BS: US General McChrystall sacked for being honest

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:37 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,hg
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:13 PM

A horrifying thought, bearded bruce

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 - 03:12 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?