• 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

ric27 said:
[video]http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544188-mcchrystal-macarthur-deja-vu-all-over-again[/video]
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
appears we have an answer
resignation submitted

Pat Tillman's mom, Mary should be pleased at this news. Mrs. Tillman warned Obama about the general's underhanded ways in hiding the true cause of death of her son, prior to Obama's selecting him for his current position
 
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...

I agree.

But is that how you felt about Richard Clark?
 
Interesting article.

There are parts in it that will piss off everyone, and parts where you think the guy is a stud.

COIN seems like a can of worms; and it seems like a theory that can work, but is as explained, would be lengthy.

If we want to fix it, it looks like we will be in for a long haul. If we leave we might have to come back. Either that or we end up at war with the place. Bombing Taliban with or without the consent of their government. A'la Clinton. I can't see us sitting back while they create more cells and plot to execute terror strike after terror strike.

If they aren't going to assist us, they might end up learning the hard way. At least then the uber concern of civilian casualties would be reduced, as most would be aerial strikes.

.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
I agree.

But is that how you felt about Richard Clark?
Click to expand...

TIME even called his bluff early on.
I think it got worse after; Exposed as a Fabricator.
It's one thing to blab to save lives and get **** done, it's another to blab and fabricate in order to do harm for book sales... and run cover for the Impeached One.
Dick and Sandy Burgler made a convincing pair.
The accounts of high-level conversations and meetings given by Clarke in various television appearances, beginning with the 60 Minutes interview, differ in significant respects from the recollections of a former top counterterrorism official who participated in the same conversations and meetings: Richard Clarke. In several cases, the version of events provided by Clarke this week include details and embellishments that do not appear in his new book, Against All Enemies. While the discrepancies do not, on their own, discredit Clarke's larger arguments, they do raise questions about whether Clarke's eagerness to publicize his story and rip the Bush Administration have clouded his memory of the facts.

While Clarke claims that he is "an independent" not driven by partisan motives, it's hard not to read some passages in his book as anything but shrill broadsides.

Leaving aside the fact that Bush never fails to insist that the terror threat is as great today as it was on 9/11, these passages reveal the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it. That's a shame, since many of his contentions — about the years of political and intelligence missteps that led to 9/11, the failure of two Administrations to destroy al-Qaeda and the potentially disastrous consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — deserve a wide and serious airing. From now on, the country would be best served if Clarke lets the facts speak for themselves.

Read more: Richard Clarke, at War With Himself - TIME
Click to expand...


From another source:

You claim in your just released book, that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's facial expression led you to believe she had never heard of al-Qaida, during a briefing in 2001. Yet an audio clip aired by Sean Hannity (Fox News Channel, March 24, 2004) proves unequivocally that Rice had mentioned OBL and al-Qaida as threats a full year before said briefing took place.

So, Mr. Clarke, the question that begs an answer is, were you lying before or are you lying now? And since you are-were obviously lying, why would anyone apart from the Bush haters believe even "hello" and "goodbye" if it comes out of your mouth?

Lies, damn lies, Albright and Clarke
Click to expand...

.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
If he wanted to make a point and retire, he could have issued a statement saying that he was retiring due to irreconcilable differences with the Obama administration over their handling of the situation in Afghanistan. That would have been an incredibly powerful move that would have raised serious questions about our strategy in Afg. and would have left McChrystal looking pristine.

Cracking jokes about politicians behind their back and then walking to the WH with your tail between your legs doesn't create the same image.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing that's not what happened, then.
 
justabubba said:
appears we have an answer
resignation submitted

Pat Tillman's mom, Mary should be pleased at this news. Mrs. Tillman warned Obama about the general's underhanded ways in hiding the true cause of death of her son, prior to Obama's selecting him for his current position
Click to expand...

It seems his ego got the better of him. He needs to go. So do the others on his staff who made similar statements.
 
MrVicchio said:
If the article is accurate, he should be fired for conduct unbecoming an Officer. You don't air dirty laundry about the Chain of Command... some of that stuff reads like high school level drama llama crap.

However, I think it also says a lot about Obama's Admin and the failures of proper leadership going on there. If half of what they said is true, the WH is seriously dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

How else does a high ranking military official get a change of inept civilian leadership?

Serious question.
 
So most of the conservatives in this thread are saying "Well he shouldn't have done that BUT IT SHOWS THERES A PROBLEM..."

I bet if someone in 2004 had done this, they'd be screaming for his head, calling him a traitor.
 
Deuce said:
So most of the conservatives in this thread are saying "Well he shouldn't have done that BUT IT SHOWS THERES A PROBLEM..."

I bet if someone in 2004 had done this, they'd be screaming for his head, calling him a traitor.
Click to expand...

And when Fallon was forced to resign after criticizing Bush Administration policy on Iran, there were those here who defended him, derided the Bush Admin as kicking out all but "yes men," and argued that Fallon was more honorable than "Betrayus."


http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/29148-fallon-resigns-chief-u-s-forces-middle-east.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/23421-fallon-derided-petraeus-opposed-surge.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/16631-reports-bush-replace-top-generals.html

These type of things tend to happen.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not super familiar with military/civilian interactions.
Sounds to me that whoever is in charge should have direct access with the president instead of some go between lackey.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you could call the Secretary of Defense a "lackey".

It's not the military's job to effect a change in the civilian leadership. That is the sole purview of the voters and the Constitution.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
How else does a high ranking military official get a change of inept civilian leadership?

Serious question.
Click to expand...

It is not up to the military to decide if civilian leadership is inept. No one in the military gets to pick their boss.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not super familiar with military/civilian interactions.
Sounds to me that whoever is in charge should have direct access with the president instead of some go between lackey.
Click to expand...

No. You go through the chain of command. That is what it is there for.
 
Moon said:
I'm not sure you could call the Secretary of Defense a "lackey".

It's not the military's job to effect a change in the civilian leadership. That is the sole purview of the voters and the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That isn't really what I was getting at.

I guess I was questioning how a general can get information to the president without having to use his go between.
If the person, which I guess is the Sec. of Defense in this instance, is inept and it effects the general's performance; I'd like to think that he could have a word with the president about how it hurts him.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That isn't really what I was getting at.

I guess I was questioning how a general can get information to the president without having to use his go between.
If the person, which I guess is the Sec. of Defense in this instance, is inept and it effects the general's performance; I'd like to think that he could have a word with the president about how it hurts him.
Click to expand...

If the President is a good leader, he'll know where the problems lie, or will find out if he doesn't know. The military leadership has access to the President, but their immediate boss is the SecDef.
 
Moon said:
If the President is a good leader, he'll know where the problems lie, or will find out if he doesn't know. The military leadership has access to the President, but their immediate boss is the SecDef.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't want that job, your boss changes every time the political winds do.
No thanks. :no:
 
All I have to say on this matter is if Gen. McCrystal really felt that the Obama Adm was as inept as he thinks it is, he should have addressed his concerns directly to the President or at least to SecDef. His comments to the media at the most should have been, "...whether I agree or disagree with the President's policy concerning the war effort is irrelevant. He is my CinC; my job is to carryout his orders to the best of my ability," and move on. And if he truly felt he couldn't do that, he should have resigned. A Warrior's Warrior knows this all too well.
 
This sucks. McChrystal is probably our best hope for any meaningful success in Afghanistan, but what he's done is inexcusable. He has apologized, because he knows that military commanders just don't criticize their elected bosses - at least not publicly. It undermines our system of a military serving elected civilians, and it's a recipe for a military coup. I'm a big fan of McChrystal, but if Obama gives him the boot, I can't say it's the wrong choice. It just sucks. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom