Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 226

Thread: McChrystal relieved of his command.

  1. #131
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Remember McChrystal voted for Obama, What the hell happened that something like this would happen?
    @HellHound and Vance, sure that's a valid criticism to make, and you ought to consider when you're in the voting booth come 2012. But that's totally irrelevant to McChrystal, as has been said by somebody else above, he didn't have the luxury to make those comments, and his failure to maintain appropriate discretion is the real scandal here. But hey, try to spin it against Obama, whatever. As long as you're not active duty military you have every right to do so.

  2. #132
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:34 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    @HellHound and Vance, sure that's a valid criticism to make, and you ought to consider when you're in the voting booth come 2012. But that's totally irrelevant to McChrystal, as has been said by somebody else above, he didn't have the luxury to make those comments, and his failure to maintain appropriate discretion is the real scandal here. But hey, try to spin it against Obama, whatever. As long as you're not active duty military you have every right to do so.
    Actually, you can do it as active duty military as well. You just cannot do it all the time, and especially not in front of the media.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    SO this continues round and round about timelines...but...

    Has anyone bothered to consider the merits of the generals (and the theater staffers) comments? If McChrystal is such a good general and they hold this administration in such loiw regard...is it just because he is a bad general (that doesnt jibe with everyones glowing comments) or because the administration and their actions and support of the Afghan war blows?
    My comments on what I believe to be the inherent flaws of the current strategy, namely its Kabul-centric orientation, have been stated ad nauseum, so I'm not going to go into detail other than to note that the results of the plan have not been great to date.

    IMO, the information that has been revealed since the start of this saga reveals that although General McChrystal is a good general, he was a bad leader. While he might be a brilliant military tactician e.g., as evidenced by his performance with Special Operations in Iraq, that is not the same thing as being a good leader. Leaders need to work with people to align and sustain support. Disparaging people, even those with whom one has fundamental disagreements, destroys the leader's prospects of aligning or sustaining support. IMO, Harvard Business School professor John Kotter put it well when he wrote:

    Aligning...is more of a communications challenge than a design problem. Aligning invariably involves talking to many more individuals than organizing does. The target population can involve not only a manager's subordinates but also bosses, peers, staff in other parts of the organization, as well as suppliers, government officials, and even customers. Anyone who can help implement the vision and strategies or who can block implementation is relevant.

    The text that I underlined is vital. The effort in Afghanistan is a team effort. Richard Holbrooke, Amb. Eikenberry, and General Petraeus are all strong personalities with strong ideas. A fundamental challenge of General McChrystal's responsibilities was to be able to work effectively with that team. Disparaging key members of that team [Holbrooke and Eikenberry] either by General McChrystal or his core circle destroyed his ability to foster effective implementation of the strategy he designed.

    In terms of leadership ability, General Petraeus is light years ahead. Today's edition of The New York Times highlights the contrast when it came to building working relationships with key players, reporting, "While his predecessor, General McChrystal, was on icy terms with the American ambassador here, Karl W. Eikenberry, General Petraeus forged a tight bond with his civilian counterpart during the Iraqi surge, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker." Indeed, it is likely on account of that leadership ability that President Obama has developed sufficient trust and confidence to task General Petraeus with the difficult task of taking charge of Afghanistan.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 06-24-10 at 10:58 AM.

  4. #134
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,705

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    @HellHound and Vance, sure that's a valid criticism to make, and you ought to consider when you're in the voting booth come 2012. But that's totally irrelevant to McChrystal, as has been said by somebody else above, he didn't have the luxury to make those comments, and his failure to maintain appropriate discretion is the real scandal here. But hey, try to spin it against Obama, whatever. As long as you're not active duty military you have every right to do so.
    Dude. Dude. Seriously...

    I stated when this first broke that the general screwed up and there was NO justiifcation and the consequences would and SHOULD be dire.

    Now...you can IGNORE the comments...sure. The comments are critical of D'ohbama and his administration. But if you choose to continue to ignore the FACT that there probably is a REASON such contempt exists then you continue to put soldiers lives at risk.

    Im not justifying his comments. Far from it.
    Last edited by VanceMack; 06-24-10 at 11:02 AM.

  5. #135
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,705

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    My comments on what I believe to be the inherent flaws of the current strategy, namely its Kabul-centric orientation, have been stated ad nauseum, so I'm not going to go into detail other than to note that the results of the plan have not been great to date.

    IMO, the information that has been revealed since the start of this saga reveals that although General McChrystal is a good general, he was a bad leader. While he might be a brilliant military tactician e.g., as evidenced by his performance with Special Operations in Iraq, that is not the same thing as being a good leader. Leaders need to work with people to align and sustain support. Disparaging people, even those with whom one has fundamental disagreements, destroys the leader's prospects of aligning or sustaining support. IMO, Harvard Business School professor John Kotter put it well when he wrote:

    Aligning...is more of a communications challenge than a design problem. Aligning invariably involves talking to many more individuals than organizing does. The target population can involve not only a manager's subordinates but also bosses, peers, staff in other parts of the organization, as well as suppliers, government officials, and even customers. Anyone who can help implement the vision and strategies or who can block implementation is relevant.

    The text that I underlined is vital. The effort in Afghanistan is a team effort. Richard Holbrooke, Amb. Eikenberry, and General Petraeus are all strong personalities with strong ideas. A fundamental challenge of General McChrystal's responsibilities was to be able to work effectively with that team. Disparaging key members of that team [Holbrooke and Eikenberry] either by General McChrystal or his core circle destroyed his ability to foster effective implementation of the strategy he designed.

    In terms of leadership ability, General Petraeus is light years ahead. Today's edition of The New York Times highlights the contrast when it came to building working relationships with key players, reporting, "While his predecessor, General McChrystal, was on icy terms with the American ambassador here, Karl W. Eikenberry, General Petraeus forged a tight bond with his civilian counterpart during the Iraqi surge, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker." Indeed, it is likely on account of that leadership ability that President Obama has developed sufficient trust and confidence to task General Petraeus with the difficult task of taking charge of Afghanistan.
    The general and his staff were critical of the imcompetent support of the administration. There MIGHT be valid reasons for that contempt. It MIGHT be beneficial to actually LEARN something other than "bad general!"

  6. #136
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    The general and his staff were critical of the imcompetent support of the administration. There MIGHT be valid reasons for that contempt. It MIGHT be beneficial to actually LEARN something other than "bad general!"
    The Administration's responsibility is that it approved General McChrystal's strategy. General McChrystal got virtually everything he desired. Furthermore, he was "absolutely supportive" of the agreed timeline. That the strategy may be working out in a fashion not envisioned by those who designed it has to do with the strategy's underlying flaws, the biggest of which I believe is its Kabul-centric orientation.

    If one wants to go about suggesting modifications to the strategy are needed, there are much better ways to go about it than going through Rolling Stone and thereby poisoning working relationships with key players. But to do so, one needs to have the humility to acknowledge that perhaps others [in this case, Amb. Eikenberry] had better understanding of the underlying situation in Afghanistan and the courage to admit that things are not working as well as they should have been and to request mid-course adjustments. That's not what happened.

    Initially, I thought the issue concerned bad judgment and favored retaining the general--so long as the key members of the team charged with Afghanistan retained sufficient trust and confidence in him to work together as a cohesive team--but prohibiting him and his staff from having any future media contact. Subsequent information reveals that one was dealing with a much larger problem than a simple act of bad judgment. Instead, one was dealing with but one example of a greater problem of bad leadership. Given the high stakes in Afghanistan, bad leadership is an intolerable situation that needed to be addressed decisively.

  7. #137
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Now...you can IGNORE the comments...sure. The comments are critical of D'ohbama and his administration. But if you choose to continue to ignore the FACT that there probably is a REASON such contempt exists then you continue to put soldiers lives at risk.
    I disagree. It's the failure on the part of McChrystal that was putting soldiers' lives at risk by creating discord in the ranks. It's not a soldier's prerogative to voice opinions like that, at least not in any official capacity (as Redress rightly corrected me). It's absolutely fair to have a quarrel with Obama's military policies in other contexts. If you want to talk about the merits of Obama's policy, that's fine, I might even agree with you. But McChrystal's insubordination is a failure of McChrystal alone. Obama didn't need to persuade McChrystal of the rightness of his policies, his was not to question why. Maybe things would be going better in Afghanistan if the commander of the theatre wasn't holding this grudge against the commander in chief, we'll never know. Why do you insist on blaming the victim?
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-24-10 at 11:34 AM.

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    I believe McChrystal also had problems with the Marine commander in Helmand. The Marine commander was doing things his way...

  9. #139
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,705

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The Administration's responsibility is that it approved General McChrystal's strategy. General McChrystal got virtually everything he desired. Furthermore, he was "absolutely supportive" of the agreed timeline. That the strategy may be working out in a fashion not envisioned by those who designed it has to do with the strategy's underlying flaws, the biggest of which I believe is its Kabul-centric orientation.

    If one wants to go about suggesting modifications to the strategy are needed, there are much better ways to go about it than going through Rolling Stone and thereby poisoning working relationships with key players. But to do so, one needs to have the humility to acknowledge that perhaps others [in this case, Amb. Eikenberry] had better understanding of the underlying situation in Afghanistan and the courage to admit that things are not working as well as they should have been and to request mid-course adjustments. That's not what happened.

    Initially, I thought the issue concerned bad judgment and favored retaining the general--so long as the key members of the team charged with Afghanistan retained sufficient trust and confidence in him to work together as a cohesive team--but prohibiting him and his staff from having any future media contact. Subsequent information reveals that one was dealing with a much larger problem than a simple act of bad judgment. Instead, one was dealing with but one example of a greater problem of bad leadership. Given the high stakes in Afghanistan, bad leadership is an intolerable situation that needed to be addressed decisively.
    Sometimes you guys EPITOMIZE the encyclopedia definition of FACE-PALM in your myopic defense of your ideological leader.

    Holy bat****. Seriously. You Just said "The Administration's responsibility is that it approved General McChrystal's strategy". Really? Thats BEING IN CHARGE? Is it a GOOD strategy? Is it working? Why is there animosity between the Afghan War commanders entire staff and the administration? Could there ACTUALLY be some fault in the administration that needs addressing???

    Oh...we SEE the pattern. Obama is in charge of the gulf oil spill...has been since DAY ONE...OK...so its in its THIRD ****ING MONTH and its still gushing 60 THOUSAND barrels of oil a DAY...but they are IN CHARGE and giving BP what they want...And they are in charge of the budget. And spending. And unemployment. And the housing crisis.

  10. #140
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,705

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I disagree. It's the failure on the part of McChrystal that was putting soldiers' lives at risk by creating discord in the ranks. It's not a soldier's prerogative to voice opinions like that, at least not in any official capacity (as Redress rightly corrected me). It's absolutely fair to have a quarrel with Obama's military policies in other contexts. If you want to talk about the merits of Obama's policy, that's fine, I might even agree with you. But McChrystal's insubordination is a failure of McChrystal alone. Obama didn't need to persuade McChrystal of the rightness of his policies, his was not to question why. Maybe things would be going better in Afghanistan if the commander of the theatre wasn't holding this grudge against the commander in chief, we'll never know. Why do you insist on blaming the victim?
    Good ****ing lord...

    OK...so Obama KEPT McChrystal and his inompetent policies and only booted him because he dared to be critical of his administration. Got it...

    Ivve NEVER suggested his comments where excusable. I HAVE suggested that you MIGHT want to think outside of your tiny little box. Nah...never mind.

Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •