McChrystal most likely on the way out..

SteamWake · 06-22-10, 09:11 AM

How dare you express your feelings !

Quote:

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Obama and others in the Obama administration.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html#ixzz0rahznAQz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200813_pf.html

CCIP · 06-22-10, 09:28 AM

Well, in fairness, the president is still the commander in chief. I don't think it's customary for military officers to criticize their superiors - orders are orders. I really don't think it's appropriate to make these sorts of remarks on record while on duty.

Not that I disagree with his right as a private person to criticize the white house - but he should've waited until he's back home. You can't expect a commander to continue trusting his subordinates when they make these sorts of remarks on duty, simple as that. Hell, common sense - I know I wouldn't be surprised to get fired if I started talking this sort of thing about my boss and the managers while at my job.

SteamWake · 06-22-10, 09:39 AM

The way I see it is the man is mad as hell and just couldent take it anymore.

He had to have known where this would lead.

The proper course of action would have been to resign then make the allegations but evidently something pushed him over the edge. Probably the policys that place our troops in un-necessary dangers.

But... I think if he had resigned we would have never heard of this story other than "McChrystil resigns".

The man is a carrier professional stratigist, trust me he did not speak off the cuff. He (at least in his mind) is doing what needs to be done.

krashkart · 06-22-10, 10:24 AM

I think if I were in his position I would be wanting to say a few things, too. These wars amount to a near-total bureaucratic failure in my mind. (I gotta blame somebody, may as well be the stiffs in Washington

)

One good thing about this is that he's not being given a nickname like "General Betray Us".

06-22-10, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

I think if I were in his position I would be wanting to say a few things, too. These wars amount to a near-total bureaucratic failure in my mind. (I gotta blame somebody, may as well be the stiffs in Washington

)

One good thing about this is that he's not being given a nickname like "General Betray Us".

Oh I don't know if I'd call the whole thing just a "bureaucratic failure". It takes more then just bureaucrats to mess things up that badly. Who knows, maybe even McChrystal isn't perfect either?

krashkart · 06-22-10, 11:14 AM

Good point.

GoldenRivet · 06-22-10, 11:19 AM

Im torn between CCIPs argument and Steamwake's.

Something pushed this man over the edge.

on the other hand my civil air patrol cadet doesnt even talk trash about the president.

If i were in the General's position i probably would have made worse remarks.

you have a military trying to win a war - and an administration trying to lose it. A frustrating proposition for the men holding the rifles.

SteamWake · 06-22-10, 11:38 AM

I think that whole thing about the medal for refraining from firing their weapons was close to the last straw.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/imp...your_fire.html

I'm also pretty shure his frustration is due to being 'led' by a pack of rank idealistic amateurs.

On one hand its a bad thing to speak in public against your 'superior officers'.

On the other hand McChrystil puts the welfare of his charges ahead of his own carrier.

This will be a tough damage control issue for the white house. Its hard to fight the truth.

Have a look at McChrystil's service record.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...tal-biography/

Compare that to our community activist in cheif.

Zachstar · 06-22-10, 01:17 PM

He is toast because of precedent.

When the generals went against the Iraq war they got out of the military first. Why? Because the chain of command is that important.

When this bozo decided to speak while in command he basically told the soldiers to screw the chain of command and feel free to destroy morale by mocking superiors.

It's not going to be tough damage control. Nothing compared to BP that is.

Bilge_Rat · 06-22-10, 01:39 PM

I would say it really depends on how Obama feels about keeping him on or replacing him. Obama picked him, but he does not appear to be as committed to him as say, Bush was with Petraeus.

If Obama does keep him, the general will have to do the obligatory public grovelling.

August · 06-22-10, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

He is toast because of precedent.

When the generals went against the Iraq war they got out of the military first. Why? Because the chain of command is that important.

When this bozo decided to speak while in command he basically told the soldiers to screw the chain of command and feel free to destroy morale by mocking superiors.

You nailed it Zach.

A Sergeant doesn't bitch about the Captain to the Privates, a Captain doesn't complain about the Colonel to his Sergeants and a General damn sure shouldn't complain about the Commander in Chief, at least not publicly.

SteamWake · 06-22-10, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Obama picked him, but he does not appear to be as committed to him as say, Bush was with Petraeus.

LOL... understatement of the month...

I think that pretty much goes for the entire military services which Obama is rather only not comitted to but rather .. uhh... dislikes.

06-22-10, 02:44 PM

Obama showed McChrystal about as much distrust as McChrystal has shown Obama. Remember, McChrystal asked for an additional 50,000 troops and Obama took his sweet f'n time and held about 6 to 7 meetings with his top political advisers over the course of several months to only give McChrystal half that many!

When your leaders don't give you the tools to do the job, then how can they expect you to get the job done or be grateful towards them for their lack of trust in you? McChrystal is a well trained war expert. Obama is not, so it's distrust to question your expert's request for additional aid when it's needed!

Obama's indecisiveness has cost Amercian soldiers and innocent civilians their lives and placed a huge hindrance on those that have remained. Obama should have been impeached for the dereliction of duty he displayed last year because we are at war and there's no time for leaders to "beat around the bush" when it comes time to making key decisions on the fly. Obama over the past several months has shown this same form of indecisiveness with the oil spill as well. It takes him a long time to make decisions and the decisions he makes are usually the wrong ones!

How this guy ever passed a multiple choice exam is beyond me? Usually you go with your first guess, or bubble-in letter 'c' if you're really stumped but Obama takes months and months to make a decision, usually erasing what he's first put down and then selecting something entirely off the wall.

Bush may have taken 7 minutes to react to the 9-11 incident but Obama took over 40 days to react to the Gulf oil crisis. This is not the sort of "leader" we need during war time or when a crisis kicks off. It's costing people their lives and only buying our enemy time to plan out more damaging attacks on us. We need someone with some balls that goes in full force and destroys our enemies without mercy. Not someone that hands out medals to our troops for "not firing" at potential threats. WTF kind of BS is that?! This is war! Shoot first ask questions later! This pussy-footing around approach is definitely not working!

Remember back when Clinton was in power and when Al-qaeda attacked the world trade center the first time? All Clinton did in response was have a million dollar missile shot off into the desert (that didn't harm anyone) to warn the enemy that we meant business!

And looked what happened.... Al-qaeda admitted they planned out the 9-11 attack the day after their first attack on the world trade center wasn't a complete success for them. That means that they planned it all under Clinton's watch and no sooner did GWB take office they committed their attack and were successful. This should have never happened but since Clinton did absolutely nothing (because he's a pansy) we watched a lot of people lose their lives as two large buildings collapsed to the ground.

Clinton should be in prison for his 8 years of gross negligence that resulted in innocent lives being snuffed out and Obama should be in a cell right next to him.

And I sort of hope Obama fires McChrystal. More incentive for America to fire Obama after his term is up!

Zachstar · 06-22-10, 02:55 PM

thorn why don't you say the real reason you dislike Obama that much and be done with it. And Clinton while you are at it. And dont tell me its because of military.

80 days to react to oil spill? 7 mins for Bush? Both are beyond silly statements. To say the least.

Tchocky · 06-22-10, 02:57 PM

It's been what, 60 days since the oil spill started?

06-22-10, 09:28 AM	#2
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Well, in fairness, the president is still the commander in chief. I don't think it's customary for military officers to criticize their superiors - orders are orders. I really don't think it's appropriate to make these sorts of remarks on record while on duty. Not that I disagree with his right as a private person to criticize the white house - but he should've waited until he's back home. You can't expect a commander to continue trusting his subordinates when they make these sorts of remarks on duty, simple as that. Hell, common sense - I know I wouldn't be surprised to get fired if I started talking this sort of thing about my boss and the managers while at my job. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

06-22-10, 09:39 AM	#3
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	The way I see it is the man is mad as hell and just couldent take it anymore. He had to have known where this would lead. The proper course of action would have been to resign then make the allegations but evidently something pushed him over the edge. Probably the policys that place our troops in un-necessary dangers. But... I think if he had resigned we would have never heard of this story other than "McChrystil resigns". The man is a carrier professional stratigist, trust me he did not speak off the cuff. He (at least in his mind) is doing what needs to be done. __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648

06-22-10, 10:24 AM	#4
krashkart Navy Seal Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,292 Downloads: 100 Uploads: 0	I think if I were in his position I would be wanting to say a few things, too. These wars amount to a near-total bureaucratic failure in my mind. (I gotta blame somebody, may as well be the stiffs in Washington ) One good thing about this is that he's not being given a nickname like "General Betray Us". __________________ sent from my fingertips using a cheap keyboard

06-22-10, 11:14 AM	#6
krashkart Navy Seal Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,292 Downloads: 100 Uploads: 0	Good point. __________________ sent from my fingertips using a cheap keyboard

06-22-10, 11:19 AM	#7
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	Im torn between CCIPs argument and Steamwake's. Something pushed this man over the edge. on the other hand my civil air patrol cadet doesnt even talk trash about the president. If i were in the General's position i probably would have made worse remarks. you have a military trying to win a war - and an administration trying to lose it. A frustrating proposition for the men holding the rifles. __________________

06-22-10, 11:38 AM	#8
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I think that whole thing about the medal for refraining from firing their weapons was close to the last straw. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/imp...your_fire.html I'm also pretty shure his frustration is due to being 'led' by a pack of rank idealistic amateurs. On one hand its a bad thing to speak in public against your 'superior officers'. On the other hand McChrystil puts the welfare of his charges ahead of his own carrier. This will be a tough damage control issue for the white house. Its hard to fight the truth. Have a look at McChrystil's service record. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...tal-biography/ Compare that to our community activist in cheif. __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648 Last edited by SteamWake; 06-22-10 at 11:57 AM.

06-22-10, 01:17 PM	#9
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	He is toast because of precedent. When the generals went against the Iraq war they got out of the military first. Why? Because the chain of command is that important. When this bozo decided to speak while in command he basically told the soldiers to screw the chain of command and feel free to destroy morale by mocking superiors. It's not going to be tough damage control. Nothing compared to BP that is. __________________

06-22-10, 01:39 PM	#10
Bilge_Rat Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: standing watch... Posts: 3,855 Downloads: 344 Uploads: 0	I would say it really depends on how Obama feels about keeping him on or replacing him. Obama picked him, but he does not appear to be as committed to him as say, Bush was with Petraeus. If Obama does keep him, the general will have to do the obligatory public grovelling. __________________

06-22-10, 02:44 PM	#13
thorn69 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Obama showed McChrystal about as much distrust as McChrystal has shown Obama. Remember, McChrystal asked for an additional 50,000 troops and Obama took his sweet f'n time and held about 6 to 7 meetings with his top political advisers over the course of several months to only give McChrystal half that many! When your leaders don't give you the tools to do the job, then how can they expect you to get the job done or be grateful towards them for their lack of trust in you? McChrystal is a well trained war expert. Obama is not, so it's distrust to question your expert's request for additional aid when it's needed! Obama's indecisiveness has cost Amercian soldiers and innocent civilians their lives and placed a huge hindrance on those that have remained. Obama should have been impeached for the dereliction of duty he displayed last year because we are at war and there's no time for leaders to "beat around the bush" when it comes time to making key decisions on the fly. Obama over the past several months has shown this same form of indecisiveness with the oil spill as well. It takes him a long time to make decisions and the decisions he makes are usually the wrong ones! How this guy ever passed a multiple choice exam is beyond me? Usually you go with your first guess, or bubble-in letter 'c' if you're really stumped but Obama takes months and months to make a decision, usually erasing what he's first put down and then selecting something entirely off the wall. Bush may have taken 7 minutes to react to the 9-11 incident but Obama took over 40 days to react to the Gulf oil crisis. This is not the sort of "leader" we need during war time or when a crisis kicks off. It's costing people their lives and only buying our enemy time to plan out more damaging attacks on us. We need someone with some balls that goes in full force and destroys our enemies without mercy. Not someone that hands out medals to our troops for "not firing" at potential threats. WTF kind of BS is that?! This is war! Shoot first ask questions later! This pussy-footing around approach is definitely not working! Remember back when Clinton was in power and when Al-qaeda attacked the world trade center the first time? All Clinton did in response was have a million dollar missile shot off into the desert (that didn't harm anyone) to warn the enemy that we meant business! And looked what happened.... Al-qaeda admitted they planned out the 9-11 attack the day after their first attack on the world trade center wasn't a complete success for them. That means that they planned it all under Clinton's watch and no sooner did GWB take office they committed their attack and were successful. This should have never happened but since Clinton did absolutely nothing (because he's a pansy) we watched a lot of people lose their lives as two large buildings collapsed to the ground. Clinton should be in prison for his 8 years of gross negligence that resulted in innocent lives being snuffed out and Obama should be in a cell right next to him. And I sort of hope Obama fires McChrystal. More incentive for America to fire Obama after his term is up! Last edited by thorn69; 06-22-10 at 02:59 PM.

06-22-10, 02:55 PM	#14
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	thorn why don't you say the real reason you dislike Obama that much and be done with it. And Clinton while you are at it. And dont tell me its because of military. 80 days to react to oil spill? 7 mins for Bush? Both are beyond silly statements. To say the least. __________________

06-22-10, 02:57 PM	#15
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	It's been what, 60 days since the oil spill started? __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]