. You have no business badmouthing your chain of command in print. He had to go or said chain would be of wilted lettuce, as you say. What an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:08 PM

He was the NATO Commander in Afghanistan. So it affects the different countries on the ground there. He likely knew what the consequences would be by being outspoken. Maybe he wanted out of a no-win situation.
Now he'll have time to write a book about it.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:10 PM

I am trying to imagine what would happen if I went to the local paper and badmouthed my company, manager, corporate leadership, owner. I have freedom of speech but even that disloyalty would cost me my job and rightfully so UNLESS I was exposing corporate wrongdoing.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:10 PM

Both John McCain and Joe Lieberman are on CNN right now saying that President Obama "stepped up" and did the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:11 PM

Obama was correct in accepting the resignation- but now the bloodshed when the US withdraws according to the timetable is all on Obama.


IMO it NOW allows McChrystall to retire, run for Senate in 2010, and be in the running for President in 2012. After all, it just takes 2 years as a senator to be qualified for president- the 30+ years as general is just gravy.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:12 PM

Moreover, he should have been told that if he tries to make his case in the national media once he is out, he will be stripped of his pension. Kind of like a "no compete" clause.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Arkie
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:12 PM

We all know that if this had happened with the previous administration the matter would have been handled differently.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:13 PM

A horrifying thought, bearded bruce

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:19 PM

HEre's how the President of the United States put it--presumably a more inforemed source than Sir Barmy...

"...I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement on strategy, nor do make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I've got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform. Over the last nine years, with America fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our nation's finest soldiers. That reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence and his love of country. I relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in Afghanistan. So all Americans should be grateful for General McChrystal's remarkable career in uniform.

But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president.

And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security.

The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

My multiple responsibilities as commander in chief led me to this decision. First, I have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war, and to the democratic institutions that I've been elected to lead. I've got no greater honor than serving as commander in chief of our men and women in uniform, and it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the vital mission that they are carrying out. That includes adherence to a strict code of conduct. The strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted privates and to the general officer who commands them. That allows us to come together as one. That is part of the reason why America has the finest fighting force in the history of the world."

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:23 PM

McChrystal is lucky--what he did is a court-martial offence.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:25 PM

Interesting conclusion- after all, the policy that Obama is pursuing in Afghanistan is the policy McChrystal wanted.

McChrystal Suicidal or Stupid? Fox

By Fraser Seitel
Published June 23, 2010

"2. Gen. McChrystal and His Team Did It on Purpose
The book on McChrystal is that he is a solid military man and a street-smart gamesman. He is knowledgeable of and comfortable with the media.

"In other words, he has been around the block -- not the kind of guy to let his guard down or allow himself to get duped by some knuckleheaded reporter.

"But if you read the article, you get the feeling that McChrystal and his people really don't believe that the Obama war strategy – to kill a diabolical, no-rules enemy while rebuilding a stone age nation – has much of a chance of emerging triumphant. Clearly from the piece, the soldiers don't doubt their own ability to win, but rather they're dubious of the cockamamie "military strategy" they've been asked to pursue.

"So one could argue – or at least wonder – whether McChrystal didn't willfully commit to this article and the unlimited access the reporter received to circuitously make the point that the U.S. war strategy must be midcourse corrected before it's too late.
Maybe the general thought it was better to fall on his sword in this public -- and perhaps suicidal -- way in order to rescue a mission that, if he remained silent and dutiful to his commanding officer, would likely fail."

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:30 PM

As expected, FOX news dug up an old friend of McChystall who sobbed that a great American hero has been insulted and dishonored.

There is more to the reswignation of this general than Obama's statement revealed.

Karzai, the current puppet President of Afghanistan who was a former warlord and opium dealer has made rough threats to both Hillary Clinton and Obama in terms of giving the Taliban aid and comfort.
Karzai leveled other insults to our administration in similar terms as General McChystall references to our President.

It is well known that Karzai and McChystall are as thick as thieves and that Karzai admits great fondness for the general. All will admit that they are great friends. Afterall the general gives Karzai 10's of millions of dollars to disseminate to the Taliban to buy safe passage for US supply trucks in Afghanistan.
Exactly how those funds are delivered and who gets what cut remains a trade secret.

McChystal is no Patton but he does share a severe lack of statemenship.. Nor has he commited the same degree of treason as MacArthur but he has commited insubordination. Generals do not normally call the French all gay and the POTUS a cowardly no nothing. When push comes to shove Lincoln had to releave McClellen for reasons of gross insubordination and not following orders to engage the enemy. Calling the President a big ape did not bode well for Lincoln's generals as it would not bode well today.

The Military does not practice democracy nor free speech but they must follow a chain of command. If that is hard for some folks to understand, so be it.

The opinionated truth that appears in Rolling Stone does not rise to treason but some of the actions that have taken place between Karzai and McChystall go beyond treason but will remain moot for national security reasons. I agree the right action has been taken without muddling the process with the most incriminating facts that are best left unsaid.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:32 PM

McClellen, MacArthur, McChstall, ol' McDonald.

its got a certain rhythm doncha think.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:35 PM

"We all know that if this had happened with the previous administration the matter would have been handled differently. "


I don't know that at all. Imagine Cheney being written off by the General as "Cheney who?" or by some non-important staff member as the equivalent of "Bite me."

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:37 PM

McChrystal is a professional soldier, Paco.

When a soldier is issued orders from up the chain of command, it's his duty to salute and say, "Yes, sir!" and then go execute the orders.   It is NOT his job or privilege to try to go "over the head" of his commander, in effect, to the public. That's almost the definition of "contrary to good order and discipline".

As a responsible officer he had a right (and maybe a duty) if he disagreed with the policy or the orders handed down, to pass his views to the Commander, but if the Commander doesn't choose to take his advice it's the officer's function, as above, to salute and carry out the orders, and not to attack the command structure above him in public.

And as to "freedom of speech", I've got news for you: The Army is not a democracy! Never has been. Never can be.

Actually, McChrystall did have freedom of speech, come to think of it. And he exercised it. And as with all of us, (as Sinsull said) it had a cost.

I've not heard whether he resigned the position voluntarily, or was asked (nice way of saying "told") to resign it, or was relieved of the command (fired) unilaterally by the President.   But he had to know when he sounded off in the public prints that it was EXTREMELY unlikely that he would remain in the command position he occupied.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:40 PM

I think he is bound for the ninth circle of hell.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:43 PM

And as to the thread title, he was not "sacked for being honest"; he was sacked for being insubordinate.

Being honest, to the Army, is exercising energy, judgment, and discipline in carrying out the policy handed down to him. That's what he's paid for, and if he's insubordinate he's not being honest with his employer.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:51 PM

O'Barney: you go girl. lets hear some more blind putrid purple rage in red lettering.

But seriously;
Honesty, personal authorship and observing a wider perspective of truth is well respected here and is worth practicing, even when it means that you could be wrong.

Somtimes I see people here using "opposite and equal facts" to balance the equation of conservative right wing rage. The problem is that its absurd because opposite and equal facts do not exist. Except in quantum physics and philosophical grey areas.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:02 PM

Of course you can be honest and insubordinate. Quite often happens when people see things they think are wrong and stand up for them. They could be wrong of course.

Being honest is being honest. Exercising energy,judgement and discipline is job performance and should not be confused with honesty. mg

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:12 PM

`Montgomery, DeGaulle and Patton operated outside of polite parameters but they got the job done. ( A bit slowly in Monty's case) Has 24hour news media affected things? Did your current President look up from his lettuce and think' ooh an easy target' `

MacArthur comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:40 PM

McClellen, MacArthur, McChrystal,

Maybe what we need is General McAuliffe (look it up)

It will be 'interesting' to see where McChrystal ends up in the next few years. He sure hasn't been shy about talking to the press.

From in interview with Der Speigel in Jan.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: IvanB
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:42 PM

Free speech is alive and well in the U.S. What many seem to forget is that speaking freely can have personal consequences and, in this case, it did.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:03 PM

Aw, Nuts to that Bill.........and I didn't have to look it up.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:06 PM

Yeah, if the US allowed the military to dictate policy to the president, it'd end up as awful as Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:16 PM

It basically is a very dangerous world out there, so we can pick the lesser of two evils, whichever it is..and different circumstances could make us really wish we had picked the other choice.

We can either either a too rambunctious military that trumps the civilians, in which case we could have a coup. Or we could have numbnut civilian oversight with a too complacent military, in which case sooner or later we will have a slaughter, or our allies will.

Good luck in guessing right.

And for the sake of good grammar, how about instead of.....

When a soldier is issued orders from up the chain of command, it's his duty to salute and say, "Yes, sir!" and then go execute the orders.   It is NOT his job or privilege to try to go "over the head" of his commander, in effect, to the public. That's almost the definition of "contrary to good order and discipline".

how about we put in his or her duty to say yes sir or yes ma'am as the case requires. mg

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:32 PM

There are different standards by which honesty may be measured.

Basically honesty is to be tested in relation to a duty owed. If one neglects a duty because he finds it easier to do his own thing, that's dishonest. If one neglects a duty because there is greater advantage to himself, that's dishonest. If one neglects a duty to serve his own judgment of what should be done, that's dishonest. And many other examples.

Now the question arises: What duty? Arising from what source? And duty to whom?

Now, a general is given honor and high pay and fame and power based on the duty he has assumed by oath to faithfully carry out duties assigned him from properly constituted authority. The very central nub of military law, duty, and morality is to follow orders.

He owes that duty not to himself and his own idea of right; not even to the people of the nation (although it is in the long run for their benefit). He swears to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, and under our law the Constitution is applied to him by The President of the United States, whom the Constitution names as The Commander in Chief. He may not overrule the Constitution and the Commander in Chief.

In this case, he having been placed in and accepted a high position, there is necessarily the exercise of judgment in carrying out his duties, but it must always be within the ambit of the policies and orders given him, but he must always support the command structure of which he is a part, with the Commander in Chief at the top. He has the duty of maintaining good order and discipline--including his own public utterances.

Such a highly placed officer is entitled to his own ideas, and indeed has a duty to urge any dissenting views upon his higher-ups, up to and including the President. But he is bound to give honest effort to supporting the President and other officers (military and civilian) who are placed above him. If he doesn't, he is cheating the United States of what it pays him for.

Sounding off in public, publicly attacking the policies or persons of the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, etc., is in contravention of the military virtue of carrying out orders; it attacks the very constitutional structure of civilian-directed military procedure and discipline.

Whatever his honest inward thoughts, however pure he might think his motives might be, to withhold obedience to the duties he has undertaken can in no way be called honest. If he can't follow his duty of obedience, he could always request to be relieved from his duties, or even to resign his commission; that would be honest, and would preserve any drive he may have to be intellectually honest if he thinks that conflicts with THE basic military duty. Sure, it would cost him, but not as high a price as has resulted from his cheating the Army/the Constitution/The President/the nation of his oath-bound duty.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM

One of these chinese proverbs must fit this situsation. Just not sure which one?

"Man who live in glass house should change clothes in basement"

"Man who scratch ass should not bite fingernails"

"It take many nails to build crib, but one screw to fill it"

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:43 PM

No it isn't.

Dave.were you a military officer? mg

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Alice
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:51 PM

I think the proverb that fits here is:


"Loose lips sink ships".

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:58 PM

but now the bloodshed when the US withdraws according to the timetable is all on Obama.

Rather the bloodshed is "ON" the bloody idiots that got us into this ridiculous war in the first place and without any sort of exit strategy...

Lets give credit where credit is due.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:08 PM

It seems to me, Alice, that you are right. Talking to a reporter was idiotic, and undermined current strategy (if you can call it that) in Afghanistan - the crucible of military reputations. Like wot I said all along. Nobody yet has succeeded in invading and holding Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:12 PM

Does anyone have a recipe for 'sensitive rolls'?

If you're in the military, you speak out to your boss, and if your boss doesn't agree with you, you

1) Suck it up and do what you're expected to do,
2) Quit, if you can (officers can resign their commissions, enlisted people, see 1) or 3)
3) Bitch, whine, piss, and moan--probably to someone other than your boss, because that didn't do any good the first time. Then, if you're an officer, you're probably asked to resign your commission if things go well for you, or you get to go to your very own court martial if they don't. If you're enlisted, and your commander is in his or her 'happy place', you can face 'non-judicial punishment', which means no court martial, but probably a discharge and maybe not an honorable one. Or you can face a court martial.

It's not likely that an enlisted person's bitching to third parties will harm national security. If a general does, they should nail his ass to the wall.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:15 PM

Or, to slightly amend a line from the movie Fletch Lives (1989)


"It's not smart to publically criticize the boss...you dont need Sherlock Holmes to help you figure that one out... even Larry Holmes could've told you that"

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Alice
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:23 PM

He allowed a reporter from Rolling Stone Magazine to hang out with him and with his staff, shooting the breeze from Paris to Afghanistan FOR A MONTH.

WHAT WAS HE THINKING?

They didn't even tell the reporter "don't print this" which amazed the reporter, as well.

He and his staff screwed up. Very poor judgment.

Like I said, "loose lips sink ships" and he sunk his own.



A.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:35 PM

The idea that there will be bloodshed if the U.S. pulls our troops out of Afghanistan is not true. The country will go back to being Afghanistan as it has for years.

Right now, the U.S. is creating more bloodshed over nine years of a failed occupation than any other country in the region. Innocents are being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Taleban will probably not become a major player in Afghanistan because there are so many other factions coming from the warlords and Karzai.

This surge propaganda is useless and it's about obtainingoil and minerals there by energy corporations. There is no logic that connects any action in Afghanistan to 911. That's baloney.

McChrystall is nuts. He is a power-hungry ideologue who wants to Christianize the world.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:41 PM

Ain't about free speech... It's about our government where the civilians trump the military...

If anyone has a problem with that there are plenty of Third World countries where it is the other way around...

Like Ebbie sais... This wasn't McC's first time... A smarter man would have taken the first "little talk" to heart... I don't wnat a man in charge in Afganistan who thinks he operates completely on his own with none above him... McC acted that way and now he's fired... Tough crap... He was warned...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:42 PM

What the General did was wrong. He recognized it before he went to see HIS Commanding Officer, the one who put him in his (former) position. One could make an argument that he gave "aid and comfort to the enemy" and should be punished by Court Martial (and I believe the UCMJ still carries that as a capital offense). His oath as an officer was to the Constitution of the United States, and THAT makes him subordinate to the President.

I have read many bitches from the troops; it's the right (and sometimes the duty) of the troops to bitch. It is NOT for the OIC to do so, and at this man's level it is to develop strategy.

His staff should also be removed.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: bobad
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:52 PM

Rolling Stone flushes another one down - remember Earl Butz?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:07 PM

Don't we have to be in a state of declared war for a charge of treason to be made? I remember something about that from civics class.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystal sacked for being honest
From: Genie
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:10 PM

To reiterate and highlight some key points made by previous posters:

1. McChrystal was relieved of his command for insubordination, not for "honesty."

2. "Sounding off in public, publicly attacking the policies or persons of the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, etc., is in contravention of the military virtue of carrying out orders; it attacks the very constitutional structure of civilian-directed military procedure and discipline." AND IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE MILITARY CODE OF JUSTICE. McChrystal could have been COURT-MARTIALED and perhaps should have been.

3. "Freedom Of Speech" means you cannot be prosecuted for expressing your opinions. It does not mean you can "speak" anywhere and at any time without consequences. And it does not apply within the US military, especially in the context of military operations.
The military does not operate by "reasoned debate" between superior officers and their underlings.

---

McChrystal may have been deliberately seeking to be relieved of his command so he could retire and become a high-paid lobbyist or commentator. But apparently he had initially agreed to a 30-minute interview with the Rolling Stone reporter, and it was because of Skarpi's volcano (I know you don't control it, Skarpi, but it's in your back yard) that they were both stranded for several days. They ended up hanging around with each other for quite some time, drinking and trying to pass the lengthy delay time.   It appears that the extended "leisure" and alcohol consumption in the company of the RS reporter may have loosened McChrystal's lips and overruled his judgment.
He well might not have mouthed off so freely to someone he knew to be a reporter under other circumstances.

Of course, if this account is true, it begs the question of what other things might have slipped from his lips to who-knows-who-else under other circumstances of boredom, conviviality and strong drink.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Genie
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:19 PM

@ hg (Moreover, he should have been told that if he tries to make his case in the national media once he is out, he will be stripped of his pension. Kind of like a "no compete" clause.)

Maybe one of you ex-military people can answer this:
If you retire from the miliatary, are you then totally free of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice? Can you keep your medals, your pension, etc., even if you, say, reveal military secrets or openly trash the active US military?
I would assume you can't be imprisoned or executed by the military for something you did after you retired, but what about the retiree benefits?

(Of course, an ex-general could make a helluva lot more as a lobbyist or executive for a big defense contractor that as a military pensioner.)

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Genie
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:20 PM

From the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Section 888, Article 88:

"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."

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:43 PM

Like I said, we're probably better off without this man running the Afgan war if he thinks that *he* is above defending the Constitution and above following military law...

Obama did the right thing is accepting McC's resignation...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:45 PM

There are rules in the military. One is, if he outranks you, you do as you are told and you keep your pie hole shut.
Obama had no choice. One little show of weakness and the sharks would be all over him.

McLellan had political ambitions too but they went nowhere. MacArthur was blinded by the light he cast on himself. A real Prima Donna.His own political ambitions went south too. General Eisenhower once said that he had studied drama under MacArthur.

Anyway, we now have in my opinion a better General. And I say Obama did the right thing. This is not a banana republic.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:13 PM

Retired officers (and enlisted people) are normally subject to the UCMJ. However, they may not be recalled for the sole reason of bringing them under courts martial jurisdiction, EXCEPT for acts committed while still on active duty. However, they can be recalled for post-retirement acts that involve "crimes of national security" as defined by the Hiss Act.

Or, to be more direct, you forfeit your retired pay (after due process) if you reveal military secrets (and that is subject to a whole bunch of 'howevers'), but you may trash the military to your heart's content.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Arkie
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:35 PM

I worked for state government for 30 years. I did not need to be told certain unwritten guidelines. When you disagreed with a person of higher rank you discussed it face to face with the good ones and you did not pursue the issue with the jackasses. It did not take long to tell which was which. You might bitch in the breakroom or to a close co-worker but you did not bitch in Wal-Mart, in front of a TV camera or to a Rolling Stone reporter. Anyone who believes McCrystal was let go because of his honesty is either extremely naive or trying to be ugly. The fact that McChrystal's name was misspelled might suggest something.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:52 PM

McChrystal is a smart man and knew he would be forcing Obama's hand in this matter. Yes, I believe he has political aspirations, and I believe this was done to enhance his fortunes with the republican voter base. I highly respect his tactics and strategy in Afghanistan, think he was a tremendous asset as a military commander, and also believe the disengenuousness of this approach reveals him to be a calculating individual who may see American Politics as another theater of war. Which makes him a very dangerous man indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 08:53 PM

What Kendall saud reminds me of my days in military school... We had this real prick, Sgt. Haney, teaching MST (Militart Science Training" and he oncfe said, "If I was ordered to kill my mother, my sister and my brother, I'd do it without a second thought..."

That say it purdy well...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Leadfingers
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:05 PM

As an Ex Regular Serviceman (Fourteen years R A F) I would like to apologise to our American friends for the Bloody Stupid comments of Paco O'Barmy , who MAY be a Good Musician , but obviously has NO idea
of how a Professional Soldier should behave .

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:19 PM

An unspecified GUEST asked whether I had been a military officer.

The answer is no, unless you want to dip down as low as a corporal.

As we would say in those days, "Don't call me no 'sir'! I work for a living!"

I turned them down twice when they attempted to get me to go to OCS, and also when I was contacted for recruitment to the counterintelligence corps.

That said, over the years I've had a number of ex-military officer friends, and I've been a student of civics for years. And I paid attention to the military ethos when I was in there.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Skivee
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:26 PM

I note that Paco hasn't rejoined the conversation.
Perhaps the discourse is more reasoned than he had hoped.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 10:10 PM

In the US, military officers who resigned or were sacked and who had political ambitions have had a very poor track record. MacArthur and McClelland both come to mind immediately. Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Grant, Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower were elected AFTER honorable retirement or resignation of commission.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 10:37 PM

I do hate troll threads which start out like this one did.

In addition to denigrating the President, the Vice President, the Security Council and the American Ambassador to Afghanistan (only the Secretary of State escaped the denigration), McChrystall also denigrated the other national forces (including the British troops) under the UN command.

I'm happy with Obama's new choice, General Petraeus. He's an experienced military man and highly intelligent. I thinks he's the rare general that the troops respect as do the civilian leadership, and most likely do the vast majority of the American public.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:03 AM

The President did the right thing. He had really no choice.
That being said, he really should consider not being a clown!
Rahm Emmanuel tendered his resignation, a couple of days before, effective in a few months, for being dissatisfied with the President, the offshore drilling moratorium, was overturned by a Federal Court, and now this...all within the last 72 hours. Everyone he campaigned for, lost, the oil spill took 57 days before he responded, and that was minimal. His approval rating is plummeting....perhaps he needs to hop aboard the 'clue train'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Genie
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:46 AM

GfS, you're straying more than a bit from the thread topic, but even at that, you've got some facts wrong and you're putting an unwarranted slant on most of the others.

1. Obama did not wait 57 days - or anywhere near that long - to respond to the disaster in the Gulf. He has been working with BP and in communication with state and local officials in the Gulf states and even visiting the gulf personally since early on after the initial explosion. Please do some serious, honest fact-checking.

2. As for Rahm Emmanuel, I wish he had tendered his resignation many months ago. He represents the ineffectual DLC, which is not only in bed with the big corporations but is also totally inept when it comes to both legislative and election strategy. He has been pulling Obama toward the "center" (read: the Right) in the vain attempt to garner a modicum of support from the Republicans, who do not want this President or the Dems to have any achievements at all, while thumbing his nose at the progressive/liberals who worked so hard to elect Obama and are likely to stay home in Nov. and in 2010 if Obama keeps kissing the ass of the Republicans and the multinational corporations.

3. The judge who overturened the "offshore drilling moratorium" (which applies only to newly developing wells and some deep shore opeartions, not to all oil drilling in the Gulf), should have recused himself, because he owns major stock in the oil companies.

4. "Everyone he campaigned for, lost." -- Not so. I'm sorry to say that Blanche Lincoln, whom both Bill Clinton and Obama campaigned for, beat Bill Halter in the Dem. runoff in Arkansas. (Lincoln will lose in Nov., where Halter had a better shot at winning. But her primary victory is attributable partly to her support from Obama and Clinton.)

Arlen Specter, whom Obama supported, lost, because he only became a Democrat when it was clear he would not be re-elected as a Republican.   I am very sorry that Obama supported him, because he was not only a true Democrat but a losing candidate at that. But he would have lost in November whether Obama supported him or not.   I suspect that Obama supported him because of some sort of deal they made when Specter switched to the Democratic party a couple years ago.

5. "His approval rating is plummeting."

Presidents' approval ratings go up and down like Johns' zippers. The Republican Party's current ratings are far lower than Obama's. And the ratings of Bush and Cheney in the last couple years of that administration were below 30%, sometimes in the teens.   The relevant question -- which way too few "new" agencies bother to ask -- is whom or which party people would prefer, and what rating they would give to the alternative parties and candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:18 AM

From the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Section 888, Article 88:

"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."

One unmentioned fact conspicuous by its absence has astounded me in reading through all these comments.

If the above is indeed the charge then General Stanley McChrystal is innocent of all charges, because General McChrystal did not say a single word against any of those parties - MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF DID. McChrystal got the sack for it. Now go off and read all about it and then come back and discuss it.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:25 AM

Ebbie

Paco Barmy is a Brit, Wesley. You know how they are. (rolling eyes)

Hmmm, we can all play that game -

"ichMael is a Yank, Ebbie. You know how they are. (rolling eyes)

Wesley S

Ebbie - If he's a Brit why is he sticking his nose in our affairs? It's not like you and I have been calling for the Queen to be replaced......

Over the last few days, the number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan has passed 300. I think Brits are entitled to an opinion on the matter even if, like Paco, they are totally Barmy.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:43 AM

Teribus, are we to believe that the general didn't know what his staff was up to, or that he didn't approve? Pull the other one!

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:52 AM

Please note Teribus that he is NOT being Court Martialed........So what's your point? Any President is free to dismiss any field commander as was the case with Truman and MacArthur,McClelland and Lincoln, etc.

Nothing to discuss.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 07:08 AM

To echo the Snail and bankley - McChrystall was the NATO Commander in Afghanistan and so this affects all the different countries on the ground there.

the view from BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson

who reports

"The problem is that the reasons for Gen McChrystal's irritation with Washington have not gone away.

There is a clear lack of decision about the way the war should be fought, and about whether and how there should be negotiations with the Taliban.

On Monday, this indecision cost the job of the most senior British diplomat in charge of Afghanistan"


From Jon Boone who elected to remain in Afghanistan as a freelance journalist after the FR withdrew it's journalists on safety grounds -

'Britain's special envoy to Afghanistan, known for his scepticism about the western war effort and his support for peace talks with the Taliban, has stepped down just a month before a critical international conference in Kabul.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles has taken "extended leave", a spokesman for the British high commission in Islamabad said on Monday

Cowper-Coles, who also had Pakistan in his remit as special envoy, clashed in recent months with senior Nato and US officials over his insistence that the military-driven counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure, and that talks with the Taliban should be prioritised'

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:05 AM

Obama had no choice on this one. The fact that McChrystall was the NATO commander might account for why he went to Petraeus as a replacement.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:38 AM

No contemptuous words about the civilian command structure, Terebus? Did you notice the VP in there? How about this quote?

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?" "Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

The entire Rolling Stones article is here, if anyone wants to actually read it.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:00 AM

'Interesting' opening paragraph by freelancer Michael Hastings

"He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies.
Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States"

So, no mention of the 9000 UK troops or the 307 fatalities to date?

Actually it was Barack Obama who declared last year that America has "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" towards its allies.

Pity Hastings doesn't seem to have read that

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:16 AM

I couldn't care two hoots whether or not McChrystal knew what his staff were up to, or said. My objection relates to the usual suspects on this forum and their usual knee-jerk reactions calling for Courts Martial; Loss of Pension; etc; etc. When in reality there is absolutely no fuckin' case to answer.

As to your Vice-President Joe "Wrong Again" Biden - What's the problem he is a joke and a joke who holds down the greatest "non-job" in the world.

Previously McChrystal was perfectly within his remit to state where and how he thought the Vice-President of the United States proposed policies and strategies to be wrong, that is all part and parcel of his job. Respect is a two-way street, Biden showed exactly what respect he had for the military back in September 2007 - He was "Wrong Again" on that occasion too.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:21 AM

Once again, he is NOT being Court Martialed, A President has once again had enough of a commanding general and has canned his ass. Goodbye Dickwad and enjoy your retirement or whatever.......

Next case...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:35 AM

The Snail, my tweak was meant to be facetious. Sorry for the bruise.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:49 AM

There will always be disagreement on how something should be done. That's why we have bosses. In this case, Obama is the boss, get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 12:06 PM

Fair enough, Ebbie, but I hope you get the Paco/ichMael comparison and taken in conjunction with Wesley S's dismissive - "If he's a Brit why is he sticking his nose in our affairs?", perhaps you understand my irritation.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 12:23 PM

I just finally read the article. Excuse my tardiness, please.

This is strange. I didn't see all that much in it that was objectionable. I'm having to reevaluate my take on the situation.

The article reports that he's not on a good footing with the Ambassador. So? Ditto as to some other relatively high officials. So?

I don't recall any disparaging remarks about the Secretary of Defense.

I recall only one sort of slighting reference to the President, about how he ought not to be a clown. Oh, yes, and that at an early meeting (perhaps even before election) Obama had seemed intimidated.
Two quibbles there: "before election", and "seemed", which is McChrystal's personal take, if he actually said it. I personally don't find any of that so egregious.

It's pretty clear from the article that he doesn't have high respect or a good relationship with Biden. Biden is not, as far as I know, in McChrystal's chain of command. And I don't think there were any actual derogatory comments about Biden in the article. I do recall some reference to Biden's "non-job" as vice-president. And that's true enough: the vice-presidency as the Constitution sets it out doesn't give the VP more than a token function, as president of the Senate. Many vice-presidents have been conspicuous by their frequent and prolonged absence from the actual exercise of their one constitutionally prescribed duty, and the republic has rolled on very nicely despite the absence, thank you. Which leaves a VP as a sort of utility man, for whatever job the President deigns to assign to him (if any), which is usually ceremonial. In any case, the VP has no actual power.

I've seen or read something about McChrystal being loose-lipped with the journalist while laid over at an airport bar. I didn't see anything like that in the article. So maybe there are other things out there of which I'm unaware which might be much more objectionable.

I believe my previous posts were appropriate to the situation as I've heard/seen it reported or commented on in the media. But it doesn't appear to me, solely from reading the Rolling Stone article, that all that powerful a case is to be made for insubordination.

All water over the dam, of course. The President made a decision he's entitled to make, and we move on.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 12:23 PM

He was sacked for being a stupe!

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:14 PM

Snail - I hope you don't think I was being dismissive of all English people. It's just that in the 11 or 12 years I've been here at the Mudcat my perception has been that a lot of threads critical of the USA have been started by Brits. It makes me think that a few of y'all are still pissed off about 1776. There are several things that I could critize about England but it's simply none of my business. So I wouldn't dream of starting a thread about your royality or the occupation of Northern Ireland. My irritation has been directed at the thread starter. Please don't take it personally. That's not my intent.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:37 PM

I believe my previous posts were appropriate to the situation as I've heard/seen it reported or commented on in the media. But it doesn't appear to me, solely from reading the Rolling Stone article, that all that powerful a case is to be made for insubordination.

All the UCMJ requires is "contemptuous words." He's damned lucky he didn't face court-martial.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Charmion
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:38 PM

I'm gonna do the Canadian thing here and ask you Yanks and Brits to retire to your respective corners and stop sniping at each other. It tends to derail an otherwise interesting discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 01:40 PM

There are two issues on the table here.

1) The right of a person to criticize his or her government`s policy regarding stuff.

2) the right of a military commander to criticize his or her government`s policy regarding stuff.

Some folks who`ve posted seem to know that there is a difference. Some don`t. I wish the people who don`t would get their fuckin` facts in order.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:10 PM

You still don't seem to be getting it, Wesley, so I'll spell it out -

1) Paco O'Bonkers no more speaks for Britain than ichMael speaks for the USA.

2) It IS our business. McCrystal was sacked as NATO commander. The NATO forces include soldiers from Germany, Canada, The Netherlands and France. Read the article. Try telling the relatives of the 300+ British dead and 40+ French dead that it is not their affair. (Not to mention the many more injured, maimed and traumatised.)

It makes me think that a few of y'all are still pissed off about 1776.
.
.
.
Please don't take it personally. That's not my intent.

Er, right. Just because you are the most powerful nation on Earth doesn't mean you are above criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:15 PM

Charmion, take a look at this.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM

The MacArthur-Truman head-butt has been mentioned a couple of times up-thread. And aptly so.

Harry Truman got a lot of flak when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command in the Korean war "police action." MacArthur wanted to push on into North Korea and then invade China on the basis of "We're here, now, so let's complete the job!"

And this is the man who counseled, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia!"

MacArthur did a masterful job in WW II against Japan, but he was a megalomaniac, and he would have started World War III if Truman hadn't fired him. Many people gave Truman a lot of crap for that, but Truman was right!

Among other things, Obama said, "I've given McChystall everything he wanted except an open-ended timeline."

This whole "War on Terrorism" has been handled wrong right from the start, and some folks tend to conveniently forget that Obama inherited that f**k-up from the previous administration. Wars are between nation-states. Al Qaeda is a criminal mob and should have been treated as such from the very beginning. If it had been, it would have saved a lot of lives, American soldiers plus an egregious number of innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Lots of "collateral damage," with damned few genuine terrorists actually being dealt with.

We're running a great recruiting program for anti-American terrorist groups!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:16 PM

Trouble with you Spaw is that you dont read. Go back down through this thread and see if anyone has said that HE SHOULD BE COURT MARTIALED you Dickwad (whatever that is?) That is what I have objected to.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:22 PM

Well, I suppose that Gen. McChrystal could have been dismissed as the US commander and left in place as the NATO commander. Sounds reasonable to me. Come to think of it, Gen. MacArthur was the UN commander in Korea as well as the US commander. I guess that Truman should have asked the Security Council for prior approval.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:23 PM

From the "Urban Dictonary" :

1. dickwad
   
George W. Bush
George W. Bush is a dickwad.


2. dickwad

Also known as a wad-of-dick.

3. dickwad

More powerfully insulting than its predecessor 'dickhead'

girl 1 - did that guy ever call?
girl 2 - no, what a dickwad!


4. dickwad

The tissue (kleenex) used to catch and mop up the ejaculate after masturbating. The tissue is then wadded into a ball and disposed of.
Popular australian usage amongst teens


5. dickwad

Your basic insult, vague but still mean. Used to insult males usually. Someone who doesn't disserve your time
jerk, asshole, moron, stupid

Insulter: Wow, you're dumb
Insultie: Shutup Dickwad!

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:50 PM

Don Firth

it would have saved a lot of lives, American soldiers plus an egregious number of innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:41 PM

Didn't mean to slight casualties from other countries, Snail. Just typing fast. I'm fully aware of the international participation. But thanks for linking to the stats.

But I still say it should have not have been handled like a war between nations (especially a nation that wasn't involved, Iraq), it should have been treated as an attack by a gang of criminals, which is what it really was.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:56 PM

""If the above is indeed the charge then General Stanley McChrystal is innocent of all charges, because General McChrystal did not say a single word against any of those parties - MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF DID. McChrystal got the sack for it. Now go off and read all about it and then come back and discuss it.""

Even if you are right, he had an obligation, as does any commander, to put a stop to that kind of insubordination, and he did the opposite, tacitly encouraging unacceptable behaviour.

Any officer worth his salt would stamp on theat sort of indiscipline instantly.

He had to go, or the military efficiency of his command would have been seriously compromised.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:07 PM

""It's pretty clear from the article that he doesn't have high respect or a good relationship with Biden. Biden is not, as far as I know, in McChrystal's chain of command. And I don't think there were any actual derogatory comments about Biden in the article. I do recall some reference to Biden's "non-job" as vice-president.""

Perhaps he just forgot that the man he dismissed so disdainfully would automatically become his Commander-in-Chief, if some redneck republican managed to waste Obama.

It doesn't matter what he thought of the administration, he didn't have the right to allow it to be ridiculed in a media rag. That is not the same as querying a superior directly, which would be standard operating procedure.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:12 PM

""It makes me think that a few of y'all are still pissed off about 1776.""

Not to mention a few husbands who had their suspicions during 1942 - 1944, when the major difference between New York and London, was that there were more GIs in London.

Strictly with tongue in cheek....LOL

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:20 PM

Hi there, just thought I'd pop in and see how things were going...

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:50 PM

I'm used to the sniping and can ignore it. I think if we eliminate it, we're going to ruin the intent of the thread originator. I don't think it's fun, though.

I am not good at a lot of things. One thing I'm REALLY good at is finding boundaries of behavior (shit--I had to edit an accidental 'u' out of that!) and dancing along the safe side of the edge.

You can disagree with your superiors forever, or until your superior tells you to 'zip it', at which time, further bitching may not actually be a actionable as a violation of a direct order, but can get a person put on the superior's 'shit list', which is never a good thing.

'Disagreement' sounds like "I don't agree with the president's policy on..." and not like "I don't agree with that idiot dickwad's policy on..." The later, I believe, shows contempt, whereas the former does not. If you say it to a reporter 'on the record' for a widely read publication, and your boss is the President of the United States, it's 1)career suicide, 2)great publicity for a schedule of talk show appearances and your forthcoming book, 3)a good way to make your former boss look prettydamngood. (Chris Matthews on MSNBC said just few minutes ago he thought it may have been the best thing that could have happened for Obama.)

Contempt is never just disagreement, and it's never just mouthing off.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 06:49 PM

Sory Don. I've just rather got my wild up at the suggestion that the war in Afghanistan is a purely internal US affair and nobody else has any business sticking their noses in.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 07:37 PM

"General Stanley McChrystal, the former American commander of Nato in Afghanistan, highlighted civilian deaths as a key reason why Afghans joined the insurgency and why Nato risked losing the nine year war."


Just listening to the breaking news here in the UK that -

" Payments to relatives of civilians killed in error by British forces in Afghanistan have trebled in the past year according to military records obtained by Channel 4 News.
The stark figures which shed light on 105 Afghan civilian deaths in the past year are revealed in records of compensation payouts by the Ministry of Defence.....

The figures released to Channel 4 News under the freedom of information act show that the MoD paid compensation to relatives of at least 105 Afghan civilians killed by British forces in error last year.

That was three times the number compensated in 2008.

MoD payments

The documents - which often do not give any details or provide rationale for the payouts - also show $875 (£584) was paid out last year to the family of a nine year old girl shot in the head.

$950 (£634) was paid for the death of a 10-year-old boy.

In one case the Ministry of Defence also paid out $300 (£200) for a lost mobile phone.

It is unclear how full a picture these figures give of the deaths caused in error by British forces, but the rise in number year on year of those paid compensation is marked."

Channel 4 report

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:20 PM

Hey, folks... This is a purdy fu*ked up war we got goin'... But I stay torn between just gettin' the heck out or not... Seems to me that at some point maybe the "allies" could engage the Taliban in some talks and see if things could be worked out...

(But, Bobert... We don't negotiate with terrorists...)

Yeah, but to alot of folks we are the terrorists... I mean, like Afgan farmers lookin' up and seein' drones fly overhead and wonderin' if someone got it wrong and the thing is going to blow me up???

I donno...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:50 PM

Bobert, back on December 18, 2008 The Huffington Post reported that

"As each day brings bleaker news for Afghanistan - last week's research from the International Council on Security and Development suggesting that the Taliban have a permanent presence in 72% of Afghanistan, for example - the possibility of talking with the Taliban seems to be gaining support as an essential step out of the quagmire.

In September, a leaked memo quoted UK Ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles - "The current situation is bad. The security situation is getting worse. So is corruption and the Government has lost all trust. Our public statements should not delude us over the fact that the insurrection, while incapable of winning a military victory, nevertheless has the capacity to make life increasingly difficult, including in the capital."

The American strategy "is doomed to fail" the memo quotes Cowper-Coles as saying, (The UK foreign office has questioned whether the memo correctly presents Cowper-Coles views)."


McChrystal's sacking was preceded by the de facto resignation of the UK's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan an outspoken, Arabic and Pashto speaking, Oxford-educated diplomat with a track record in Central Asia and the Middle East, often at loggerheads with McChrystal, and US special envoy Richard Holbrooke.

As I posted on 24 Jun 10 - 07:08 AM

'Britain's special envoy to Afghanistan, known for his scepticism about the western war effort and his support for peace talks with the Taliban, has stepped down just a month before a critical international conference in Kabul.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles has taken "extended leave", a spokesman for the British high commission in Islamabad said on Monday

Cowper-Coles, who also had Pakistan in his remit as special envoy, clashed in recent months with senior Nato and US officials over his insistence that the military-driven counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure, and that talks with the Taliban should be prioritised'

Cowper-Coles described as "a casualty of Afghan policy war appears to have been caught in the crossfire of diverging approaches.

'Ironically, perhaps, his view that a negotiated peace is unavoidable is privately shared by most, if not all, of the European Nato countries with troops in Afghanistan.
The British diplomat will take no pleasure if and when he is proven right. But that looks like the most probable outcome.'

Simon Tisdall 21 june

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 10:46 PM

Looks to me like appropriate decision making on the part of President Obama. Done in an appropriate manner to the man's face after adequate provocation.

Let's hope Petraeous is up to the tasks.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 12:14 AM

Even if you are right, he had an obligation, as does any commander, to put a stop to that kind of insubordination

You mean like sacking the person responsible for the remarks from his job Don T? Because that is what McChrystal did.

It doesn't matter what he thought of the administration, he didn't have the right to allow it to be ridiculed in a media rag.

And McChrystal could prevent that reporter from writing what he had obtained from others how exactly Don T?

Fact is that none of the remarks are directly attributable to McChrystal, however reading contributions to this thread people are talking as though they were made by McChrystal - they weren't.

As for Afghanistan it is not an American War; it is not a NATO War. ALL foreign forces, and they come from some 43 countries, are present under duly authorised United Nations Mandates. Afghanistan is a United Nations intervention involving two specifically created organisations UNAMA and ISAF.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 12:56 AM

None of that matters in the least. The President believed McChrystal was acting in a manner which was not in line with policy and the administration.......just like Truman and MacArthur. Obama did what he thought was right and replaced him.

Is that so hard to understand? What is the big deal here? There are many well qualified to replace him and an excellent man was chosen to do so.

Before rambling on about whether Obama was right to do so:
1) Remember he had the authority to do so as well as what he felt was the justification. I note McCain thinks the same.
2) Check back on your family records and see if your parents had any children that lived.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Genie
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:21 AM

So right, 'Spaw. And, BTW, Dubya pretty much did the same thing to Gen. Cinzecki (sp?) when that General expressed - and not in a contemptuous manner - disagreement with Dubya's planned strategy for the "war" in Iraq.

@ Teribus [... My objection relates to the usual suspects on this forum and their usual knee-jerk reactions calling for Courts Martial; Loss of Pension; etc; etc. When in reality there is absolutely no fuckin' case to answer.

...

Previously McChrystal was perfectly within his remit to state where and how he thought the Vice-President of the United States proposed policies and strategies to be wrong, that is all part and parcel of his job. Respect is a two-way street ...]]
Respect is not a "two-way street" when it comes to the military chain of command. The UCMJ says publicly expressing contempt for the US Vice President (among others) is a court-martiallable offense; it doesn't prohibit the VP from badmouthing a General.

Anyway, McChrystal is neither being court-martialed nor "fired" from the military.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:24 AM

To question the madness of Vietnam was seen as "bravery"

To point out the madness of our present involvment in Afghanistan a "crime"?

Thousands being killed on both sides for absolutely nothing.
We are desperate to withdraw, but held back by the need to salve political egos.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being insubordinate
From: Genie
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:32 AM

@ Uncle Dave O
[[Uncle_DaveO

Nobody said McChrystal made "disparaging remarks" about he Secretary of Defense, but he did say some pretty contemptuous things about the Commander-In-Chief, the VP, a US ambassador, and others.

Whether he said "seemed" or not, the issue really is spouting off to a known reporter about his quarrels with the President, etc.   And Biden, as VP, is specifically one of the people mentioned in the UMCJ Section 888, Article 88.

You don't think referring to the VP's job as a "non-job" as vice-president is an expression of contempt? That is expressing contempt both for the current VP and for the office itself. The UCMJ apparently considers that position to be a bit more important than that.

It may not be clear to you, just from reading the Rolling Stone article, that McChrystal was clearly insubordinate.   But, again, he is not being court-martialed or stripped of his rank. The Commander-In-Chief can change the assignments of Generals without needing to prove a court-martialable offense. And I suspect that Obama is privy to a lot more information on McChrystal than you or I know about based on the RS article.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 06:02 AM

""And McChrystal could prevent that reporter from writing what he had obtained from others how exactly Don T?""

By jumping all over the first subordinate to make such comments.

Seems he sat back, smiled, and let it go on, even on occasions joining in.

The opposite of what a military commander should do. Can you say "Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" as staed in the military manuals of most modern countries.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 06:12 AM

""To question the madness of Vietnam was seen as "bravery"

To point out the madness of our present involvment in Afghanistan a "crime"?

Thousands being killed on both sides for absolutely nothing.
We are desperate to withdraw, but held back by the need to salve political egos.""

BLOODY AMAZING! I AGREE WITH AKE!.........

The proper place for the British Army is here in Britain, guarding our territory, not chasing wild geese all over the world on the pretext of fighting terrorists, who are probably half a continent away from where we are fighting.

The whole concept of enclosing a totally different culture in a veneer of what we like to call democracy (it isn't!...See Ancient Greek History for the real thing), is fatally flawed and ridiculous.

"Mind our own business and let them get on with theirs", is the way I deal with my neighbours, and it generally works well.

Maybe nations should try it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 08:29 AM

Paco Barmy is a Brit, Wesley. You know how they are.

I know it has been addressed already and I do understand it is ironic but I would like to add a bit. Look back on Barmy's postings. He is a millionaire of some sort. He owns and runs a thriving business. He pays more tax in a month than most people earn. I thought Walter Mitty was an American, played in the film by a Ukranian Jewish immigrant. How can he be a Brit as well? :-)

As to the other issue of it being an American issue. Well, Afganistan is global but the US president sacking a US soldier is US business. About which Barmy has as much knowledge as he does of economics.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:20 AM

As to the other issue of it being an American issue. Well, Afganistan is global but the US president sacking a US soldier is US business.

Pity the reality was that US General Stanley McChrystal's appointment was to a NATO Command, not a US one. Pure bloody arrogance on the part of Obama to sack the man without first consulting his NATO Partners particularly considering the timing and a forthcoming operation in Kandahar. Of course one way to solve that if that is how Obama wants to play it is that we all draw stumps, come home and let him get on with it.

In his press conference announcing the replacement of General McChrystal it is very clear that Barack Obama has the mission statements of ISAF and US-OEF mixed up. If the aims are as Barack Obama mentioned then all countries contributing to ISAF should leave Afghanistan immediately as what General Petraeus will be ordering them to do falls outwith their remit.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:22 AM

Check back on your family records and see if your parents had any children that lived.


Spaw

Great pity Spaw that your dad didn't settle for the blow-job offered by your mother on the night you were conceived.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:46 AM

By jumping all over the first subordinate to make such comments.

Hate to point out the obvious Don but that is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, the comments having been made, would still have been appeared in print - TRUE??

By the bye do you know for certain that the remarks made to the reporter from RS Magazine by McChrystal's Aides were made in the presence of McChrystal?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 11:25 AM

My Ol Man was no fool......and my Mom was simply into foreplay. They went for both My condolences to both of your parents whatever species they might be................


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:50 PM

Play nicely, children.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:54 PM

""Hate to point out the obvious Don but that is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, the comments having been made, would still have been appeared in print - TRUE??

By the bye do you know for certain that the remarks made to the reporter from RS Magazine by McChrystal's Aides were made in the presence of McChrystal?""

NOT TRUE!

There is plenty of evidence that McChrystal took a pretty laisser faire attitude to his subordinates' behaviour over an extended period prior to the RS hack coming on the scene.

If you take your head out of its current position where the sun don't shine, you might see it.

Good order and discipline wasn't as high on the General's agenda as it should have been.

Bottom line?.. in the old British Army, he would have been dishonourably discharged.

He's damn lucky to be simply relieved, and should now keep his head down and get on with his job.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:26 PM

Play nicely, children.

Okay Art.....Just for you......because I came along too late to toss in a comment on the welcome back thread where you actually gave me a really good belly laugh!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: mousethief
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 03:43 PM

Hate to point out the obvious Don but that is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, the comments having been made, would still have been appeared in print - TRUE??

Once it appeared in print, did he sack the person? Well, no. Horse out of the barn or no, that shows his intent more than anything. If he had spoken out strongly against such subordination, and knocked some heads together, he probably would still be in command.

Hi there, just thought I'd pop in and see how things were going..

But not take part in the conversation you started. You are a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 04:15 PM

Me thinks that the revisionism is allready underway by "the usual suspect", T-Bird... McChrystall, if I understand it correctly, went to meet with Obama with resignation in hand... Now if he didn't think he had done anything wrong then why would he do that??? I mean, let's get real here... Saying that McChrystall was this straight shooting team player is not at all accurate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 05:10 PM

Saying that McChrystall was this straight shooting team player is not at all accurate...

Not only that - its utter bullshit, too.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: olddude
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:21 PM

There has been many soldiers who disagree with their commander and chief and what they do is ... turn in their resignation. You see in the military you are taught from day 1 .. you obey orders, you don't question them you follow them .. His duty was to the commander and chief ... he had the right to ask for a private meeting and voice his opinion if the commander and chief allowed or he could resign but one thing you don't do is go to the press. That would get a grunt soldier court marshalled and he as a general knew it ... He took the oath , he knew what the job was and what he had to do ... that is follow his orders .. he was duty bound ... the military is NOT a Democracy ...

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 11:16 PM

My question is why Petraeus took the job.   OK, the President asked him to, no doubt.

But I'm sure Petraeus is fully aware that Afghanistan is not only the graveyard of empire, but very likely also the graveyard of reputation.

Does he just like a challenge, or does he really think the Iraq strategy can be used in Afghanistan?

Among the many problems is the fact that now that the Taliban have swallowed whatever Islamic principles against drug use they may have had, and now are perfectly willing to accept opium production, the West has to come up with a more profitable cash crop than opium poppies in order to win over Afghan farmers.   

Good luck.

From reading the "Spiegel" interview with McChrystal cited above, it seems clear that McChrystal did have the right idea:   as in the old Vietnam slogan, WHAM (win hearts and minds).

But there will never be a nice neat "surrender" by the Taliban.   And counterinsurgency is well-known to be a messy business--especially when WHAM conflicts with keeping your own soldiers alive.

It seems like a huge gamble for Petraeus, who now has a sterling reputation--which could easily be tarnished.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 08:54 AM

I wondered about that too, Ron. One of the things that came to mind was, McChrystal was generally in charge, so the other NATO troops came under his oversight as well. Given the circumstances, the president had to recall Stanley; by putting Petraeus in there he would enjoy the continued trust of the other parties. I wouldn't be surprised to see Petraeus handing the ball of to someone else over the course of time.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:39 AM

...it seems clear that McChrystal did have the right idea:   as in the old Vietnam slogan, WHAM (win hearts and minds).


The "right idea"? Oh yeah, WHAM sure worked a treat in Viet Nam, didn't it?

But the Viet Nam anology for the idiocy in Afghanistan is spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:40 AM

I believed he should have been sacked for deliberately fabricating the whole Pat Tilman friendly fire lie many years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:15 AM

I am again seeing the enormous military cargo planes that fly the dead soldiers home from overseas. They fly their honor route around the capitol and then a larger circle around the capitol before landing at Andrews. They fly low and slow just above the helicopter ceiling. The sound is unique and strong so that it is easy to look up and see them in time.

Back in 2003 and 2004 the flights were so numerous that I saw them doing the honor circles in convoys. With 48 dead so far this month I expect to see more of these honor flights in weeks to come.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:19 AM

I thought that the dead soldiers were flown into Dover AFB, Donuel which I believe is in Delaware??? No???

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:36 AM

"WHAM worked a treat..."    You may have noticed there was more than WHAM involved in Vietnam.   But then again perhaps you didn't notice a thing.

And you might want to consider that in war there is always more than WHAM. And that's one of the main problems Petraeus has in Afghanistan now.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:37 AM

Well I a guess I am not sure of their final destination, all I know is what I see and it seemed they eventually headed east which is where both Andrews and Dover are from my location.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Arkie
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 11:11 AM

Is there in truth the stories that trillions of dollars worth of precious metals including lithium have been discovered in Afghanistan?

Saudi Arabia of Lithium

War for Minerals

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 11:14 AM

Are we going to try to make the farmers miners?   I've also heard mention of mineral wealth in Afghanistan.    But that does not solve the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 11:54 AM

If, and it is a big if, there are extractable quantities of precious and industrial metals in Afghanistan, any profits will end up in the hands of the oligarchs and the Taliban (another breed of oligarchs). The farmers and the US and US companies will make about as much off of it as they did off of Iraqi oil - nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 12:46 PM

sacked for being honest? ... I heard on BEEB Radio 4 this morning

Gen David Petraeus was also said to sleep little, run a lot, work all the time.
I once joked with Gen Petraeus that he had to spend more time in Afghanistan because he was being outdone in the image stakes by the other hard-charging general.
He laughed: "I know about Stan's one meal a day," he said. "He eats one meal a day, all day long."

hhmmm me thinks... some myth making has been going on by McChrystal and he streteched truth about his one meal a day claim. Is that honest?

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Arkie
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 01:33 PM

Minerals in Afghanistan certainly does not solve any problems but it does raise the stakes. For war lords, Taliban, China, USA, and who knows who else. In part to control the wealth, but in part to keep someone else from profiting from it. I would doubt the average citizen will seen any benefit or if they do it will take generations for it to trickle down.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 01:52 PM

The minerals were first documented in 1967 and then again in 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 02:13 PM

You may have noticed there was more than WHAM involved in Vietnam.

Ya think, Simple? However you only mentioned WHAM, and that's what the comment related to - what you posted.

I guess you didn't notice that.

If you want to discuss other Vietnam stratgies, by all means put 'em out there.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,Josep
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 03:35 PM

McChrystal was fired for insubordination. In the American military chain of command (which EVERY American military man is expected to follow), the president is at the very tip-top. You do what he says and you always show him the proper respect. If you do not, you will be replaced. "Reasoned debate" has no place in the chain of command--you do what you're told and you keep your opinions about it to yourself.

When I served, my chain of command was rigid. If you had a problem, you took it to your immediate senior, not to his senior. If you jump that chain, stand by for a severe ass-chewing. You could, in fact, get brought up for non-judicial punishment for doing it. The chain of command MUST be followed. The president is at the top of that chain. If he tells you to do it, you do it. You may ask for clarification or raise questions about your orders, but if the president says, "Just do what I told you," then you do it. There's no reasoned debate. You do what you're told. If you don't or if you carry it out grudgingly, expect to be replaced with the proper ass-chewing coming somewhere before that.

That's how it is when you are in the military. Don't like it, too bad. You don't get a say and there is no reasoned debate. You either carry your orders out in a timely, professional manner or you get shown the door. McChrystal had it coming. Just because he was honest doens't make him immune to be being disciplined. It doesn't mean anything at all. You do what you're told or you're gone. It's that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 03:58 PM

//It IS our business. McCrystal was sacked as NATO commander. The NATO forces include soldiers from Germany, Canada, The Netherlands and France. Read the article. //

No, it is not your business. Obama was within his right to do what he did and any other president would have done the same under those circumstances.

//Try telling the relatives of the 300+ British dead and 40+ French dead that it is not their affair. (Not to mention the many more injured, maimed and traumatised.)//

Hey, relatives of the 300+ British dead and 40+ French dead--it is not your business. Americans have died there too and it's not the business of their relatives either. I can't think for the life of me why it should be. The job of a NATO soldier is to carry out the orders of whoever his or her senior is and if that person gets replaced then they get replaced. You don't keep someone there who isn't doing a professional job because of what the relatives of dead soldiers are going to think. Frankly, who cares what they think?

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 10:20 PM

Up to a point, Josep, you are right. All the troops in Afghanistan are volunteers as far as I know and they have signed up to obey orders and kill and be killed accordongly.

The comment from Wesley S I was responding to was

If he's a Brit why is he sticking his nose in our affairs?

which seems to suggest that nobody outside the USA has the right to an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 04:17 AM

Sorry, I was a bit late in responding

Genie: "GfS, you're straying more than a bit from the thread topic, but even at that, you've got some facts wrong and you're putting an unwarranted slant on most of the others......."

I read your 'rebuttals'..only a naive Obama-ite groupie, could stretch the obvious into your politically intellectual pretzel.

If he wants to remain in office, along with the House and Senate, it would only be by force!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 09:26 AM

John McCain on meet the press this morning "Obama did the right thing absolutely" he went on to say exactly what others here said about the chain of command and following orders.

and in regard to what someone wrote. it is the brits right to comment!!
there kids are dying also over there

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being ho
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 11:30 AM

Obama cleaned house after General McChrystall and his staff had their "come as you are" party. It's not a pleasant job to do but someone has to do it.

Hope General McChrystall enjoys his new job flipping hamburgs at McDonald's.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 11:54 AM

his new job flipping hamburgs at McDonald's.

If only it were true...

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 12:14 PM

Charley Noble, the General was removed from a given assignment, NOT fired from the Army. He was not court-martialed. He was not reduced in rank.

He is still a general at the same level as before, still receiving the same pay, with the same retirement benefits. If he should take retirement, he's still a general at that rank, and can be recalled by the Army if they find him needed.

Now, it just may be that his future assignments may be affected.
Those interested will just have to wait and see what jobs he's given.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being ho
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Jun 10 - 02:49 PM

I guess today's political cartoon was incorrect.

But, yes, I realized that the general was merely relieved of his command and sent back to the States.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 12:07 AM

If he tells you to do it, you do it. You may ask for clarification or raise questions about your orders, but if the president says, "Just do what I told you," then you do it. There's no reasoned debate. You do what you're told. If you don't or if you carry it out grudgingly, expect to be replaced with the proper ass-chewing coming somewhere before that.

Not so, in the UK Forces, the order must first be considered lawful, if you refuse to obey on those grounds, you will face the consequences of your your actions but will be given every opportunity to argue your case. I know that to be the case as I did exactly that on two occasions and won both times.

Subject: RE: BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 06:33 AM

A view from Pakistan

"Fall of a strategy!"

Article by Air Cdre Khalid Iqbal regional security analyst & a former PAF Assistant Chief of Air Staff