# Gen. McChrystal Removed!



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

As a member of the Armed Forces you DO NOT publicly disrespect your CIC, or government. Gentleman, any thoughts?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

A general is _not_ "an enlisted man".

Other than that, I know very little of the situation so cannot comment.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Regardless of whether a member of our armed forces is enlisted or commissioned, you do not ever publicly or privately disrespect your Commander In Chief. If a disagreement is that serious, part company (in other words, get out of the Service) and then say what you feel you have to say. Gen McCrystal was way out of line and should certainly be held accountable!


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Personally, I'm in the "who cares" category....


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Regardless of whether a member of our armed forces is enlisted or commissioned, you do not ever publicly or privately disrespect your Commander In Chief. If a disagreement is that serious, part company (in other words, get out of the Service) and then say what you feel you have to say. Gen McCrystal was way out of line and should certainly be held accountable!


Hear, hear! I wish all the best for his replacement, General Petraeus.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Quay said:


> Hear, hear! I wish all the best for his replacement, General Petraeus.


Is that a Hicky Freeman suit Mr. Obama is wearing?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I can't see that there's possibly enough detail there to tell.

It does look like it was Blue Tie Day, though.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

camorristi said:


> Is that a Hicky Freeman suit Mr. Obama is wearing?


Maybe, but I heard he mostly wear Hart Schaffner Marx suits.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Camorristi, your opening statement is impossible to disagree with. However, the historical precedents of politicians interfering with military command positions are not good. I would be concerned about the effect on the morale of his men in theatre. Does anyone know, was he well liked or not?


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

As a recently retired Soldier and combat veteran I can state that most of the men and women I have met in uniform would welcome General Petraeus as their new theater commander. I cannot/will not comment on whether anybody in theater currently would rather have General McChrystal than General Petraeus.

However, I feel that General McChrystal displayed an egregious lack of judgment, and when one is in command of so many lives one should try to avoid lapses in judgment like mass casualties. General Petraeus has a history of professionalism and a track record of success in counterinsurgency operations. I do not feel like this will harm morale. In fact, it may improve.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Centaur said:


> Camorristi, your opening statement is impossible to disagree with. However, the historical precedents of politicians interfering with military command positions are not good. I would be concerned about the effect on the morale of his men in theatre. Does anyone know, was he well liked or not?


On the contrary, remember those people:


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Not sure I understand the intent of the reference to the pictured men. Ike was not a politician at the time. But anyway, I'd guess (as someone who admittedly can't claim to know from long experience) that we need to be careful not overextrapolating from the lessons of Vietnam. I have indeed heard stories, apocryphal or otherwise, about bizarre micromanagement in Vietnam (Kissinger on the radio talking to platoon leaders, that sort of thing). On the other hand, Lincoln seems to have had little choice but to "interfere" with his generals, and history has judged him well for doing so.

Anyway, war is politics by other means. So the idea that military men should be free to do their their jobs and not be bothered by politicians is at best a half-baked approximation of some more complicated truth. Politics always impacts warfighting because politics is the dog that wags the military tail. That's just a fact of life and can't be helped.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

So, I haven't been following this very closely, and I whole heartedly agree that no person in uniform should ever disrespect anyone of a higher rank or billet.

That being said, I've yet to see anything that really qualifies (in my mind) as disrespect towards the CIC. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I see a lot of things like "I knew that getting the extra troops I was asking for was going to be almost impossible" and "I voted for Obama, but when we first met, we didn't really click". I've yet to see anything where the General actually disrespected or questioned the abilities of the CIC. Can someone shed some light on this for me?


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Whether or not there was any disrespect toward the president personally, there's the remarks by the general and his staff, in front of a journalist, about Biden and other high-level civilians. Hard to keep doing business as before after something like that. The general's quick apology once the story leaked shows he knew he'd screwed up big-time.


----------



## harland (Oct 13, 2008)

Kurt N said:


> Whether or not there was any disrespect toward the president personally, there's the remarks by the general and his staff, in front of a journalist, about Biden and other high-level civilians. Hard to keep doing business as before after something like that. The general's quick apology once the story leaked shows he knew he'd screwed up big-time.


This is probably the main reason why he was fired. Insubordination or not, GEN McChrystal would have been ineffective in carrying out his duties and executing unity of command in theater because of the article.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

harland said:


> This is probably the main reason why he was fired. Insubordination or not, GEN McChrystal would have been ineffective in carrying out his duties and executing unity of command in theater because of the article.


I agree. I don't think his comments helped his already strained relationship with the administration. I do think he got his opinion out loud and clear (louder than if he had resigned and then made the statements). The CIC really had no choice but to replace McChrystal.

Andy B.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Is that a Hicky Freeman suit Mr. Obama is wearing?"

I think he prefers American made suits so it limits the possibilities. It looks fairly high end so I would guess it is a HF


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

In private life Obama might have ignored it, but this was a flagrant and ongoing spectacle. There was no choice but to have McCrystal stand down. Without discipline and respect for the chain of command the military would fall apart.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

The good thing is that now Obama completly owns a war in a theater that defeated the Soviet Union in spite of the fact that they were next door and willing to kill a million people. The bad thing is that Obama probably does not care if we lose. Still, as an overall strategy to help destroy the administration of a domestic enemy, it might work. If successful, Rolling Stone should get a Pulitizer and McChrystal, the Medal of Freedom.

"The god-king has betrayed a fatal flaw: Hubris. Easy to taunt, easy to trick.... Xerxes has taken the bait."

Who here has read the whole Rolling Stone article? It's very interesting to read and, actually, McChrystal wasn't really directly quoted very much at all. Anyone with any leadership experience at all -- which does NOT include Obama -- knows that in the field, people say a lot of stuff. A real leader knows when not to get all hissy over that. But America didn't elect a real leader. They elected the prom queen.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

It's an essential part of any democracy that there is civilian control of the military. We can't have military leaders disrespecting their elected superiors. Obama was right. I'd say the same thing if McChrystal dissed President Palin:crazy:


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Liberty Ship said:


> The bad thing is that Obama probably does not care if we lose.


I will not debate with this person, but it's nice to have it documented here that some people actually say stuff like this.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm not a fan of the President and disagree with much of what he does, but in this case I support him as he really had little choice in the matter. He is the Commander in Chief and the General is a soldier.

Cruiser


----------



## dawgvet (Mar 15, 2009)

The general would not be in his current position of leadership if he weren't a man of intelligence but making any comments like this to the press is military suicide. My father-in-law is a Lt.Colonel and was very surprised by the comments.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

camorristi said:


> On the contrary, remember those people:


Patton and Eisenhower I believe - I can't name the third one. There was a turbulent relationship I seem to remember. However, I was thinking more of Churchill and some of his generals; also of Hitler, who seemed to make a particular point of getting rid of his best generals.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Centaur said:


> Patton and Eisenhower I believe - I can't name the third one.


That's Bradley. See Section 26 of https://www.history.army.mil/brochures/ardennes/aral.htm.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Don't forget President Lincoln also had the ability to change and stay his course.
Lincoln did a lot of changing while in office. He came into office and a war that he didn't want but was forced to deal with. During the Civil Way Lincoln had to make a number of changes and had to be open to them. *While, Lincoln never changed what he was fighting for he did have to change Generals around more often than he wanted to.* He fought for a whole United States without slavery and didn't sway from that. But, his Generals weren't listening to his instruction and didn't preform so he had to shuffle things around quite a bit.
I see in this a man who stayed the course on what he believed in even though it wasn't easy. And, rather than change his course when things got hard or didn't go smoothly he changed his people to keep on that course. The commander in chief was being commanding!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"He fought for a whole United States without slavery and didn't sway from that"

I once thought that too. It seems the war was actually fought over taxes with the Canal tax being the final straw. Then when Lincoln was losing support he changed themes to gain support of the Abolitionists. Then he became the leader in the fight against slavery.
History is a weird thing. Sometimes the right things happen but not in the way it is portrayed in the history books and sometimes only as a tangent to some other goal. Of course things happen (but not always for the good) which were the true goal but hidden behind some contrived reason.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> A general is _not_ "an enlisted man".
> 
> Other than that, I know very little of the situation so cannot comment.


The rules of conduct apply to all. The rules of common sense vary.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Here's the way I see it. The General was insubordinate, he did not make disrespectful remarks to the CIC, but he DID make them towards Biden, who IS in his chain of command. 

Thats a no-no. But I think that 80% of this is the media. The media turned it into this huge 'McChrystal vs Obama" thing that it really isn't. But, because perception is reality, Obama, in order to maintain authority as the CIC, is forced to give the General the boot. I don't think in reality it was warrented, but given the circumstances, I think it was the only choice he had.

And, yes, McChrystal was dumb in this case for speaking the way he did. He's high enough on the totem pole to understand the politics and even the lowest man on the totem pole knows that the media is never your friend.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> Who here has read the whole Rolling Stone article? It's very interesting to read and, actually, McChrystal wasn't really directly quoted very much at all. Anyone with any leadership experience at all -- which does NOT include Obama -- knows that in the field, people say a lot of stuff. A real leader knows when not to get all hissy over that. But America didn't elect a real leader. They elected the prom queen.


I'd like to read the article before I form a complete judgement...is it available online? or do I need to run down the street to Borders???

I'm not quite sure I understand the situation entirely...I gather the General and some of the men under his watch made disparaging remarks about the VP. I can understand why that wouldnt sit well, but all I heard was that he called him "Joe Bite-me" or something to that effect...this kind of seems like over reacting to me, I mean, did he say anything else? this is all I've been able to gather reading various online articles about it and listening to a little snippet here and there on the radio. I would imagine considering the tremendous stress a job like that must carry with it, a person might be prone to say something dumb everynow and again in the wrong situation, but I'm guessing there's more to the story than I know of to warrant such a swift dismissal (or request for resignation as-it-were)...


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

^^^^
I think the article is on The RollingStone website


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ZachGranstrom said:


> ^^^^
> I think the article is on The RollingStone website


aaah...cool, thanks...


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

:icon_smile_big: I like your name capi-cola. Well, let me tell you a couple of three things:

1. The general is a member of the armed forces, and he's specifically instructed to keep any differences he has with his superiors to himself as long as he's in the service.
2. He disrespected his government and chain in command superiors directly and worst, publicly. 
3. Our CIC had no choice but to set an example as a matter of principal.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

camorristi said:


> *While, Lincoln never changed what he was fighting for he did have to change Generals around more often than he wanted to.* He fought for a whole United States without slavery and didn't sway from that.


Really?

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

--Abraham Lincoln


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Centaur said:


> Camorristi, your opening statement is impossible to disagree with. However, the historical precedents of politicians interfering with military command positions are not good. I would be concerned about the effect on the morale of his men in theatre. Does anyone know, was he well liked or not?


The historical precedents of military interfering with elected government are even worse! This guy went to West Point. He knew better than to allow his staff to make the comments and jokes they did either in public or private. It wasn't his role to be a friend of his staff but their leader. That involves respect.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Hanzo said:


> So, I haven't been following this very closely, and I whole heartedly agree that no person in uniform should ever disrespect anyone of a higher rank or billet.
> 
> That being said, I've yet to see anything that really qualifies (in my mind) as disrespect towards the CIC. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I see a lot of things like "I knew that getting the extra troops I was asking for was going to be almost impossible" and "I voted for Obama, but when we first met, we didn't really click". I've yet to see anything where the General actually disrespected or questioned the abilities of the CIC. Can someone shed some light on this for me?


I think it was also his allowing his subordinates to make jokes etc in his presence and possibly in the presence of their subordinates. As the leader he can not allow this type of disrespect.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

camorristi said:


> :icon_smile_big: I like your name capi-cola. Well, let me tell you a couple of three things:
> 
> 1. The general is a member of the armed forces, and he's specifically instructed to keep any differences he has with his superiors to himself as long as he's in the service.
> 2. He disrespected his government and chain in command superiors directly and worst, publicly.
> 3. Our CIC had no choice but to set an example as a matter of principal.


Thanks for the compliment :icon_smile_big:

I can totally understand where the punishment was warranted, if nothing else, it makes us look bad on a global stage, but from what I understand (and I havent had a chance to read the entire article yet), but I just wonder if the punishment might not have been a bit severe...I really must claim ignorance on the subject, as I have no idea what the protocol for handling such offenses is, but I think something inbetween a slap on the wrist, and the actual punishment as it happened would have been more sufficient...but like I said, I have no idea what the real rules are (and I can admit that I dont even know the entire situation apart from what I've gotten through various news sources over the past few days)...


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I have no idea what the real rules ar..."

The principle that applies it that the CIC maintains discepline at all costs even if it means blowing the offender's brains out or other similar actions. Thus McCrystal had to go. There is no weighing the degree of the offense since there are more important factors to consider. How would one fight a war with an entire army of people who had no respect for the chain of command?


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> "I have no idea what the real rules ar..."
> 
> The principle that applies it that the CIC maintains discepline at all costs even if it means blowing the offender's brains out or other similar actions. Thus McCrystal had to go. There is no weighing the degree of the offense since there are more important factors to consider. How would one fight a war with an entire army of people who had no respect for the chain of command?


Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

And whatever is isn't covered by a specific article but is clearly bad for good order and discipline gets captured by Article 134, the "general article." Note, however, the highlighted phrase: "Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, *according* *to the nature* *and degree* of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I see that some people have voted "No", may I know what lead you to believe that the CIC's decision was unfair?



AlanC said:


> Really?
> 
> "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
> 
> --Abraham Lincoln


Yes, Yes, really :teacha:! Most Americans agreed that if all future states admitted to the Union were to be free states, that slavery would eventually be abolished.

"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except *******, and foreigners, and Catholics" When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]"

(Abraham Lincoln), how farsighted this man was!



Kurt N said:


> Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
> 
> And whatever is isn't covered by a specific article but is clearly bad for good order and discipline gets captured by Article 134, the "general article." Note, however, the highlighted phrase: "Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, *according* *to the nature* *and degree* of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."


Thank you sir.


----------



## alchu (May 23, 2010)

Liberty Ship said:


> The good thing is that now Obama completly owns a war in a theater that defeated the Soviet Union in spite of the fact that they were next door and willing to kill a million people. The bad thing is that Obama probably does not care if we lose. Still, as an overall strategy to help destroy the administration of a domestic enemy, it might work. If successful, Rolling Stone should get a Pulitizer and McChrystal, the Medal of Freedom.
> 
> "The god-king has betrayed a fatal flaw: Hubris. Easy to taunt, easy to trick.... Xerxes has taken the bait."
> 
> Who here has read the whole Rolling Stone article? It's very interesting to read and, actually, McChrystal wasn't really directly quoted very much at all. Anyone with any leadership experience at all -- which does NOT include Obama -- knows that in the field, people say a lot of stuff. A real leader knows when not to get all hissy over that. But America didn't elect a real leader. They elected the prom queen.


I've read it. I disagree - The article mentions that McChrystal and his team felt blindsided by the Eikenberry cable that was leaked... as I'm sure Obama felt blindsided the "leak" of McChrystal's strategic assessment to the Washington Post saying that a surge was necessary in Afganistan. McChrystal used the press to strongarm his position then. Then there's his comment back in October re: Biden's strategy. I think Obama sat him down and had his back then, but 3rd time's the charm.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

MichaelS said:


> The historical precedents of military interfering with elected government are even worse! This guy went to West Point. He knew better than to allow his staff to make the comments and jokes they did either in public or private. It wasn't his role to be a friend of his staff but their leader. That involves respect.


'Interfering with elected government'? Just some foolish comments in Rolling Stone of all places; so far there are no reports of him parking his tanks outside the White House.

I hope General Petraeus is up to the job - I heard he wasn't so well recently.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

^ This is the third time I've seen someone imply that because Rolling Stone isn't a serious magazine, whatever appears there matters less. By that silly logic, an officer who blabbed about classified war plans to the tabloid press would be less guilty than one who blabbed to the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, I wonder how James Fallon feels about having been fired by Mr Obama's predecessor over comments in Esquire. I wonder where Esquire ranks relative to Rolling Stone vs the WSJ, and whether that matters. Actually, I don't wonder: it doesn't.

EDIT: Since Centaur is apparently from the UK and a neutral observer, I'm not accusing him of bias. I'm just taking exception to the bit about "Rolling Stone of all places," which I've also seen from at least one US talk-radio conservative in the last couple days.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Kurt N said:


> I will not debate with this person, but it's nice to have it documented here that some people actually say stuff like this.


President Obama has said troops will start being withdrawn from Afghanistan in July 2011. If he actually sticks to that timetable, I get the feeling he doesn't care if we win or lose. It is one of the items McChrystal disagreed with him about.

Andy B.


----------



## Portuguese-Connection (Jul 10, 2009)

Being a General at such a high level does include a fair amount of politics. However, like others have stated it is important to remember the chain of command and who is ultimately at the top. You may or may not like the CIC but you must respect the office and not talk ill of the office or the man. It is a shame when that important fact is not remembered....but as someone who was in the military and lives in the Northern Virginia area I can see how and why boths sides reacted how they did. I guess in the end we are all human. My only concern now is for the troops in harms way and I hope that the change in command does not have an ill effect.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"My only concern now is for the troops in harms way and I hope that the change in command does not have an ill effect. "

From what little I have gathered today, it seems that General Petraeus is highly respected and since he is already op to speed on everything going on I imagine there is not going to be any problems in transition.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

andy b. said:


> President Obama has said troops will start being withdrawn from Afghanistan in July 2011. If he actually sticks to that timetable, I get the feeling he doesn't care if we win or lose. It is one of the items McChrystal disagreed with him about.
> 
> Andy B.


The initial objective of this war was to show the world what we're capable of in case someone decides to repeat 9/11. That objective was achieved. We're not talking about a video game where you win the war by eliminating all your enemy soldiers. We don't have an objective at this stage, Taliban are humans who multiply by time, are you suggesting we stay in Afghanistan forever and we achieve a complete genocide, which is quite impossible?! If the CIC sticks to the withdrawal date, it'll show a very reasonable commitment to the American people's well being. It might cost him his popularity among some right wingers, but what's right is right.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Centaur said:


> 'Interfering with elected government'? Just some foolish comments in Rolling Stone of all places; so far there are no reports of him parking his tanks outside the White House.
> 
> I hope General Petraeus is up to the job - I heard he wasn't so well recently.


I was not implying that McChrystal was interfering with the government. I was making a general comment that when military gets involved in government, bad things generally happen. This was in response to your comment. Sorry if I was not clear.

One of the reasons our country is still free and not a military dictatorship is that there is a culture in our military that political policy comes from the president and congress, not from the generals. This is taught in West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy, etc. It is taught to any newly commissioned officer; it is taught to enlisted personnel. In order for the military to operate, there has to be discipline. If a commanding general allows his staff to be disrespectful of the administration, this freedom likely goes farther down the ranks. If officers are seeing to be disrespecting higher officers or the civilian administration, this hurts discipline. This hurts the military.

McChrystal was out of line and he knows it. Obama was correct to remove him. He had no choice if he wanted to maintain his authority. Hopefully McChrystal is now or soon will be a civilian.

It is interesting to note that there have been quite a few high ranking officers (full Colonel and higher) who kept their mouths shut while serving but once retired, publically and discussed the serious faults with the Bush Policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am pretty confident that these officers did not allow their staff to be disrespectful to the administration or other officers while serving.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

You're absolutely right. However, the episode raises some side-issues about the nature of men chosen for military leadership. Should they be chosen because of their political or even media-management skills? Generals need perhaps more reserves of discretion than McChrystal seems to have shown, but ultimately their core responsibilities are military rather than political. It might even be the case that they need a certain level of impetuosity to function effectively in time of war.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Centaur said:


> You're absolutely right. However, the episode raises some side-issues about the nature of men chosen for military leadership. Should they be chosen because of their political or even media-management skills? Generals need perhaps more reserves of discretion than McChrystal seems to have shown, but ultimately their core responsibilities are military rather than political. It might even be the case that they need a certain level of impetuosity to function effectively in time of war.


Geeze, you don't ask simple questions do you! I have no idea but I do know there are not very many people qualified to be generals, especially at the 4 star rank. You have got to be really good/exceptional to be there. (I grew up with a retired general and veteran of combat commands in two wars, my grandfather, whose influence on me has colored my views on these issues).


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

I think you could add that anyone who goes to war and manages to acquit themselves with honour and skill has to be really good/exceptional.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

camorristi said:


> The initial objective of this war was to show the world what we're capable of in case someone decides to repeat 9/11. That objective was achieved. We're not talking about a video game where you win the war by eliminating all your enemy soldiers. We don't have an objective at this stage, Taliban are humans who multiply by time, are you suggesting we stay in Afghanistan forever and we achieve a complete genocide, which is quite impossible?! If the CIC sticks to the withdrawal date, it'll show a very reasonable commitment to the American people's well being. It might cost him his popularity among some right wingers, but what's right is right.


Funny, I thought that the objective was to remove the Taliban from political power, thereby allowing a non-terrorist government to take hold who could then fight the Taliban on their own. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a Marine who served during the campaigns.

As far as the argument about a general being more of a politician or a soldier, truthfully, he is part of the buffer between the two. The CIC is pure politics, the grunt on the ground is a pure soldier. They don't speak the same language, they don't have the same objectives, in other words, they don't play well together. In between the two there are officers who need to be able to play both sides. Accomplish the will of the politicians who are actually in charge and yet do it in a way that makes sense on the battlefield. Gen McChrystal unfortunately didn't keep that balance up as well as he should have, and as such, is no longer in a position to help either side, which is unfortunate because I believe he is a very competitant war fighter.

And just for humor, I wanted to share this comic I got. Baring the Kenyan jokes, I thought it was funny.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

to JJR512: The politicians always either wear a blue or red tie....so boring


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> Funny, I thought that the objective was to remove the Taliban from political power, thereby allowing a non-terrorist government to take hold who could then fight the Taliban on their own. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a Marine who served during the campaigns.
> 
> As far as the argument about a general being more of a politician or a soldier, truthfully, he is part of the buffer between the two. The CIC is pure politics, the grunt on the ground is a pure soldier. They don't speak the same language, they don't have the same objectives, in other words, they don't play well together. In between the two there are officers who need to be able to play both sides. Accomplish the will of the politicians who are actually in charge and yet do it in a way that makes sense on the battlefield. Gen McChrystal unfortunately didn't keep that balance up as well as he should have, and as such, is no longer in a position to help either side, which is unfortunate because I believe he is a very competitant war fighter.
> 
> And just for humor, I wanted to share this comic I got. Baring the Kenyan jokes, I thought it was funny.


First of all thank you for your service :aportnoy:!

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

Yes, the initial objective was to remove the Taliban from power and President Bush had the war plans ready on his desk on 9/9/2001 for signing, but to the majority of the American public this was a retaliatory war, and most of those objectives have been achieved which could be called success or winning the war. So the sooner we pull out, the more tax payer money and American soldiers' lives will be saved. Unfortunately, war is also a business, and those who are getting extraordinarily rich from this war will do everything to keep it going until they drain a huge portion of the public's resources.

I'll have to disagree with your explanation, this is not about politicians or soldiers, it's about a commissioned officer who publicly disrespected and publicly showed disagreement with his chain of command superiors, nothing more and nothing less.

"Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

And whatever is isn't covered by a specific article but is clearly bad for good order and discipline gets captured by Article 134, the "general article." Note, however, the highlighted phrase: "Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."
 (Kurt N)

But you knew that .


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Yes, the initial objective was to remove the Taliban from power and President Bush had the war plans ready on his desk on 9/9/2001 for signing, *but to the majority of the American public this was a retaliatory war*,
_Just because it's what the majority thought, doesn't make it so. _

and most of those objectives have been achieved which could be called success or winning the war. *So the sooner we pull out, the more tax payer money and American soldiers' lives will be saved.* 
_I disagree. You're assuming that just because we aren't on that piece of land that hostility and attacks against Americans will cease. That's clearly not true as we were attacked by Taliban based in Afghanistan long before we had people on the ground there._
*Unfortunately, war is also a business, and those who are getting extraordinarily rich from this war will do everything to keep it going until they drain a huge portion of the public's resources.*
_I'm sorry you feel that way. I have met, know personally and worked for those in the defense industry and I couldn't disagree more. Most of them are former military with time in combat and understand what that means. They do what they do in order to keep Americans safe. Do they make money on it? Absolutely. But saying thats their goal is like saying that doctors want to keep people sick so they continue to make money._

I'll have to disagree with your explanation, this is not about politicians or soldiers, it's about a commissioned officer who publicly disrespected and publicly showed disagreement with his chain of command superiors, nothing more and nothing less.

"Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

And whatever is isn't covered by a specific article but is clearly bad for good order and discipline gets captured by Article 134, the "general article." Note, however, the highlighted phrase: "Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."
(Kurt N)

But you knew that .


_Yes, I did know that, I'm very familiar with the articles of the UCMJ. What I was saying was not that McChrystal wasn't liable for what he said or did, I was addressing the question of whether he should be viewed as a soldier or a politician in the way he is expected to act. My point is that he is both._


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> Yes, the initial objective was to remove the Taliban from power and President Bush had the war plans ready on his desk on 9/9/2001 for signing, *but to the majority of the American public this was a retaliatory war*,
> _Just because it's what the majority thought, doesn't make it so. _
> 
> and most of those objectives have been achieved which could be called success or winning the war. *So the sooner we pull out, the more tax payer money and American soldiers' lives will be saved.*
> ...


Are you suggesting we do not pull out of Afghanistan by 2011?! What's our _current _objective there?! None! I seriously doubt there's still a threat from that side. Do doctors want to keep people sick to make more money?! Absolutely not, but drug companies do. The pharmaceutical industry has a dream: at least one disease (and more than one prescription drug) for every American. I'm not going to prove this point because it's a fact and could be looked up later. Arms makers do keep Americans safe, but that's off the point. In my opinion, the majority of Americans do not want our troops to stay in Afghanistan anymore, which means their current presence is unnecessary because a considerable number of security threats has been minimized. Therefore, any extra money going to the arms dealers is unnecessary expenses, but since they will post financial loses they keep lobbying to keep the war moving.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

camorristi said:


> Are you suggesting we do not pull out of Afghanistan by 2011?! What's our _current _objective there?! None! I seriously doubt there's still a threat from that side. Do doctors want to keep people sick to make more money?! Absolutely not, but drug companies do. The pharmaceutical industry has a dream: at least one disease (and more than one prescription drug) for every American. I'm not going to prove this point because it's a fact and could be looked up later. Arms makers do keep Americans safe, but that's off the point. In my opinion, the majority of Americans do not want our troops to stay in Afghanistan anymore, which means their current presence is unnecessary because a considerable number of security threats has been minimized. Therefore, any extra money going to the arms dealers is unnecessary expenses, but since they will post financial loses they keep lobbying to keep the war moving.


This thread has gotten off track, and given your response, I seriously doubt that anything I say will change your mind, so I'm going to go ahead walk away from this conversation.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

This thread has gotten off track for sure. Thank you and everyone else for their inputs. :icon_smile:


----------

