Dave back in. Stan out.

[Rustic23]

I believe he did have a choice.

Bring McChrystal in and chew his ass or have the Sec Def chew his ass in my presence
Give McChrystal a choice resign or go back fight the war and keep his mouth shut i.e. Eisenhower and Patton.
Step out to the podium with McCrystal say a few words about being on the same page, and let McCrystal do a mea culpa and sing my praise.
Bring my civilian team in and chew their ass just to make sure we are all on the same page.

 

[donheff]

I believe he did have a choice.

Bring McChrystal in and chew his ass or have the Sec Def chew his ass in my presence
Give McChrystal a choice resign or go back fight the war and keep his mouth shut i.e. Eisenhower and Patton.

I initially thought Obama should ask McCrystal to submit a resignation and then refuse to accept it because continuity in the war effort is too important. But as I read the scuttlebutt in the final hours it seemed pretty clear that a lot of military, political, and pundit class talkers were speculating that then entire Pentagon would think Obama was out of control if he let McCrystal continue -- especially after his earlier remarks. The final show stopper was McCrystal's comment to an NBC reporter as he was coming into the Pentagon before the Obama meeting. Asked if he had submitted his resignation he blew the reporter off as if that would be ridiculous and ended with a flat "no." If that isn't tantamount to saying "I dare you to fire me" nothing is.

As to an ass chewing of Mr. Special Forces by a civilian with no military service? The laughs about that would have been more embarrassing than the Rolling Stone article.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

donheff, I don't think you understand the chain of command. It's the President and then everybody else down the list. I'm no Obama fan but we all have to realize that the military is serving the public. Not that things couldn't have been handled differently, but I think after the Rolling Stones article, the President did the right thing. The military has to understand that the President is the Commander in Chief. You serve at the pleasure of the President

 

[winger]

Some folks will criticize every move the current administration makes. Their spin is the same on every thread here.

 

[ls99]

No win for Obama.

Since he accepted McChrystal's resignation, Patreaus got shafted, gets to carry out McChrystal's plan, albeit modified to his taste.

If he did not accept the resignation, Obama would have had to play by McChrystal's rules.

As CIC of course Obama had the last word, not the last laugh.

Given the withdrawal time line, the brass is still shafted, Taliban hangs loose, then moves in. Unless the time line business is done away with, then the quagmire continues. No reason for Karzai to play by US rules. His survival will require making a deal with the Taliban. Perhaps swapping out the civilian diplomats in Kabul can save the day.

As for chewing out McChrystal by Obama, laughable, to put very politely. There is a better expression for that concept but it would likely ban me for life from this board.

 

[jimnjana]

Do you mean no other choice that you know about or no other choice that you agree with?

My response may get me in trouble for introducing politics into the thread, but I believe that is the fundamental reason the President had no choice.

I believe that if the General had made the comments regarding the Bush administration, President Bush would have brushed it off with a bit of humor, publicly and probably would have chewed his you know what privately.

IMO The there were two things that influenced President Obama's decision. The first, is that he is perceived to be weak in his support of the Military and in Military matters in general. Secondly, his own Ego/sensitivity to criticism. Not firing the General would have contributed to furthering the perception of a weak president and would have gone against his own "gut" reaction. That's why IMO he had no choice. Other choices existed but not for this President.

 

[Rustic23]

This is an academic discussion, I have no problem with what the President did, in case Winger thinks I am trying to spin it. I was pointing out he did have an option. As to the President doing the chewing, it could just as easily been the Army Chief of Staff, Sec Def, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

 

[donheff]

donheff, I don't think you understand the chain of command. It's the President and then everybody else down the list. I'm no Obama fan but we all have to realize that the military is serving the public. Not that things couldn't have been handled differently, but I think after the Rolling Stones article, the President did the right thing. The military has to understand that the President is the Commander in Chief. You serve at the pleasure of the President

I wasn't communicating clearly. I was reacting to Obama's "civilian" background. He never served in the military. And McCrystal reportedly said that Obama was unengaged and intimidated by all the brass in their first meeting. In other words, a "civilian" who didn't understand the military. An ass chewing from a someone the recipient has disdain for is not likely very effective. I recognize that McCrystal may not have actually felt that way but he is perceived to in many quarters and the President is forced to operate in the environment that exists.

I know that the President is the Commander in Chief. But he serves as the Chief as the civilian head of government. And the military in the United States very publicly reports to that civilian government. In other words, the Secretary of Defense and the President are in the chain of command but they are very importantly "civilian." At least that is how I have always been led to understand our system. I am open to corrections.

 

[Rustic23]

You are correct, but remember, the Officer's oath is to the Constitution and not to the President. Not something that is germain to this situation, but I have heard people say 'He swore an oath to the President'. Not so.

 

[ziggy29]

You are correct, but remember, the Officer's oath is to the Constitution and not to the President. Not something that is germain to this situation, but I have heard people say 'He swore an oath to the President'. Not so.

True, but is it really completely separate? The oath is to the Constitution, and the Constitution says the president is commander in chief. Therefore upholding and defending the Constitution would be to honor and execute the orders of the president. Criticizing him and/or his strategies or policies in a very public way, a form of insubordination, would seem to run counter to how the Constitution views the relationship between the general and the president. So by not acting a way that is consistent with honoring the president's Constitutional role, is he really completely being faithful to that oath?

 

[Westernskies]

I believe that McChrystal and Obama both did the right thing, albeit for completely different reasons.

 

[Rustic23]

As I said, I do not believe it is germain in this situation. However, it would be if the orders of the President were in conflict with the constitution. It would also most likely be an unlawful order, and he would be obligated to not follow it.

 

[ERD50]

Some folks will criticize every move the current administration makes. Their spin is the same on every thread here.

The opposite is also true. And that could be said about the previous administration also. That's all. - ERD50

 

[dex]

My response may get me in trouble for introducing politics into the thread, but I believe that is the fundamental reason the President had no choice.

I believe that if the General had made the comments regarding the Bush administration, President Bush would have brushed it off with a bit of humor, publicly and probably would have chewed his you know what privately.

IMO The there were two things that influenced President Obama's decision. The first, is that he is perceived to be weak in his support of the Military and in Military matters in general. Secondly, his own Ego/sensitivity to criticism. Not firing the General would have contributed to furthering the perception of a weak president and would have gone against his own "gut" reaction. That's why IMO he had no choice. Other choices existed but not for this President.

Interesting that we both came to a similar option - letting the remarks pass and keeping the general - but with differing perspectives on the perception. I thought Obama would have been thought of favorably - see my previous post.

Of course all these assumptions are based only on the remarks reported in Rolling Stone.

 

[jimnjana]

Interesting that we both came to a similar option - letting the remarks pass and keeping the general - but with differing perspectives on the perception. I thought Obama would have been thought of favorably - see my previous post.

Of course all these assumptions are based only on the remarks reported in Rolling Stone.

I guess my perspective two different Presidents, two different decisions, both probably made/would have made the best decision for their situation. For Bush, IMO the decision would have been based more on his relationship/trust/confidence with the General. For President Obama, IMO it was based more on public/politcal perception and my opinion that the current President does not handle criticism well, nor should he have to when it is someone who works for him..

 

[ziggy29]

I guess my perspective two different Presidents, two different decisions, both probably made/would have made the best decision for their situation. For Bush, IMO the decision would have been based more on his relationship/trust/confidence with the General. For President Obama, IMO it was based more on public/politcal perception and my opinion that the current President does not handle criticism well, nor should he have to when it is someone who works for him..

It could be. I also think that Bush, whatever else one may say about him good or bad (and not relevant here, thank you), one unmistakable trait he possessed was a fierce dedication to loyalty. He demanded it from others under him and returned it equally to those who gave theirs. Sometimes I thought he was loyal to a fault, actually, not willing to throw people under the bus who needed to be thrown there (IMO) and retaining the services of people who really shouldn't have remained in their positions.

 

[clifp]

Having read the article I agree with SamClem, what the article quoted McChrystal as saying and what the media is saying the article said are pretty different. A heck of a lot of things were actually said by his staff.

Which leads to my main question how many different staffers said these things? If it is one staffer, this guy may just be uncommonly stupid,or have a grudge against McChrystal and decide to frag the General using non lethal means. If on the other hand it is a half-dozen staffer than this reflect badly on his leadership and he really does deserve to go.

Ari Fleisher, Bush's Press Secretary, had an interesting the Pentagon Press office screwed up also, by allowing a Rolling Stone reporter this level of access to the General. Rolling Stone has a long history of writing, lengthy and very controversial articles like this one.

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money

It is fine to let Rolling Stones embed reporters with individual units, you get some great articles like Generation Kill, which leads to equally good HBO series, but why let them hang around a top General who doesn't have a reputation for being tight-lipped?

Still after reading the article, the President had no choice, and replacing him with Patreaus actually may be the best thing.

 

[clifp]

The reason I said morale would improve is an article that said after McChrystal made a speech to the troops, they didn't even applaud. That's telling!

Well the context of the troops not applauding (and I don't know if is customary or not to do so in the field) is because COIN creates a huge conflict between a General goals and that of the junior officers and NCO.

For the most part the goal of Lieutenant or Sargent on deployment is to bring his troops home alive and with all of their body parts. In normal conflict this is pretty consistent with the priorities of the Generals

1. Keep your own guys safe
2. Kill the bad guys
3. Avoid civilian causalities.

The articles discusses COIN but doesn't do a great job of explaining the inherent conflicts. In COIN the priorities are completely switched.

1. Avoid civilian causalities
2. Kill the bad guys
3. Keep your own guys safe.


The rules of engagements are designed to emphasis these priorities and are almost certain to piss of the average soldier. They are also pretty much incomprehensible to the American public, when talked about in isolation.

The impressive thing about David Patreausis in Iraq is that he got American soldiers at all levels to buy in to accepting short-term risks, in order to accomplish the long term goals. It doesn't sound like McChrystal was being as successful in Afghanistan.

 

[dex]

It doesn't sound like McChrystal was being as successful in Afghanistan.

I read the opposite - he was a guy the troop would fight for. He responded followed up with concerns/emails from the ground troops and went into the field with. Even the British troops were surprised to see him in the field next to them. The rules of engagement that he put in place have been controversial (and what your read) - maybe too stringent.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ential/mcchrystals-real-offense-96873364.html

 

[youbet]

Having read the article I agree with SamClem, what the article quoted McChrystal as saying and what the media is saying the article said are pretty different.

+1

After reading the article last night, I was amazed at the difference between what was actually in Rolling Stone and what other media personalities were paraphrasing the article as saying.........

It also made me wonder how Obama could have placed McChrystal in that position in the first place. McChrystal's penchant for speaking his mind and criticizing authority was well documented according to Rolling Stone.

 

[ERD50]

Having read the article I agree with SamClem, what the article quoted McChrystal as saying and what the media is saying the article said are pretty different. A heck of a lot of things were actually said by his staff.

Count me with the others on this. I guess I'm just too ADD to slog through all 6 pages of that writing style, so I did some skimming and maybe missed it - but what did he actually say that was so bad?

I focused on the Biden comments, because I read earlier that McChrystal first called Biden to apologize/warn him about the article. But what I got out of it was that McChrystal had earlier said some conflicting things regarding Biden, and McChrystal kept getting flack from reporters on this (maybe hoping he'd trip up again and they'd have their headline?). So the "Biden Who?" statement was reported by staff, and I got the impression it was really self-deprecating humor on McChrystal's part - that he knew he had to be careful about what he said about Biden, so he was kidding around that he didn't want to even take a Biden question - "Biden Who?". And this seemed to be in an internal 'prep for the press' meeting, not a public event at all.

What did I miss?

Obama's move may or may not have been the right thing to do, I don't know enough to even have an opinion on it.

-ERD50

 

[dex]

What did I miss?

Nothing. It is a reflection on the 24 hr. news cycle that needs to be fed and the mindlessness of the reporters.

 

[jimnjana]

It could be. I also think that Bush, whatever else one may say about him good or bad (and not relevant here, thank you), one unmistakable trait he possessed was a fierce dedication to loyalty. He demanded it from others under him and returned it equally to those who gave theirs. Sometimes I thought he was loyal to a fault, actually, not willing to throw people under the bus who needed to be thrown there (IMO) and retaining the services of people who really shouldn't have remained in their positions.

I agree. In this situation, it really didn't matter much to this President who said what, bottom line the General was responsible. This move made him look tough and to some extent Presidential, just what he needed.

 

[Westernskies]

I agree. In this situation, it really didn't matter much to this President who said what, bottom line the General was responsible. This move made him look tough and to some extent Presidential, just what he needed.

Too bad he didn't fill the whole bus...or maybe he's saving that for after the midterm elections?

 

[mickeyd]

Carter Relieved Gen Singlaub in 1977. Who else remembers that? Seems like history repeats itself often.

In 1977, while Singlaub was chief of staff of U.S. forces in South Korea, he publicly criticized President Jimmy Carter's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula. On March 21, 1977, Carter relieved him of duty for overstepping his bounds and failing to respect the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief.[7][8]

John K. Singlaub - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia