• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gen. McChrystal's job hangs in the balance

Now that McCrystal has tendered his resignation, I'd suggest "McCrystal signs book deal" are four words Obama doesn't want to read.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Not force idiotic extreme ROE on the troops.
Click to expand...

The rules of engagement are General McChrystal's rules. From The New York Times:

Since last year, the counterinsurgency doctrine championed by those now leading the campaign has assumed an almost unchallenged supremacy in the ranks of the American military’s career officers. The doctrine, which has been supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations, rests on core assumptions, including that using lethal force against an insurgency intermingled with a civilian population is often counterproductive.

Since General McChrystal assumed command, he has been a central face and salesman of this idea, and he has applied it to warfare in a tangible way: by further tightening rules guiding the use of Western firepower — airstrikes and guided rocket attacks, artillery barrages and even mortar fire — to support troops on the ground.

That the still largely unproved COIN theory has Presidential support does not mean that the President has imposed the tactics in place.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The rules of engagement are General McChrystal's rules. From The New York Times:

Since last year, the counterinsurgency doctrine championed by those now leading the campaign has assumed an almost unchallenged supremacy in the ranks of the American military’s career officers. The doctrine, which has been supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations, rests on core assumptions, including that using lethal force against an insurgency intermingled with a civilian population is often counterproductive.

Since General McChrystal assumed command, he has been a central face and salesman of this idea, and he has applied it to warfare in a tangible way: by further tightening rules guiding the use of Western firepower — airstrikes and guided rocket attacks, artillery barrages and even mortar fire — to support troops on the ground.

That the still largely unproved COIN theory has Presidential support does not mean that the President has imposed the tactics in place.
Click to expand...

yes, but let's also not pretend that those kinds of decisions are made in a vacuum. if the President does fire McCrystal in such a manner that he feels the need to write a book, it will be interesting to see where the breakdown is.

that being said, COIN is pretty clear: minimum necessary force. the argument coming from those on the ground, as i understand it, is that we are cheating to the point where we are below the necessary line. McCrystal has the right idea, i just wonder if decision making is too centralized (who has authority to bless off on an airstrike? who can put EF on the kill/capture list? who has the authority to authorize pursuit into or attack on a compound?) and he hasn't taken a good concept too far.

but you don't win a counterinsurgency by using the same kind of large-scale kinetic shock and awe strategy that you use in a conventional campaign. we tried that once - it was called the Vietnam War. You also don't win a counterinsurgency by staying on large bases and only sending out SOF teams, large heavily armed units, and drones. We tried that once too - it was called the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Approved the troop increase request long ago and not skimped on the numbers.

Call this war and this enemy what they are.

Met with his generals in more places than a tarmac for an hour.

Not force idiotic extreme ROE on the troops.



:shrug:
Click to expand...

on that one definitely. only giving McCrystal a fraction of what he needs and arbitrarily setting a withdrawal date have severely hampered this campaign.
 
cpwill said:
yes, but let's also not pretend that those kinds of decisions are made in a vacuum. if the President does fire McCrystal in such a manner that he feels the need to write a book, it will be interesting to see where the breakdown is.

that being said, COIN is pretty clear: minimum necessary force. the argument coming from those on the ground, as i understand it, is that we are cheating to the point where we are below the necessary line. McCrystal has the right idea, i just wonder if decision making is too centralized (who has authority to bless off on an airstrike? who can put EF on the kill/capture list? who has the authority to authorize pursuit into or attack on a compound?) and he hasn't taken a good concept too far.

but you don't win a counterinsurgency by using the same kind of large-scale kinetic shock and awe strategy that you use in a conventional campaign. we tried that once - it was called the Vietnam War. You also don't win a counterinsurgency by staying on large bases and only sending out SOF teams, large heavily armed units, and drones. We tried that once too - it was called the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
Click to expand...

I believe the President's responsibility rests with his having approved what is a flawed strategy. I had serious misgivings about the strategy (some of which are cited in another message on the topic that relates to strategic planning: http://www.debatepolitics.com/asia-...-supply-convoy-pakistan-2.html#post1058819040), particularly its being built around the corrupt Karzai regime. As it stands, the strategy that was devised by General McChrystal is inconsistent with Afghanistan's structural realities. The apparent delays in achieving progress are a logical outcome of the strategy's inherent flaws.

Finally, as far as I know, the White House is not engaged in targeting, defining the ROE, etc. If it were that would be a tragic repeat of the Vietnam War's micromanagement from Washington.
 
I'm wondeirng how many of you who lean more on Gen. McCrystal's side have actually read the Rolling Stone article? If you have not, I think you should!! Rolling Stone has published it online here. From a PR and a command structure point of view, it's bad! Really bad!! Unless the President is willing to stick to the COIN strategy AND he really believes that he needs Gen. McCrystal to win this Afghan war, I'd say the General should be fired! You'll have to read the article to fully understand why.

Not only does he undermine the President and the W.H. staff, but from a political standpoint he shows total disrespect for some of our allies in this war, as well as the Afghan government. The man is acting just like Gen. Patton did during WWII when he thought he was the HNIC over everything he touched! It's bad, folks...really bad.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If he is fired, his public comments shouldn't be the issue. A legitimate issue concerns the strategy that he largely designed, as what is currently happening in Afghanistan risks becoming a case study in bad planning despite heroic efforts of execution by the troops.

On June 10, 2009, The Washington Post reported:

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Thursday that major parts of the military operation to secure Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban movement, would be pushed back because it was taking longer than expected to win local support...

But McChrystal said it was taking longer than anticipated to gain the blessing of local tribal leaders -- and Kandaharis in general -- for the operation. He also said commanders needed more time to ensure that Afghan government could step in after the fighting stops and provide effective public services, something that has been lacking in Kandahar for years.

The underlined part is key. It again reflects Kabul-centric thinking that is a problem. The widely unpopular Karzai regime's legitimacy is suspect it has cronyism-related issues to deal with in Kandahar. Family ties have visibly benefited Karzai's half-brother there. Carl Forsberg, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War described prevailing perceptions there as follows, "In Kabul, as in Kandahar, state-building and family interests have become confused, such that they are equated with one another, in ways that sometimes parallel the monarchical political order of the old regime, in which the strength of the state relied on the strength of the Shah [king], his family and its personal allies." In that atmosphere, the lack of support from local tribal leaders is reasonable. They are not about to run risks presented by the Taliban largely to benefit the Karzai family.

That the Kabul-centric strategy has yielded suboptimal results was expected, particularly by those who are knowledgeable about Afghan affairs. Ambassador Eikenberry and General Petraeus had concerns about partnering with the Karzai regime during the time the current strategy was being developed. From the December 6, 2009 edition of The New York Times:

That very afternoon, someone leaked word of a cable sent by Ambassador Eikenberry from Kabul expressing reservations about a large buildup of forces as long as the Karzai government remained unreformed. At one of their meetings, General Petraeus had told Mr. Obama to think of elements of the Karzai government like "a crime syndicate." Ambassador Eikenberry was suggesting, in effect, that America could not get in bed with the mob.

Sadly, as had been the case before the new strategy was devised, the architects of the strategy are the ones who yet again have fallen behind the proverbial curve. Worse, in this case they should never have fallen behind the curve. The evolution of events was readily foreseeable (and foreseen by some such as Amb. Eikenberry) and very likely avoidable (had the strategy not been Kabul-centric in nature).
Click to expand...

Obama can't win on this, because if he fires the general, loses a good general who can go public with further criticism; and if he doesn't fire him he looks like he's not in charge.
 
Objective Voice said:
I'm wondeirng how many of you who lean more on Gen. McCrystal's side have actually read the Rolling Stone article? If you have not, I think you should!! Rolling Stone has published it online here. From a PR and a command structure point of view, it's bad! Really bad!! Unless the President is willing to stick to the COIN strategy AND he really believes that he needs Gen. McCrystal to win this Afghan war, I'd say the General should be fired! You'll have to read the article to fully understand why.

Not only does he undermine the President and the W.H. staff, but from a political standpoint he shows total disrespect for some of our allies in this war, as well as the Afghan government. The man is acting just like Gen. Patton did during WWII when he thought he was the HNIC over everything he touched! It's bad, folks...really bad.
Click to expand...

I've read it. It was interesting to read that among the general descriptions you provide, that General McChrystal's "Team America" inner circle had a "disdain for authority." That is the antithesis of the principles at the heart of the military chain of command. It suggests not only a General whose conduct was inappropriate but also a potentially dysfunctional culture. To say the least, it is a troubling detail.

P.S. My initial response that you quoted was prior to the full article's having been published online. Certainly, the article alone would be sufficient grounds for dismissal.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Obama can't win on this, because if he fires the general, loses a good general who can go public with further criticism; and if he doesn't fire him he looks like he's not in charge.
Click to expand...

If the general tenders his resignation, I suspect that the President will accept it. If not, I believe very stringent restrictions should be placed on General McChrystal and his staff that bars them from any contact with the media. That would be my preference. The President would be seen as having exerted authority to address a problem. General McChrystal would have the ability to carry out his work and avoid being in situations that are self-destructive.

However, if the general's comments have destroyed his ability to work with other key players (Amb. Eikenberry, Richard Holbrooke, Gen. Petraeus, to name three), then he probably should be replaced. Afghanistan is a team effort. If the senior people can no longer function as a cohesive team e.g., members have lost confidence or trust in General McChrystal, then the choice is a relatively straightforward organizational one. As I have confidence that the U.S. military has a supply of competent to outstanding senior leaders, I don't believe General McChrystal is indispensable.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
He knew the consequences of such statements, what this should lead us to believe is that there is some ****ed up **** coming down so much so that he felt he needed to say it.
Click to expand...

Are there no other ways someone that senior could voice their disagreement in private and with effect?
 
You don't talk badly about the people who sign your paychecks.
 
.

Can someone explain how this "resignation" thingy works?? He (McChrystal) is a military General assigned a command. Maybe i just need to get out more, but i have never heard of a General in the middle of a war resigning.

If Obama needs/wants to fire McChrystal he should have the coconuts to fire his butt. Not "accept a resignation".


.
 
Hatuey said:
You don't talk badly about the people who sign your paychecks.
Click to expand...

LOL
Wanna bet?

Cole said:
Can someone explain how this "resignation" thingy works?? He (McChrystal) is a military General assigned a command. Maybe i just need to get out more, but i have never heard of a General in the middle of a war resigning.

If Obama needs/wants to fire McChrystal he should have the coconuts to fire his butt. Not "accept a resignation".
Click to expand...

It happened, here - page 2 of the article in the OP:
In 2008, Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, then the head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, was forced to retire after an article ran in Esquire in which he appeared to question Bush administration policies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
-- Its simply a sign of immaturity how Obama has reacted.
Click to expand...

What would you have said if he's simply sacked him without checking with him personally as he has just done? I for one would prefer someone looks me in the eye and sack me than do it via phone / letter or text message.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
--But ohhh wait, McChrystal dares speak out of turn about Obama --
Click to expand...

I suspect the US military isn't that different in principle to the UK military and any senior British officer who mocked his country's elected leader should be held responsible. There are ways to get a message that you're unhappy across - and that doesn't include a public interview with a magazine like Rolling Stone.
 
From MSNBC:

An Afghanistan strategy session is under way at the White House as scheduled without word from President Barack Obama about the fate of war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is under fire for blistering remarks in a magazine.

McChrystal came to the White House for a 30-minute face-to-face with Obama over his remarks and then left. He was not seen returning for the bigger war meeting, as he had been expected to.
Click to expand...

Key meeting begins without McChrystal - Military- msnbc.com

It remains to be seen whether General McChrystal's lack of attendance at the larger meeting indicates that he is being relieved of his responsibilities. There is some possibility that the President and the rest of those at the meeting are discussing the matter further, including the outcome of the President's earlier discussion with General McChrystal, to see if the overall team can work with the general. If members have lost trust or confidence, he will likely be replaced.
 
Gen McChrystal is in good coming. Gen George Patton and Gen Douglas McArthur also has choice words for their upper management.
 
EDIT: Watching CNN. He has been relieved of Command. Mcchrystal has been relieved of Command. Obama shall talk in about 10 minutes.
 
Jetboogieman said:
EDIT: Watching CNN. He has been relieved of Command. Mcchrystal has been relieved of Command. Obama shall talk in about 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

AP just broke that as well. Obama is supposedly choosing Patraeus to replace McChrystal.
 
McChrystal seems just like any other person...shooting his mouth off behind others' back. It's what everyone else does isn't it? Gordon Brown...etc. Just wondering what was he thinking letting that RS reporter tag along and recording what he says. Too bad for him...he's a politician, and all politicians go to the noose when they shoot their mouths off. RIP.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I've read it. It was interesting to read that among the general descriptions you provide, that General McChrystal's "Team America" inner circle had a "disdain for authority." That is the antithesis of the principles at the heart of the military chain of command. It suggests not only a General whose conduct was inappropriate but also a potentially dysfunctional culture. To say the least, it is a troubling detail.

P.S. My initial response that you quoted was prior to the full article's having been published online. Certainly, the article alone would be sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Click to expand...

Even before reading the article, I saw Gen. McCrystal's actions as insubordination. But after reading it, I don't think the Pres. had a choice but to relief him of command. The man was totally disrespectful all across the board - the CinC, the VP, W.H. officials, foriegn allies, political partners in Afghanistan...even the troops seems to be a little at odds with him. Gen. McCrystal had to know this wasn't going to turn out good for him, but if he didn't he's either a fool or he has the biggest ego this side of Texas and Alaska combined!!! He had to go; you just can't have that level of disdain for authority run rapid and not do anything about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom