• 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

I also believe the General must be relieved of duty.

It is interesting, however, to compare how quickly this White House can react when it's interests are assailed and compare the reaction time to that when the interests of the "small people" are under attacked. Ain't no moss a growin' on this rolling stone, huh?

What are the "interests of the small people" to which you refer? Please explain how the White House failed to respond.
 
for my edification; what are the mission objectives and major goals to be accomplished in afghanistan before we can remove our troops?

My gosh, someone asked the million dollar question.... the intelligent question. Sorry, the US hasn't fought a war in this century where objectives and goals were much of a concern.
 
It's dumb and entirely inappropriate to make stupid comments about your superiors.

It's really dumb and really inappropriate to make stupid comments about your superiors on the record to journalists.

Unless you are trying to make a point and ready to retire....
 
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.

Or he was just being an a**hole.
 
Unless you are trying to make a point and ready to retire....

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.
 
for my edification; what are the mission objectives and major goals to be accomplished in afghanistan before we can remove our troops?

The mission set forth by the President is:

...to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan. To do so, we and our allies will surge our forces, targeting elements of the insurgency and securing key population centers, training Afghan forces, transferring responsibility to a capable Afghan partner, and increasing our partnership with Pakistanis who are facing the same threats.

The objectives of the troop surge are to:

1) "... target the insurgency, break its momentum, and better secure population centers. "
2) "...increase our capacity to train effective Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans get into the fight..."
3) "transition to Afghan responsibility..."
4) "begin to reduce our combat troops in the summer of 2011."

Source: Fact Sheet: The Way Forward in Afghanistan | The White House
 
If he'd kept his mouth shut, the comments wouldn't be an issue. On what grounds should we allow a general to dis the CIC?

I did not mean to suggest that he should retained. My point is that retaining or firing General McChrystal does not alleviate the Administration from the need to make changes to its present strategy. The current strategy, largely devised by General McChrystal, is producing suboptimal outcomes. Key objectives, including the summer campaign related to Kandahar are being delayed, in large part because the strategy rests on a flawed premise concerning the legitimacy and competence of the Karzai regime and substantively ignores the decentralized/fragmented structure that defines Afghanistan. Under that structure tribal leaders play a much more important role. Leveraging their support and building mechanisms by which they could cooperate on interests that are national in scope would have a better chance at success. Ignoring them fuels mistrust and makes it less likely that they will take the necessary risks to facilitate the success of the U.S. mission.
 
A warrior's warrior understands the chain of command. Swore an oath to the Constitution? Gimme a break.

There's no excuse. Obama should make an example of him.

I whole heartly applaud any individual that can speak the truth at all times, even if it leads to their death, or firing.... and another thing, the General doesn't owe anyone an apology.
 
I whole heartly applaud any individual that can speak the truth at all times, even if it leads to their death, or firing.... and another thing, the General doesn't owe anyone an apology.

Again, this isn't a case where McChrystal was standing on principle to raise serious objections with our policy and institute reform. Having a lol at Biden is not exactly standing in Tienanmen Sq.

If he really wanted to cause people to turn a harsh eye to the Obama Administration's actions, this is probably the worst thing he could have done. Now, if he "resigns" it will be because of his insubordination, not his objections to policy. Any criticism he raises later on will be tainted by this.
 
I did not mean to suggest that he should retained. My point is that retaining or firing General McChrystal does not alleviate the Administration from the need to make changes to its present strategy. The current strategy, largely devised by General McChrystal, is producing suboptimal outcomes. Key objectives, including the summer campaign related to Kandahar are being delayed, in large part because the strategy rests on a flawed premise concerning the legitimacy and competence of the Karzai regime and substantively ignores the decentralized/fragmented structure that defines Afghanistan. Under that structure tribal leaders play a much more important role. Leveraging their support and building mechanisms by which they could cooperate on interests that are national in scope would have a better chance at success. Ignoring them fuels mistrust and makes it less likely that they will take the necessary risks to facilitate the success of the U.S. mission.
and as you have provided (and thanks for that) the mission objective is as follows:
...to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan
AQ is not a state. we cannot expect a surrender as if this were a conventional war. we can be mired there forever, like the war on poverty, the war on drugs or the battle with organized crime. while we may not have lost, we can never actually win, either
it's time to declare victory and get our troops home. in afghanistan and iraq
it is past time to end the stupidity wrought by dubya bin lyin


any possibility that mcchrystal now recognizes he is the leader of an army which has no prospects for winning - where winning is defined above in italics
he may realize he oversold his ability to turn things around. afghanistan, like hotel california, is a place you can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave
 
my guess is yes, after the current rolling stone article
he has literally been called on the carpet to be in person in the situation room, not in video, on the monthly afghanistan assessment tomorrow
this is smart guy. he knew the outcome of his insubordination when he made those quoted comments to rolling stone
apparently there is a huge chasm between some military brass and the white house about the strategy for conducting the war(s)
U.S. general lets down his guard in Rolling Stone interview - latimes.com
duh!

1) According to the UCMJ, McChrystal has committed insubordination.

2) However, it was McChrystal's plan that was implemented in Afghanistan. Our strategy there pretty much falls apart if he is fired.

3) McChrystal has already apologized for his slips of the lip.

4) Solution - Do not fire McChrystal, but make sure he keeps his fat mouth shut. LOL.
 
Not at all. anyone who has served knows that you don't critisize the CiC to the press.

Yes everybody knows that which begs the question what his end game was.

Maybe he wanted out and didn't have another way to get out? I really don't know but he is not a stupid man so what did he hope to gain by making those comments.

The idea of mis-speaking is a fantasy. People know what they say when they say it.
 
Last edited:
Soldiers don't have the luxury of speaking their interpretation of the truth. Just like you or I don't have the luxury of telling our boss he's a fat slob who should be flipping burgers. Welcome to the world.

But when the soldier does decidedly open his mouth we should not just look at a soldier speaking out, but also what they have to say. If we concentrate on just the message on not on what is in it then we loose the insight of a great military mind. And McChrystal hasn't been the only one to speak out. Remember Petraus arguing about the new strategy in the Middle East when the President took office. So now two prominent generals have openly protested against a civilian's war plans. Clue?
 
And in other news, President Kazari has claimed his support of the General and has publicaly asked the President to NOT fire McChrystal.
 
4) Solution - Do not fire McChrystal, but make sure he keeps his fat mouth shut. LOL.

IMO, even as the offense is one for which a military officer could be fired, perhaps the best course would be for the President to bar General McChrystal from any contact with the media. Instead, a separate military officer should be designated to handle press matters, with neither General McChrystal nor his staff having any media contact. Their contact with the media officer should be limited to providing requested facts/information. Framing the message would be outside General McChrystal's and his staff's purview. Although the General would likely resist such constraints, his now repeated damaging public relations blunders have demonstrated an inability to handle the media. If he rejects such terms, then he should be relieved.

However, for even the above framework to be feasible, others including Amb. Eikenberry, Richard Holbrooke, and General Petraeus would need to have sufficient confidence that they could work with General McChrystal. The effort in Afghanistan is a team effort. If the General's comments have destroyed the ability for the group to function as a cohesive team, then a replacement will be needed.

With Congressional criticism of the General's conduct increasing, and criticism has been expressed by Rep. Obey, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Kerry, among others, the President will need to consider the political dynamics. If Congress has lost confidence in General McChrystal, it also makes little sense to retain him.

Finally, if the President chooses to retain General McChrystal, he should reaffirm that he expects that the strategic objectives set forth in the strategy largely designed by General McChrystal will be fulfilled by the time July 2011 arrives. The situation might also present an opportunity for the President to suggest corrections to the strategy e.g., reducing its current Kabul-centric focus.

Right now, my guess is that the President could go either way on the issue. A lot will depend on whether the Afghanistan "team" can function effectively or whether the General's comments have destroyed the necessary trust and relationships. Congressional pressure will be another factor. General McChrystal might tender his own resignation, which I suspect the President would accept if it is offered.
 
IMO, even as the offense is one for which a military officer could be fired, perhaps the best course would be for the President to bar General McChrystal from any contact with the media. Instead, a separate military officer should be designated to handle press matters, with neither General McChrystal nor his staff having any media contact. Their contact with the media officer should be limited to providing requested facts/information. Framing the message would be outside General McChrystal's and his staff's purview. Although the General would likely resist such constraints, his now repeated damaging public relations blunders have demonstrated an inability to handle the media. If he rejects such terms, then he should be relieved.

However, for even the above framework to be feasible, others including Amb. Eikenberry, Richard Holbrooke, and General Petraeus would need to have sufficient confidence that they could work with General McChrystal. The effort in Afghanistan is a team effort. If the General's comments have destroyed the ability for the group to function as a cohesive team, then a replacement will be needed.

With Congressional criticism of the General's conduct increasing, and criticism has been expressed by Rep. Obey, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Kerry, among others, the President will need to consider the political dynamics. If Congress has lost confidence in General McChrystal, it also makes little sense to retain him.

Finally, if the President chooses to retain General McChrystal, he should reaffirm that he expects that the strategic objectives set forth in the strategy largely designed by General McChrystal will be fulfilled by the time July 2011 arrives. The situation might also present an opportunity for the President to suggest corrections to the strategy e.g., reducing its current Kabul-centric focus.

Right now, my guess is that the President could go either way on the issue. A lot will depend on whether the Afghanistan "team" can function effectively or whether the General's comments have destroyed the necessary trust and relationships. Congressional pressure will be another factor. General McChrystal might tender his own resignation, which I suspect the President would accept if it is offered.

Obama isn't going to let McChrystal go anywhere. If that were to happen, McChrystal would sing like a bird, making Obama look lik an even bigger idiot than he already does.
 
The Runaway General
Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House

The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics

The Rolling Stone piece.

Obama isn't going to let McChrystal go anywhere. If that were to happen, McChrystal would sing like a bird, making Obama look lik an even bigger idiot than he already does.
My thinking exactly. On Civvy Street, he could do massive damage.

He should retire, then run for office.
Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal
Then again... maybe not! LOL...

.
 
Last edited:
On Drudge's front page now:
FLASH: According to an unnamed source 'Gen. McChrystal has submitted his resignation' - Joe Klein on Rick Sanchez, CNN... Developing...
 
Some general comments:

The comments Rolling Stone quoted in themselves are not that bad at all. That kind of thing is said all the time by military people. The fault lies in that they said those in front of reporters. I had my first training on dealing with the military as an E3. Absolutely no excuse for that poor judgment.

However, the editor from Rolling Stone for this piece was just on Hardball, and he commented that everything said was on the record, unless arranged in advance to be off the record. That is not acceptable to my mind for military units. Any of the people there should have been able to say "This is off the record" and that alone should be enough.

The article is not, alone, enough to ask for a resignation. If Don's comments are accurate that McChrystal's strategy is not working, then this does make sense.
 
[video]http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544188-mcchrystal-macarthur-deja-vu-all-over-again[/video]
 
Some general comments:

The comments Rolling Stone quoted in themselves are not that bad at all. That kind of thing is said all the time by military people. The fault lies in that they said those in front of reporters. I had my first training on dealing with the military as an E3. Absolutely no excuse for that poor judgment.

However, the editor from Rolling Stone for this piece was just on Hardball, and he commented that everything said was on the record, unless arranged in advance to be off the record. That is not acceptable to my mind for military units. Any of the people there should have been able to say "This is off the record" and that alone should be enough.

The article is not, alone, enough to ask for a resignation. If Don's comments are accurate that McChrystal's strategy is not working, then this does make sense.

General rule of military leadership...make bitches, complaints, and generally snide snippy comments UP the chain...not to outsiders or subordinates.
 
And in other news, President Kazari has claimed his support of the General and has publicaly asked the President to NOT fire McChrystal.

All the more reason to do so,then.

I don't think anything he said was outrageous, but the point is you're not supposed to say anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom