• 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.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Thanks, looks like it was 3 months., which still is too long. What did he dither for 11 months on again, I forget. :lol:
Click to expand...

IIRC, and I don't have the link handy, but the troops went out, on the schedule McCrystal asked for. Part of why the three months was not a big deal is they had time before they had to act on this.
 
I don't know why you guys are arguing about the troop surge in AFG. That had nothing to do with his resignation.

Petraeus will pursue the same strategy.
 
kansaswhig said:
I don't know why you guys are arguing about the troop surge in AFG. That had nothing to do with his resignation.

Petraeus will pursue the same strategy.
Click to expand...

I am just correcting factually incorrect statements.
 
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?
 
VanceMack said:
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?
Click to expand...



Remember McChrystal voted for Obama, What the hell happened that something like this would happen?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Remember McChrystal voted for Obama, What the hell happened that something like this would happen?
Click to expand...

@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.
 
Guy Incognito said:
@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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
VanceMack said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
Guy Incognito said:
@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.
Click to expand...

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:
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!"
 
VanceMack said:
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!"
Click to expand...

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.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
I believe McChrystal also had problems with the Marine commander in Helmand. The Marine commander was doing things his way...
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Guy Incognito said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Chill out. I don't think anybody ever said McChrystal was incompetent, and IIRC the plan is to insert Petraeus and follow the same strategy as with McChrystal under new leadership. But you're starting to contradict yourself. Earlier you said:

VanceMack said:
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?
Click to expand...

That sounds like an excuse for his comments to me, except now you say that you never suggested his comments were excusable. So which is it?

I'd say that the one in a "tiny box" is you, Vance, for failing to see that the issue at hand is a shortcoming of McChrystal and his command staff alone. You should get out of your tiny box where Obama can do nothing right and every situation is perverted in such a way that Obama is to blame. Obama isn't to blame for this, McChrystal is, period. Obama "booted" McChrystal because McChrystal had given Obama no other choice but to do so, and it had nothing to do with McChrystals policies (aside from his policy of circumventing the chain of command and airing his grievances with the press).
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not that is probably the first time Don has been accused of that.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Chill out. I don't think anybody ever said McChrystal was incompetent, and IIRC the plan is to insert Petraeus and follow the same strategy as with McChrystal under new leadership. But you're starting to contradict yourself. Earlier you said:



That sounds like an excuse for his comments to me, except now you say that you never suggested his comments were excusable. So which is it?

I'd say that the one in a "tiny box" is yourself, for failing to see that the issue at hand is a shortcoming of McChrystal and his command staff alone. You should get out of your tiny box where Obama can do nothing right and every situation is perverted in such a way that Obama is to blame. Obama isn't to blame for this, McChrystal is, period. Obama "booted" McChrystal because McChrystal had given Obama no other choice but to do so, and it had nothing to do with McChrystals policies (aside from his policy of circumventing the chain of command and airing his grievances with the press).
Click to expand...

Never not once have I 'excused' the comments. I served for 20 years and was raised by a whole lot of old navy chiefs as surrogate parents...I never once took my bitches or gripes DOWN or outside of the chain...peers and superiors ONLY. From the BEGINNING I said there was no excuse or justification.

What I AM SAYING...is that MAYBE JUST MAYBE there MIGHT be SOMETHING in the administrations actions and behaviors that contributed to the animosity and if THAT isnt addressed it will remain a PROBLEM. NOT Justifying. NOT excusing. But does that mean there isnt MORE to learn other than 'bad general'?

Sort of like other situations...when incompetent people are in power and that incompetence doesnt CHANGE then eventually they will manage to **** EVERYTHING up. So MAYBE there might be a REASON Biden is seen as such a complete and total loser. MAYBE there might be a REASON the other Obama administration officials are seen as suc h complete and total losers. And MAYBE those LOSERS are still there.
 
VanceMack said:
-- 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?
Click to expand...

A democratic govt / administration works by appointing specialists in certain areas where it doesn't have specific skillsets. It can rotate or change the positions of those specialists if political aims or expediency changes and those specialists (usually) have a direct line to give alternative advice or disagreements where policy matters are concerned.

I think what you'll find is Don has adequately explained himself - the specialist on the ground (in this case McChrystal) was acting on Administation policy (part of what Obama got elected on) but he sets up the specifics in situ and the implementation of the strategy. Obama isn't "in charge" directly of the troops - but he is "in charge" of the commanders at the top.

If I recall from watching your US election - Obama spoke of a different direction in Afghanistan to the previous administration and that included a surge (I could be wrong but I am not from the US) of numbers. McChrystal on the ground had overall responsibility for the implementation of the strategy.

VanceMack said:
-- 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.
Click to expand...

The BP spill has little to do with chains of command in a govt enterprise such as carrying out a war in another country. BP is a multinational and Obama's mistaken attempt to appear "in charge" is more to do with domestic politics and trying to appease those who want the Govt to interfere in private industry matters.

VanceMack said:
Sometimes you guys EPITOMIZE the encyclopedia definition of FACE-PALM in your myopic defense of your ideological leader.
Click to expand...

I think you wrong Don Sutherland there and before you accuse me of seeing Obama as my "ideological leader" - I'm British but similar principles of chains of command apply.
 
Guy Incognito said:
@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.
Click to expand...




What comments? Please quote and link as I have been asking you for several days now.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...




One is not supposed to critisize the government or the CiC while in uniform.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
A democratic govt / administration works by appointing specialists in certain areas where it doesn't have specific skillsets. It can rotate or change the positions of those specialists if political aims or expediency changes and those specialists (usually) have a direct line to give alternative advice or disagreements where policy matters are concerned.

I think what you'll find is Don has adequately explained himself - the specialist on the ground (in this case McChrystal) was acting on Administation policy (part of what Obama got elected on) but he sets up the specifics in situ and the implementation of the strategy. Obama isn't "in charge" directly of the troops - but he is "in charge" of the commanders at the top.

If I recall from watching your US election - Obama spoke of a different direction in Afghanistan to the previous administration and that included a surge (I could be wrong but I am not from the US) of numbers. McChrystal on the ground had overall responsibility for the implementation of the strategy.



The BP spill has little to do with chains of command in a govt enterprise such as carrying out a war in another country. BP is a multinational and Obama's mistaken attempt to appear "in charge" is more to do with domestic politics and trying to appease those who want the Govt to interfere in private industry matters.



I think you wrong Don Sutherland there and before you accuse me of seeing Obama as my "ideological leader" - I'm British but similar principles of chains of command apply.
Click to expand...

I dont think you were involved in the conversation before the FACE-PALM comments. however since you apparently took offense to it, then 1-I apologize and 2-says it struck close to home.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What comments? Please quote and link as I have been asking you for several days now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I still don't get what you're talking about. What comments? These comments. The comments that got him fired, you know, the ones in Rolling Stone. It's well known he said Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" when he met with military officials for the first time. He made negative comments about Biden and other officials as well. Are you seriously trying to argue that McChrystal is innocent here? I'm perplexed.
 
VanceMack said:
-- since you apparently took offense to it, then 1-I apologize and 2-says it struck close to home.
Click to expand...

Apology not necessary.
I didn't take offense - I think I'm the one who should apologise as I didn't put my response properly to you.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Apology not necessary.
I didn't take offense - I think I'm the one who should apologise as I didn't put my response properly to you.
Click to expand...

No worries! Believe it or not, once my inane rantings are done here I NEVER take any of this personally! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom