• 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!

McChrystal relieved of his command.

Guy Incognito said:
Well, I still think that the Yale professor's comments go to my point that there is an argument to be made on both sides of the issue of whether this conduct rises to the level of an article 88 violation, but your point is well taken.

Here is the best evidence I can scrounge up to support my argument atm, and then I have to go to work. You'll have to bear with me because it is a bit circuitous. According to US v. Howe, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 165 "[W]e emphasize the Article 88 is designed to cover the use of "contemptuous" words toward holders of certain offices named therein. "Contemptuous" is used in the ordinary sense as is evidenced by the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 167. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary. " Merriam Webster defines contempt as "the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b : lack of respect or reverence for something." Contempt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary So, I'd argue that the Yale prof is mistaken that "contemptuous" and "disrespectful" are materially different for purposes of an article 88 violation. That's all I've got for now, but I think it's a solid point.
Click to expand...

Just for fun, suppose you are correct and McChrystal did say something that could be considered a clear Article 88 violation. What do you suppose would happen then? An automatic court martial?

In the military, charges are preferred by an individual's commander, not by a prosecutor. The results of any investigation would bebrought to the person's commander, and the commander would then decide whether to proceed to court martial, offer non-judicial punishment, or take no action at all. In a similar case that happened in 1993, the general officer that insulted President Clinton was given non-judicial punishment (also known as an Articel 15 or Captain's Mast) and fined $7,000. When I was in the Air Force, a person given non-judicial punishment could receive up to 30 days confinement and the loss of two month's base pay, all without ever seeing a judge (hence non-judicial). The individual had the option of refusing the Article 15 and demanding a court martial proceeding.

I would guess that if anything is done to McChrystal, it will be an Article 15 with some loss of pay and he will retire.
 
Moon said:
I would guess that if anything is done to McChrystal, it will be an Article 15 with some loss of pay and he will retire.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see now how my ignorance of military procedure led to my overstating my case, so I am going to have to concede that point to yourself, Hellhound, Zephlyn, joergen, et al. I still think it is a clear 88 violation, but I have to admit now that my earlier statement that he'd be lucky to get away without a court martial is overstating the facts. In fact, he is highly likely to get away without a court martial, even though he deserves one.

Nonetheless, his behavior here disgusts me, and my reaction was based less on knowledge of the law (although I still stand by my assessment of it) and was more on a gut feeling that McChrystal did something wrong. Just a quick personal anecdote to explain where I'm coming from, my father-- a staunch Republican-- served as a military officer, part of which was during the Clinton years. Never did a disparaging word about President Clinton pass his lips, not so much as a joke at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, not even in the privacy of home. If he disapproved of the President I can only guess, because he never voiced any disapproval of the commander in chief. This is why McChrystal's comments made me blush. I never thought officers, especially generals in a time of war, would dare indulge in such mocking of the commander-in-chief in private, let alone in front of a reporter. It's just wrong, and I'm shocked to see people leaping to his defense, and it has nothing to do with partisanship. McChrystal might very well have been right about his opinions of Obama, it sounded like he had some valid opinions had he been a civilian, but that has nothing to do with it. He should have kept a lid on it, that's his duty.
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
Proof he's dead?
Click to expand...

US intelligence (sharing and coordination with our ally counterparts) plus buttloads of local informers has yet to locate BL after, the non stop bombing at, theTora Bora mountain ranges near the PK-Astan border in 2001. The B-52's bombing and missile arsenal was devastating

Impossible for him to survive such an attack. He is dead
 
ric27 said:
US intelligence (sharing and coordination with our ally counterparts) plus buttloads of local informers has yet to locate BL after, the non stop bombing at, theTora Bora mountain ranges near the PK-Astan border in 2001. The B-52's bombing and missile arsenal was devastating

Impossible for him to survive such an attack. He is dead
Click to expand...
That's not 'proof' that OBL is dead. Nice try though.
 
I think that General McChrystal is gone because he was incapable of carrying out or unwilling to carry out the mission he was assigned. Period. The article and all the other ‘noise’ surrounding this matter were just indicators of this underlying condition. There will be no charges brought although many military careers I suspect will be stunted by these events.

Obama's action is solely directed at completing the mission; in tapping General Petraeus, he has selected everyone's first pick for the job.

I found it interesting that Keith Olbermann's special comment the day before was about why McChrystal should be retained if possible and he made a good point: an apologetic and submissive general was better than a martyred and sympathetic general. My sense and hope is that McChrystal shall "just fade away" as General MacArthur did before him.
 
Gibberish said:
I think Obama has no expertise in military affairs and cmpletely relies on the Generals. Obama gave General McChrystal 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he said he needed to win. With the 30,000 additional troops we have seen little to no change inA Afghan.
Click to expand...

That's the oddest thing about this, McChrystal got what he asked for.

BTW, for the thread in general, I see nothing requiring a court martial. He properly resigned for using poor judgement. Not as surprising as him using that poor judgment to begin with.
 
Gibberish said:
I think Obama has no expertise in military affairs and cmpletely relies on the Generals. Obama gave General McChrystal 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he said he needed to win. With the 30,000 additional troops we have seen little to no change inA Afghan.
Click to expand...

Uhm if it was "completley" as you suggested wouldnt there have been 40k not 30k more troops there almost 11 months earlier?
 
donsutherland1 said:
General McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops. President Obama agreed to 39,000 (34,000 U.S. troops + 5,000 from NATO countries). The Washington Post reported at the time the strategy was agreed, "The combined U.S. and NATO deployments would nearly reach the 40,000 requested last summer by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the coalition commander in Afghanistan, as part of an intensified counterinsurgency strategy."

Obama to send 34,000 troops to Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com

The difference of 1,000 is immaterial. The strategy is General McChrystal's. The toop number is virtually the same as what General McChrystal requested.
Click to expand...

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Uhm if it was "completley" as you suggested wouldnt there have been 40k not 30k more troops there almost 11 months earlier?
Click to expand...

Don covered this earlier in this very thread.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The political and military leadership both recognize that General Petraeus selflessly assumed the post in what amounted to extraordinary circumstances. The change in responsibility will not be looked at negatively. The move does not resemble those made to move someone to a largely symbolic post near the end of their careers.
Click to expand...

The positive side of this is that the troops will not feel they've been given a noob general to replace McChrystal, but a seasoned leader who knows the war over there. This should maintain morale.
 
I dont blame McChrystal for voting for Obama. There was a massive amount of dollars pumped into a presidential campaign designed to sucker people in. He got sucked in and bought the product. Now that hes seen the product and worked with the product he simply has an equally massive case of buyers remorse. He kept his comments to a minimum in the article and the reporter was obviously taking several phrases out of context. One of the military aids was on the news this morning expressing how surprised how the reporter spent hours with them and only took one tiny negative snippet and used it to help paint the article in a specific light and ignored many hours of information. Rolling stone and the wh administration seem to have more in common in the way they treat information than they let on. The irony is that the administration is now forced to turn to a general that was attacked a short time ago by wh sponsors and the cic himself.

Would you like a bit of salt with that crow you are now forced to eat Mr President?
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Link to request, and link to Obama coming to a decision and troops arriving please.



FOXNews.com - Troops Die While Obama Dithers
Click to expand...

Is your editorial with Oliver North using the deaths of troops to whine about Obama supposed to mean anything, other than him being one of the lowest life forms on earth? It's from October of last year, so it's not like it has anything to do with anything since then.
 
Redress said:
Is your editorial with Oliver North using the deaths of troops to whine about Obama supposed to mean anything, other than him being one of the lowest life forms on earth?
Click to expand...




I figured you would be mature enough to read the contents that included a timeline of Obama's slow reaction to the troop request. Or at least I figured you would have made a comment about the stupid title and North along with those links I asked for.


Is this a concession on your part?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I figured you would be mature enough to read the contents that included a timeline of Obama's slow reaction to the troop request. Or at least I figured you would have made a comment about the stupid title and North along with those links I asked for.


Is this a concession on your part?
Click to expand...

It took 3 months to examine and evaluate and plan for an overall strategy for the war. That is not unreasonable. Your link was an op-ed that used the death of troops to score political points. I guess you are ok with that.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Link to request, and link to Obama coming to a decision and troops arriving please.
Click to expand...

Brief timeline:

Last week in September 2009: Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for an additional 30,000-40,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan may be received by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in coming days, a senior defense official speaking on background told FOX News on Tuesday. [Fox story was dated 9/22]

November 30, 2009: President Obama approves the deployment of additional soldiers to Afghanistan

December 22, 2009: First deployment of soldiers from the surge in Afghanistan arrived.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Brief timeline:

Last week in September 2009: Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for an additional 30,000-40,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan may be received by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in coming days, a senior defense official speaking on background told FOX News on Tuesday.

November 30, 2009: President Obama approves the deployment of additional soldiers to Afghanistan

December 22, 2009: First deployment of soldiers from the surge in Afghanistan arrived.
Click to expand...

So 3 months is now somehow being called 11 months. Hrmm.

Thank you Don.
 
I'm reluctant to judge to quickly, but I think the President did the right thing here.

At first, I was angry because I thought this was purely political. I thought it was about Obama's ego, like usual.

However, after reading the RS article I believe the GEN MC fostered a culture in his command and among his staff that could be considered very unprofessional in the least. At worst, it could be considered pretty insubordinate.

I was always leery of GEN MC in the first place. He was knee-deep in the Pat Tillman cover up. A situation that made the Army look very, very bad. That was a mess. I questioned his integrity at the time. Secondly, GEN MC is a spec-ops guy; a killer. His experiences and personality may not be conducive to heading an operation like this, one that requires a diplomat and a politician. A strategic thinker. Maybe I'm not giving him enough credit.

Now that GEN Petraeus is in charge, I feel better about our prospects in AFG. If he can't do it, no one can.

Personally, I didn't think we fired enough Generals during the Iraq War. I would have rarely protested any of those.

The bottom line is that GEN MC crossed the line. He knows it. Which is why he didn't protest or even try to save his own job.
 
texmaster said:
Name one quote where he went after the president. His only quote was against an ambassador and it hardly rose to contempt.

You really need to read more carefully.
Click to expand...

It would probably help if you actually read the Rolling Stone article before your open your mouth and embarrass yourself again...
 
Redress said:
So 3 months is now somehow being called 11 months. Hrmm.

Thank you Don.
Click to expand...




Talk about not reading an article Redress:


Sources said that McChrystal has had his request for some time, but has been asked not to send it to Washington just yet. The senior defense official denied that, echoing other Defense Department and White House officials who said no one told McChrystal to hold the troop request and to not deliver it until President Obama was ready.


Pentagon and White House officials have said that the request is part of a two-phased process, starting with the assessment and ending with the actual numbers.

However, the confusion is in part attributable to Obama's seeming change in position on Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
 
donsutherland1 said:
Brief timeline:

Last week in September 2009: Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for an additional 30,000-40,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan may be received by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in coming days, a senior defense official speaking on background told FOX News on Tuesday.

November 30, 2009: President Obama approves the deployment of additional soldiers to Afghanistan

December 22, 2009: First deployment of soldiers from the surge in Afghanistan arrived.
Click to expand...



Thanks, looks like it was 3 months., which still is too long. What did he dither for 11 months on again, I forget. :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Talk about not reading an article Redress:
Click to expand...

Which is from an op ed, which makes it worthless. You want to provide some actual facts(so far you have had none), then maybe you have something, but this he requested troops, but not really, but really he did, and it was from before Obama was even president, and I know it's true cuz Ollie North told me so in an article he uses troop deaths to score points in is not worth much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom