[Merged] Gen. McChrystal summoned to Washington over Rolling Stone profile [Archive]

Puppycow

22nd June 2010, 05:07 AM

The war in Afghanistan doesn't seem to be going very well, and now this:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal summoned to Washington following magazine profile (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813.html?sid=ST2010062200900)

KABUL -- The top U.S. general in Afghanistan was headed to Washington early Tuesday for an impromptu White House meeting, after apologizing for an upcoming magazine article that portrays him and his staff as flippant and dismissive of top Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy.

The profile in Rolling Stone magazine, titled the "Runaway General," is certain to increase tension between the White House and Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

It also raises fresh questions about the judgment and leadership style of the commander Obama appointed last year in an effort to turn around a worsening conflict.

McChrystal and some of his senior advisors are quoted criticizing top administration officials, at times in starkly derisive terms. An anonymous McChrystal aide is quoted calling national security adviser James Jones a "clown," who remains "stuck in 1985."

Referring to Richard Holbrooke, Obama's senior envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, one McChrystal aide is quoted saying: "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."

On one occasion, McChrystal appears to react with exasperation when he receives an e-mail from Holbrooke, saying, "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don't even want to read it."

U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, a retired three-star general, isn't spared. Referring to a leaked cable from Eikenberry that expressed concerns about the trustworthiness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, McChrystal is quoted as having said: "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.'"

A U.S. embassy spokeswoman said she had no immediate comment on the piece.

The story also features an exchange in which McChrystal and some of his aides appear to mock Vice President Biden, who opposed McChrystal's troop surge recommendation last year and instead urged instead for a more focused emphasis on counter-terrorism operations.

"Are you asking me about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal asks the profile's reporter a at one point, laughing. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" an unnamed aide is quoted as saying. "Did you say Bite me?"
. . .
The timing of the piece could hardly be worse. Amid a flurry of bad news in Afghanistan and a sharp rise in NATO casualties, U.S. lawmakers and senior officials from NATO allied countries are asking increasingly sharp questions about the U.S.-led war strategy.

Who hasn't badmouthed their boss behind his back? In front of a reporter though?

I hate to bring up Vietnam again, but it seems like we have the same kind of problem. Our so-called "allies" in Afghanistan are basically corrupt and no match for the bad guys. Or is this just a "darkest before the dawn" moment? Things seemed to be pretty bad in 2006 and 2007 in Iraq before they started to get better.

Cleon

22nd June 2010, 05:12 AM

Bad-mouthing your boss is one thing, but bad-mouthing your boss in the military is a bit of a no-no.

And doing it in front of a reporter, when you're a publicly known high-ranking official, is really just stupid.

leftysergeant

22nd June 2010, 05:22 AM

Hand him his blue card and tear up his weapons card.

Puppycow

22nd June 2010, 09:11 AM

Here is the profile (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37847841/ns/us_news-military/)

Gangularis

22nd June 2010, 09:34 AM

Obama haters are gonna love this!

Augustine

22nd June 2010, 09:42 AM

Meh. Tempest in a teacup. This might be great for RS's lagging sales, but I didn't see anything to justify the outcry from the pundit class. I wonder how many read the article?

Malerin

22nd June 2010, 10:00 AM

We put up with way worse than this from Patton. Of course, Patton was a legend in his own time. I don't know much about McChrystal.

Metullus

22nd June 2010, 10:10 AM

I am neither surprised nor offended by the sentiments expressed in the article; that a theater commander would permit such talk with outsiders present is a another matter. At the very least it betrays an astounding level of naiveté on the part of command and senior staff.

Ziggurat

22nd June 2010, 10:35 AM

Obama haters are gonna love this!

You might be surprised (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/22/the-rolling-stone-article-as-bad-as-advertised/).

"So far, McChrystal hasn’t earned enough leash by winning anything. Regardless of what one thinks of the current C-in-C [the author doesn't like him], Obama is still the man elected by the people to run the executive branch and the military. The picture this article paints is one of a lack of discipline and respect, and the White House has every right to demand an apology and replace McChrystal with someone who understands better the subtleties of overall command and its politics."

Brainster

22nd June 2010, 10:45 AM

McChrystal sounds like he knows his subject; his opinion of Biden strikes me as right on the money. Not very smart to reveal this to a reporter from Rotting Stump, of course.

EvilSmurf

22nd June 2010, 03:30 PM

This might be great for RS's lagging sales

RS has actually been doing some amazing political journalism of late. They had one guy reporter who basically broke the Goldman Sachs stuff.

theprestige

22nd June 2010, 03:37 PM

Obama haters are gonna love this!
Why?

theprestige

22nd June 2010, 03:38 PM

Obama haters are gonna love this!
Why?

ETA: I mean, I'm genuinely curious to learn your reasoning as to why I--an avowed Obama hater--would love this.

dtugg

22nd June 2010, 03:42 PM

This is certainly a fireable offense. But unless there is somebody who is up to speed right now, it would probably be a mistake to fire him.

leftysergeant

22nd June 2010, 03:45 PM

Why?

ETA: I mean, I'm genuinely curious to learn your reasoning as to why I--an avowed Obama hater--would love this.

You have reason to be concerned. That the moron mouthed off about the president sort of supports the left's position that the extreme right knows nothing about the military and is destructive to proper morale, an example of that being this ranting, self-righteous poppinjaay talking smack in public about his superiors.

The Obama-basher give aid and comfort to loose cannons like McChrystal. So far, the only general I have heard defend McChrystal is that jerk McCaffery. Figures.

Cain

22nd June 2010, 03:53 PM

I don't know much about McChrystal, but it sounds like he has a titanic ego. Also, I'd like to know how journalists go about ingratiating themselves with their subjects.

dudalb

22nd June 2010, 04:10 PM

Cleon

22nd June 2010, 05:28 PM

I don't know much about McChrystal, but it sounds like he has a titanic ego.

I would think it remarkable if someone could rise to one of the highest ranks in the US military and not develop a bit of an ego.

leftysergeant

22nd June 2010, 06:49 PM

I would think it remarkable if someone could rise to one of the highest ranks in the US military and not develop a bit of an ego.I never had a problem with Eisenhower's attitude.

ravdin

22nd June 2010, 06:58 PM

I doubt that McChrystal, like any other general, would tolerate that kind of insubordination from anyone under his own command.

The president needs to send a clear reminder to the top brass that they have the privilege to command at his pleasure. I won't think much of him if McChrystal still has a job tomorrow.

geni

22nd June 2010, 06:59 PM

Given his background I feel this falls within what is to be expected.

geni

22nd June 2010, 07:01 PM

I doubt that McChrystal, like any other general, would tolerate that kind of insubordination from anyone under his own command.

Former special forces. If that has ever included delta force he probably has.

Cleon

22nd June 2010, 07:11 PM

Prediction: Within a year he shows up as a FOX News analyst.

DavidJames

22nd June 2010, 07:55 PM

Prediction: Within a year he shows up as a FOX News analyst.Maybe sooner. If he's let go he will immediately become a Republican hero. His name will be tossed about as VP material if not a presidential candidate.

Yes, the Republicans are that desperate and shallow.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd June 2010, 07:57 PM

You might be surprised (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/22/the-rolling-stone-article-as-bad-as-advertised/).

"So far, McChrystal hasn’t earned enough leash by winning anything. Regardless of what one thinks of the current C-in-C [the author doesn't like him], Obama is still the man elected by the people to run the executive branch and the military. The picture this article paints is one of a lack of discipline and respect, and the White House has every right to demand an apology and replace McChrystal with someone who understands better the subtleties of overall command and its politics."

Yeah, that's what I would've thought.

The chain of command up to the Commander in Chief is a pretty big deal in the military. They always say to leave politics out of it. There's a very important constitutional basis for this too. If the general were militarily superior to the president, we could easily head to a military dictatorship. But luckily, when someone even talks this way, the military (and the rest of us) take it pretty seriously.

I can see honest Obama opponents being very critical of McChrystal on this.

cornsail

22nd June 2010, 08:09 PM

Prediction: Within a year he shows up as a FOX News analyst.

McChrystal voted for Obama and his strategy is largely focused on minimizing civilian casualties. I can't see Fox viewers having much respect for him.

I'm liberal as hell and I think he's a great general. I was sad to see the article though. Even though the negative comments about the WH were pretty much all given to the journalist by McChrystal's aides, rather than McChrystal himself, he does bear some responsibility. But I don't think he engaged intentional insubordination, nor do I think he should be fired.

cornsail

22nd June 2010, 08:13 PM

You have reason to be concerned. That the moron mouthed off about the president sort of supports the left's position that the extreme right knows nothing about the military and is destructive to proper morale, an example of that being this ranting, self-righteous poppinjaay talking smack in public about his superiors.

He didn't "mouth off" about the president publically as far as I can see, he mouthed off to his aides who then passed it on to a journalist.

leftysergeant

22nd June 2010, 08:19 PM

He didn't "mouth off" about the president publically as far as I can see, he mouthed off to his aides who then passed it on to a journalist.

He also conducted himself in a particularly loutish manner around the reporter.

Darth Rotor

22nd June 2010, 08:27 PM

UCMJ Article 88. It is pretty simple in terms of guidance and concrete "thou shalt not" regarding who and what.

If he lets his staff get away with that kind of mouthing off, in his presence, that's not setting the proper command climate.

I don't see this going well for the General. At his level, you can't ignore politics. It comes with the badge. I don't think Obama wants to fire this man, as he picked him over the other guy he fired, but he too has political issues to consider in his decision.

As to loose talk around reporters, the senior officers and staff weenies in all four services know good and damned well the price for that. There seems to be a bit of stupid in the water at the HQ in Afghanistan ...

Admiral Mack got relieved as CINCPACFLT (or was it US CINC PAC?) for a hell of a lot less than this ...

cornsail

22nd June 2010, 08:33 PM

He also conducted himself in a particularly loutish manner around the reporter.

I wouldn't say that's apparent. But even if somewhat true, not that big of a deal.

Gangularis

22nd June 2010, 10:19 PM

Why?

ETA: I mean, I'm genuinely curious to learn your reasoning as to why I--an avowed Obama hater--would love this.

The reason I believe Obama haters will love this, is simple. Much the same as they take any other thing that has to do with Obama, in their partisanship, they will spin it according to their agenda. The angle I see most likely to be played is something of the lines of; "Obama doesn't know how to lead the military... He's lost control of his generals.. He doesn't listen to his ground forces... He's weak.. etc.."

From what I've seen, their hatred of the president is more than enough to rally behind crazy ideas of birtherism.. In fact, it seems some of them are willing to rally behind anyone that hates the president, regardless of the reason.. So why wouldn't they rally behind high level military that disrespect the president? Has the vehemently anti-Obama crowd really shown themselves to be that fair and rational in your mind? If so, you're watching an entirely different crowd of people than I am.. I am NOT talking about level headed moderates that disagree with the president.. I'm talking about the same types that adore Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.. Do you consider yourself one of them?

ETA: Perfect example of what I'm talking about:

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/22/4543360-white-house-summons-general-over-remarks#comments

Give 'em hell, Stanley!

Brave man. Now that we have identified the enemy (girly men in the WH) they need be fired! Wait! that would have to include Obama.

BO if full of BS

SAGG it's cause the pres has no idea what he's doing and the majority of the people would side with McChrystal hands down. Barry knows NOT how to run a war.

(BTW, Bush has been out of office for 1.5 years, move on brotha)

This is unf_ckingbelievable! President Urkel has now alienated his top generals and he is losing the war. When GWB was in charge, the taliban and al qaeda were in disarray and hundreds of thousands were killed. And US military deaths were almost down to nothing. Now we are losing dozens of sooldiers a week, the taliban and al qaeda are again flourishing, and obama has lost control of the top brass.

Don't blame me. I didn't vote for this community organizer / worst president in US history.

Cain

22nd June 2010, 10:41 PM

I would think it remarkable if someone could rise to one of the highest ranks in the US military and not develop a bit of an ego.

Which is probably true for most people who become top dog in their field. Still, from the article this guy says:

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

Also:

He prefers Bud Light Lime (his favorite beer) to Bordeaux, Talladega Nights (his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc Godard.

Unless he's lying, he should be fired from the planet for criminally poor taste. A Will Ferrel movie?

Re: "Becoming a Fox News Analyst"

According to the article, he voted for Obama, but said 44 appeared "intimidated" when meeting with the military. The writer gave the sense that McChrystal thought Obama was a lightweight. If this guy gets fired for "taking a stand," so be it. I'm reasonably confident Democrats would have cheered if a General had unkind words for the Bush administration while in office. Obama never got enough **** for framing Afghanistan as the "good war."

The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority.

That's funny. I gotta say, as much as I loathe the military, those guys have a sense of humor, as well as a way with words. Sort of like rappers.

Puppycow

22nd June 2010, 11:32 PM

Dana Milbank stirs the pot (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062204541.html?hpid=topnews). Summary: "Are you going to let him talk smack about you?" Basically just calling Obama's manhood into question.

John Dickerson (http://www.slate.com/id/2257817/) makes the opposite case, pointing out that McChrystal himself didn't actually say anything insubordinate, and pointing out his centrality to the strategy.

cornsail

22nd June 2010, 11:34 PM

I'm talking about the same types that adore Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc..

But honestly who cares what they think?

Cain

23rd June 2010, 12:05 AM

But honestly who cares what they think?

Tens of millions of chuckleheads.

Gangularis

23rd June 2010, 12:42 AM

But honestly who cares what they think?

Too many people...

cienaños

23rd June 2010, 02:12 AM

It might be part of a larger strategy. I mean, it's pulling some attention toward the war, isn't it? Maybe the general just needs a few more grenades to finish the job.

Obama has some at his pad.

leftysergeant

23rd June 2010, 04:11 AM

There is no way you can be an effective commander and let a subordinate tell you that he is going to do things his way because he knows everything. Obama gave the whackjob most of what he wanted and this is the way he wants to act? He is surrounded by the sort who think that the military should set policies as well as develop strategies. This is how barbariabn empires work, not modern democracies.

Fire the jerk.

NoZed Avenger

23rd June 2010, 04:54 AM

UCMJ Article 88. It is pretty simple in terms of guidance and concrete "thou shalt not" regarding who and what.

Wait. I thought military leaders making public statements critical of the Administration and its policies were brave whistleblowers who, despite the military code, are worried enough to bring attention to serious proble-

Whoops. Sorry. Had my watch set for 2004.

Augustine

23rd June 2010, 05:44 AM

I think violations of UCMJ Article 88 are a stretch. A really big stretch.

I don't see any insubordination. Any comparison to MacArthur is overblown; that was insubordination, i.e. deliberately undermining and subverting the intent and policy of the administration.

To me, the biggest problem I have with the article is the issue of judgment. Strategic communication, getting your message out, countering the opposition message, staying on message - these are all critical to the success of COIN. To relinquish control of your message to a reporter from RS of all places is mind-boggling. :eye-poppi Surely these guys know that there is the domestic message, the international message, and the Afghanistan message, and ALL have to be on target.

O/T
RS has actually been doing some amazing political journalism of late. They had one guy reporter who basically broke the Goldman Sachs stuff.
I hope you're not talking about Taibbi.

leftysergeant

23rd June 2010, 05:58 AM

Wait. I thought military leaders making public statements critical of the Administration and its policies were brave whistleblowers who, despite the military code, are worried enough to bring attention to serious proble-

Ermm..are you referring to the RETIRED Generals who gave the Shrub what-for? If so, why? Irrelevant to an active-duty yutz having been caught with his trousers down.

cornsail

23rd June 2010, 06:35 AM

There is no way you can be an effective commander and let a subordinate tell you that he is going to do things his way because he knows everything.

Good thing McChrystal never told Obama this then.

He is surrounded by the sort who think that the military should set policies as well as develop strategies.

I don't recall any of his staff saying anything like this. What on earth are you talking about?

Unabogie

23rd June 2010, 06:50 AM

This situation is interesting to me. I don't like Stanley McChrystal. I think he's implicated in the Tillman cover-up. I think he's not serving President Obama well in Afghanistan.

I also don't see that he needs to be fired for this. I think he should be fired as soon as the President thinks he's not performing the job he's been given, and if that's now, then he'll go. But short of that, the anti-authoritarian in me sort of respects people who mouth off. I also think this is yet another in a long line of shiny objects the press loves to glom on to to declare that "Obama needs to do X" or else he's "weak". You know what's weak? Firing your general because a tub of goo like Dana Milbank says you should.

ponderingturtle

23rd June 2010, 07:28 AM

Former special forces. If that has ever included delta force he probably has.

Delta force commonly airs all their complaints in the media? There are two issues here, complaining about your boss, and talking to the media in this fashion. My understanding is that the second is very broadly controlled for active members of the armed services.

NoZed Avenger

23rd June 2010, 07:52 AM

Ermm..are you referring to the RETIRED Generals who gave the Shrub what-for? If so, why? Irrelevant to an active-duty yutz having been caught with his trousers down.

Nope. Thanks for playing "selective memory." We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

NoZed Avenger

23rd June 2010, 07:55 AM

This situation is interesting to me. I don't like Stanley McChrystal.

I tend to agree. (Oh, and with much of what I snipped, too. I had/have some doubts about him. I am not sure that this incident is firing-worthy, but it sure doesn't help the impression of him or put his judgment in good light. It would be hard to criticize his firing/forced resignation, either way.)

NoScotsman

23rd June 2010, 08:33 AM

The correct response is to demote the guy.... Do nothing=soft ... Fire him=spiteful, petty, and small...

Augustine

23rd June 2010, 08:50 AM

The correct response is to demote the guy.... Do nothing=soft ... Fire him=spiteful, petty, and small...

Are you advocating turning the Commander, ISAF and USFOR-A billet into a 3-star position? Otherwise, demote = fire.

NoScotsman

23rd June 2010, 08:59 AM

Are you advocating turning the Commander, ISAF and USFOR-A billet into a 3-star position? Otherwise, demote = fire.

Are you suggesting he can't be demoted? I'm not a military expert ... but that seems a stupid way of running an organization.

dudalb

23rd June 2010, 09:08 AM

Are you suggesting he can't be demoted? I'm not a military expert ... but that seems a stupid way of running an organization.

Problem is when you are a Three Star, there are very few places to be demoted to.
And to lower his rank would involve a formal military court martial.
Once again ,we have a LOT of ignorance about the way the Military operates.

dudalb

23rd June 2010, 09:10 AM

E.J.Armstrong

23rd June 2010, 09:22 AM

'...Gen McChrystal quickly apologised for the magazine article, The Runaway General, written by Michael Hastings and due out on Friday, extending his "sincerest apology" and saying it showed a lack of integrity.

"It was a mistake reflecting poor judgement and should never have happened," he said.

President Obama said on Tuesday he wanted to talk with the general in person before deciding what action to take.

US media reports said Gen McChrystal had submitted his resignation, but it was up to the president to decide whether to accept it. There has been no official comment on the reports. ...'

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10386624.stm

Yet another Usan general runs away when under fire.

Either Stanley meant what he said about the administration in Washington or he didn't.

If he didn't mean it, then he has no judgement or credibility for saying things that he didn't mean and shouldn't be allowed near anything pointy. If he did mean what he said then he should stand by it. Running away is just cowardly.

If Stanley were to be booted out it would in fact be a great shame, as he was responsible for massively curtailing the wanton murder of Afghan civilians that demeaned previous US commanders periods in charge.

If he does go, you can more or less guarantee that the US military's pervasive contempt for civilian lives will quickly resurface, leading to huge numbers of unnecessary deaths - to the endangerment of UK troops lives and a prolonging of this already enormously long war. What's the betting it goes on for another 10 years?

If Obama has any sense left he will not allow that to happen but in the midst of his anti-British campaign it seems as though he has lost almost all his common sense and now panders to the rednecks in the Usan media and the stupid (Republican) party.

applecorped

23rd June 2010, 09:26 AM

Still using Usan? Sad.

paximperium

23rd June 2010, 09:26 AM

USA advances in the World Cup!!! Woohoo

Unabogie

23rd June 2010, 09:29 AM

Anti Authoritiarianism does not work real well in the Military.

Hence, I would never join.

applecorped

23rd June 2010, 09:30 AM

NoScotsman

23rd June 2010, 09:30 AM

Problem is when you are a Three Star, there are very few places to be demoted to.
And to lower his rank would involve a formal military court martial.
Once again ,we have a LOT of ignorance about the way the Military operates.

I am certainly learning a great deal about the military. Nothing to its credit, unfortunately. I'm reminded of Kubrick's Doctor Strangelove ....

dtugg

23rd June 2010, 09:34 AM

Are you suggesting he can't be demoted? I'm not a military expert ... but that seems a stupid way of running an organization.

He could theoretically be demoted. But his current position requires a four star rank.

Metullus

23rd June 2010, 09:51 AM

Are you suggesting he can't be demoted? I'm not a military expert ... but that seems a stupid way of running an organization.Of course he can be demoted - after a Court Martial - but he cannot be demoted and keep his command.

ETA: Rats, dtugg beat me to it...

Augustine

23rd June 2010, 09:52 AM

Are you suggesting he can't be demoted? I'm not a military expert ... but that seems a stupid way of running an organization.

He can be demoted, my question is whether you are proposing that he be demoted in rank but keep his "job" - in which case he retains all the authority of a four-star command billet (which is his "job"), he just takes home a few pennies less (which, at his level, has a little less impact than losing a stripe). I don't know, that seems somewhat...
spiteful, petty, and small

I am certainly learning a great deal about the military. Nothing to its credit, unfortunately. I'm reminded of Kubrick's Doctor Strangelove ....

I would think the lesson you are learning is that petty punishments are discouraged. Either the guy can do the job, in which case give him a strongly worded reprimand and send him back, or he can't, in which case fire him. Trying to hit him in his pocketbook for punishment makes no sense.

Augustine

23rd June 2010, 09:55 AM

He could be demoted without a court-martial. (Administrative reduction, I think Kensinger took one.) However, he can't be demoted without at least the prospect of a court-martial; i.e. he can refuse the administrative reduction, and if the threat of court-martial is not there, or realistic, you're bluffing with an empty hand.

dudalb

23rd June 2010, 09:57 AM

I am certainly learning a great deal about the military. Nothing to its credit, unfortunately. I'm reminded of Kubrick's Doctor Strangelove ....

You can't run the military as a debating society. It simply does not work.
And thanks for the stereotype that all members of the military are like Buck Turgidson and Jack D Ripper.

Doctor Evil

23rd June 2010, 10:47 AM

Fired. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10395402.stm)

dtugg

23rd June 2010, 11:09 AM

Apparently, CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus is going to replace him. I imagine that given his experience and the fact that Afghanistan is part of his AOR, he is the best man for the job, although it is a reduction of command for Petraeus.

dudalb

23rd June 2010, 11:56 AM

ravdin

23rd June 2010, 12:17 PM

rwguinn

23rd June 2010, 12:21 PM

If McChrystal hadn't been sacked, then Obama would be pilloried by the teabaggers as a weakling (and I'd have to agree with them, but that's beside the point). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My wife detests Obama. I don't like him.
We both agree McChrystal deserved to be fired. You do not publicly belittle or ridicule the boss--and in the Military, the only "Private"s are in barracks...

Ziggurat

23rd June 2010, 12:29 PM

If the war in Afghanistan was going well, he might have gotten off with a reprimand, but the war is not going well, and if things are not going well bad mouthing your Commander in the Media is not a good idea.
It will be interesting to see if the Tea Party wing of the GOP does try to do a McArthur with him. Problem is, McChrystal ain't no MacArthur.

For the most part I don't think they will, because the replacement is Petraeus (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/23/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1). I think it's a good choice, but politically Obama's vulnerability is not in choosing Petraeus now, but rather what happened in the past (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yAt6SoZbkE), and that's where most of the criticism will probably come from. Things might be different if McChrystal was seen as doing a good job, but I don't think that's really the case even among most of Obama's opponents.

Drysdale

23rd June 2010, 01:00 PM

leftysergeant

23rd June 2010, 01:04 PM

McC crapped in his own mess kit. He was seen as challenging the president. The president needs to be in command or we run the risk of a military coup, especially with the teabagger nutcases running about stirring up the muck.

I have not heard any real military people defending the whackjob general or his gang of merry morons. There is no excuse for making that sort of dispaly in front of a reporter. I wonder what operational security may have been breached by McC's big mouth?

dudalb

23rd June 2010, 01:08 PM

I gotta wonder if Obama, who is extremely knowledgable about Abraham Lincoln, decided he did not want to go through another McClellan type routine with this guy.

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 01:38 PM

You might be surprised (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/22/the-rolling-stone-article-as-bad-as-advertised/).

"So far, McChrystal hasn’t earned enough leash by winning anything. Regardless of what one thinks of the current C-in-C [the author doesn't like him], Obama is still the man elected by the people to run the executive branch and the military. The picture this article paints is one of a lack of discipline and respect, and the White House has every right to demand an apology and replace McChrystal with someone who understands better the subtleties of overall command and its politics."

Bully for that author, he/she is spot on in their analysis. I further commend that author, and you Zig, for leaving any political bias out of this particular discussion.

And, I should say, that like the author of that article, I am breathing a huge sigh of relief that Gen. Petraeus has been called upon to replace McChrystal. President Obama made a good move there.

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 01:41 PM

I dont see how Obama does'nt get hurt,at least perception wise by this.

His handpicked General who was an admitted Obama supporter badmouths him and gets fired. Obama then brings back the General who was handpicked by W whom the left despised.

Cant see how this can be good for him no matter how you spin it.

Um, need I point out that such considerations should be secondary, at most? Shouldn't the first priority be to have a reliable & trustworthy chain-of-command so that the war effort in Afghanistan is successfully concluded?

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 01:50 PM

The reason I believe Obama haters will love this, is simple. Much the same as they take any other thing that has to do with Obama, in their partisanship, they will spin it according to their agenda. The angle I see most likely to be played is something of the lines of; "Obama doesn't know how to lead the military... He's lost control of his generals.. He doesn't listen to his ground forces... He's weak.. etc.."

From what I've seen, their hatred of the president is more than enough to rally behind crazy ideas of birtherism.. In fact, it seems some of them are willing to rally behind anyone that hates the president, regardless of the reason.. So why wouldn't they rally behind high level military that disrespect the president? Has the vehemently anti-Obama crowd really shown themselves to be that fair and rational in your mind? If so, you're watching an entirely different crowd of people than I am.. I am NOT talking about level headed moderates that disagree with the president.. I'm talking about the same types that adore Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.. Do you consider yourself one of them?

ETA: Perfect example of what I'm talking about:

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/22/4543360-white-house-summons-general-over-remarks#comments

Yeah, the rightwing Tea Party nuts are in full swing already. You should see some of the comments flying around on the Yahoo News article on this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_mcchrystal) - I've even seen comments within the last few minutes going on about how Gen. Petraeus is a "limp rag" and an "Obama stooge" and therefore not trustworthy, a patriot, yadda yadda.

Sigh -these idiots don't give a damn about anything, except seeing Obama fail. They don't even care what it will do to the United States, Afghanistan, our military, the war effort, etc - nothing matters, just so long as Obama fails. That, and so long as the rightwing media outlets can make a ****load of money by stirring up useless controversy in the process.

Gah, this sort of crap sickens me :mad:

Drysdale

23rd June 2010, 01:53 PM

Um, need I point out that such considerations should be secondary, at most? Shouldn't the first priority be to have a reliable & trustworthy chain-of-command so that the war effort in Afghanistan is successfully concluded?

Oh I agree.

But perception is what it is. You can say this should'nt affect him but odds are it will.

dudalb

23rd June 2010, 01:55 PM

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 01:56 PM

If McChrystal hadn't been sacked, then Obama would be pilloried by the teabaggers as a weakling (and I'd have to agree with them, but that's beside the point). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yup, as it stands now they're moaning about how he "fired a real patriot" and so on. Some are going so far as to call Petraeus an "Obama stooge" and all other sorts of loony crap.

As I said before, those whackjobs seem to care for nothing more than seeing Obama fail. That is their entire agenda, the effects on the rest of the nation & world be damned.

This is the sort of thing that happens when a political party buys into the "rule or ruin" mentality.

Drysdale

23rd June 2010, 01:58 PM

Yeah, the rightwing Tea Party nuts are in full swing already. You should see some of the comments flying around on the Yahoo News article on this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_mcchrystal) - I've even seen comments within the last few minutes going on about how Gen. Petraeus is a "limp rag" and an "Obama stooge" and therefore not trustworthy, a patriot, yadda yadda.

Sigh -these idiots don't give a damn about anything, except seeing Obama fail. They don't even care what it will do to the United States, Afghanistan, our military, the war effort, etc - nothing matters, just so long as Obama fails. That, and so long as the rightwing media outlets can make a ****load of money by stirring up useless controversy in the process.

Gah, this sort of crap sickens me :mad:

You know it's funny, I thought the same thing about most of the MSM aka NYTimes,MSNBC etc when Bush was President and I dont even like Bush.

Guess you'd also need to throw Obama himself in there criticizing Petraeus when W was the President no?

And yet only now it sickens you?

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 01:58 PM

Oh I agree.

But perception is what it is. You can say this should'nt affect him but odds are it will.

Yeah, you're right. The hardcore rightwingers & Tea Party nuts will use it as yet another excuse to call him a socialist, Marxist, power-hungry Nazi, while most other reasonable people will see the reality of the situation.

leftysergeant

23rd June 2010, 02:02 PM

I don't see that Obama had any choice but to kick McC to the curb. To do otherwise runs the risk of a dangerous decline in morale, fueled by arrogance, maybe a military coup along the lines of the machinations of the Praetorian Guard.

Every soldier I have spoken with around here agrees that McC had to go.

Patraeus is not an Obama yes-man. He caved too easily to the Shrub, perhaps because he saw what happened to Shinseki and realized that even acting withon the expected parameters, a good officer with opinions could get whacked for doing his job as far as advising the POTUS as to what needed to be done.

I am sure that Paraeus will be more effective in both the tactical arena and in his duties to keep the POTUS up to speed on what is going on there.

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 02:03 PM

You know it's funny, I thought the same thing about most of the MSM aka NYTimes,MSNBC etc when Bush was President and I dont even like Bush.

Guess you'd also need to throw Obama himself in there criticizing Petraeus when W was the President no?

And yet only now it sickens you?

Why do you assume that? It's a false premise, FYI. I'm a pretty committed Democrat, I didn't vote for Bush, I fought vociferously against him sending troops into Iraq (I even engaged in public protests, recorded public debates, had my house vandalized for "hating America" in the run up to the war, and so on), but once they were there and we were committed, I tended to lean on the side of supporting his military decisions. After a certain point, resisting the war effort became moot.

I'm pretty liberal, and I was a supporter of MoveOn.org - right up until the point where they ran that goddamn stupid "General Betray-Us" ad when Petraeus was attempting to push the "surge" strategy in Iraq to a skeptical Congress. After that, I was finished with MoveOn.

So yes, I'm being consistent. Feel free to bundle up another straw man, I'll burn that one, too :flamed:

NoZed Avenger

23rd June 2010, 02:04 PM

Bully for that author, he/she is spot on in their analysis. I further commend that author, and you Zig, for leaving any political bias out of this particular discussion.

And, I should say, that like the author of that article, I am breathing a huge sigh of relief that Gen. Petraeus has been called upon to replace McChrystal. President Obama made a good move there.

Agreed. It sounds like he's got the confidence of a lot of the service, as well.

Good move that hopefully shows a commitment to winning over political considerations.

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 02:06 PM

You are already seeing a real divide between those in the GOP like McCain who are knowledgable about the Military and are not rushing to glorify McChrystal, and the Tea Baggers who are trying to do the MacArthur/Truman routine with this.

I was wondering if this sort of thing was going to happen. Do you have a link on this?

If true, the GOP had better step lightly, because this could become a political land mine for them.

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 02:07 PM

Agreed. It sounds like he's got the confidence of a lot of the service, as well.

Good move that hopefully shows a commitment to winning over political considerations.

This. If only others would put aside politics when dealing with clearly non-political subject matter :rolleyes:

Drysdale

23rd June 2010, 02:22 PM

Why do you assume that? It's a false premise, FYI. I'm a pretty committed Democrat, I didn't vote for Bush, I fought vociferously against him sending troops into Iraq (I even engaged in public protests, recorded public debates, had my house vandalized for "hating America" in the run up to the war, and so on), but once they were there and we were committed, I tended to lean on the side of supporting his military decisions. After a certain point, resisting the war effort became moot.

I'm pretty liberal, and I was a supporter of MoveOn.org - right up until the point where they ran that goddamn stupid "General Betray-Us" ad when Petraeus was attempting to push the "surge" strategy in Iraq to a skeptical Congress. After that, I was finished with MoveOn.

So yes, I'm being consistent. Feel free to bundle up another straw man, I'll burn that one, too :flamed:

I was making a broader statement referring to much of the media. That Betrayus bit sickened me as well. Had no idea of how you reacted.
If that was your reaction though I apologize and good for you.

I'd hope the GOP does'nt try and make hay with this. Although I have no doubt they will. It is politics after all. If it was'nt Obama would have kept Petraeus in the first place.

MattusMaximus

23rd June 2010, 02:26 PM

I was making a broader statement referring to much of the media. That Betrayus bit sickened me as well. Had no idea of how you reacted.
If that was your reaction though I apologize and good for you.

Understood, and apology accepted :)

I'd hope the GOP does'nt try and make hay with this. Although I have no doubt they will. It is politics after all. If it was'nt Obama would have kept Petraeus in the first place.

Me too. We really, really, REALLY don't need something like this devolving into a political free-for-all. As someone pointed out earlier, it will be interesting to see if there is a military-professional vs. Tea Party split in the GOP on this one.

That said, I don't hold out much hope that this won't be fodder for the rightwing noise crowd.

Nosi

23rd June 2010, 03:35 PM

General Stanley McChrystal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal) got the sack resigned after badmouthing (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/obama-sacks-afghanistan-general-mcchrystal-appoints-petraeus/story-e6frg6so-1225883553102) President Obama and Vice Pres. Biden in Rolling Stone Magazine. McChrystal will be replaced by General Petraeus.

In the magazine interview, the general ridiculed Vice President Joe Biden, White House envoy to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. Members of General McChrystal's staff said that their boss had failed to engage with Mr Obama from the outset and believed the president had been unprepared for their first meeting last year soon after the general's appointment. The general's staff also called Mr Obama's national security adviser James Jones a "clown".

leftysergeant

23rd June 2010, 03:41 PM

If true, the GOP had better step lightly, because this could become a political land mine for them.

Just watch the GOP start wetting their pants in excitement and using this as a way to show that the president hates the military and that McC is a martyr.

Kiss the military vote goodbye, rightwhackers.

dudalb

23rd June 2010, 03:53 PM

Another thread in progress in US Politics. Suggest merger.

Ziggurat

23rd June 2010, 04:12 PM

Just watch the GOP start wetting their pants in excitement and using this as a way to show that the president hates the military and that McC is a martyr.

Kiss the military vote goodbye, rightwhackers.

Oh lefty, don't ever change!

Nosi

23rd June 2010, 04:32 PM

Another thread in progress in US Politics. Suggest merger.

OK, how?

geni

23rd June 2010, 04:34 PM

Agreed. It sounds like he's got the confidence of a lot of the service, as well.

Good move that hopefully shows a commitment to winning over political considerations.

Or the only "safe pair of hands" fallback option due a lack of a plan B.

applecorped

23rd June 2010, 04:50 PM

I have a copy of Rolling Stone. #20. It came out on my birthday back in 1968. The Beatles are on the cover.:)

Nosi

23rd June 2010, 04:57 PM

I tend to agree. (Oh, and with much of what I snipped, too. I had/have some doubts about him. I am not sure that this incident is firing-worthy, but it sure doesn't help the impression of him or put his judgment in good light. It would be hard to criticize his firing/forced resignation, either way.)

McCrystal "resigned". He wasn't "fired". He is now out of the public eyeball and presumably a civilian. That doesn't mean he's necessarily no longer in theater. Outfits such as the former Blackwater outfit were full of 'civilian contractors'.

It is also possible he is back in the shadows where he is/was most comfortable, away from the Gucci restaurants he most despised, commanding from the shadows.

ravdin

23rd June 2010, 05:11 PM

Technically, Obama doesn't have the authority to "fire" McChrystal, i.e. remove him from active duty. He only has the authority to relieve him of command. That pretty much spells the end of his career and he'll almost certainly retire from the military very soon- but it would take a court martial to remove him otherwise, and Obama would not decide the outcome.

leftysergeant

23rd June 2010, 05:18 PM

Oh lefty, don't ever change!What? Did you think the military will see McC as a victim?

(I mean besides being a victim of his aligator mouth writing checks his mousy ass can't cash.)

Cain

23rd June 2010, 07:26 PM

OK, how?

By exercising Obama-like leadership: Cooly sit back and hope it takes care of itself.

Darth Rotor

23rd June 2010, 07:29 PM

It is real simple.

The General put the President into a position where the President had to fire him, or look like a standard liberal nancy.

So, the president manned up, and fired his ass. As he should have, given the loose talk he allowed his staff to engage in, in explicit violation of UCMJ article 88, which all of those field grade and above officers know damned well and good. In a word, unprofessional.

Loose lips sinks the generalship. I wonder if the General wanted to be fired. I wonder if he deliberately encouraged such trash talk so that he'd be fired before mission failure.

I'll never know, not being psychic.

Sylvia, a little help here?

Thunder

23rd June 2010, 08:14 PM

Ive read the interview. Its nuts.

Maybe this guy did want to get fired.

Ziggurat

23rd June 2010, 09:04 PM

What? Did you think the military will see McC as a victim?

Nope. That wasn't my point at all. Nice try, though.

MontagK505

23rd June 2010, 09:55 PM

PhantomWolf

23rd June 2010, 11:11 PM

What I want to know is, how do you get fired after handing in your resignation?

bigjelmapro

24th June 2010, 12:05 AM

RSLancastr

24th June 2010, 12:22 AM

Meh. Tempest in a teacup. This might be great for RS's lagging sales, but I didn't see anything to justify the outcry from the pundit class. I wonder how many read the article?

My sales are lagging? :(

ponderingturtle

24th June 2010, 04:10 AM

You know it's funny, I thought the same thing about most of the MSM aka NYTimes,MSNBC etc when Bush was President and I dont even like Bush.

But there is one thing Bush did, no matter how Obama is accused of failing by Fox news they have the perfect Bush screwup to use as an analogy. So he really did a good job of setting new standards for failure.

leftysergeant

24th June 2010, 05:33 AM

Nope. That wasn't my point at all. Nice try, though.

Do you have one?

ZirconBlue

24th June 2010, 06:51 AM

What I want to know is, how do you get fired after handing in your resignation?

"I quit!"
"You can't quit! You're fired!"

leftysergeant

24th June 2010, 07:15 AM

What I want to know is, how do you get fired after handing in your resignation?

Obama made it pretty clear that he was finished with McC's crap and gave him the choice to go quietly or to be made a spectical of before McC arrived in DC to take the dressing-down.

Ziggurat

24th June 2010, 08:41 AM

Do you have one?

Sure: you invent fantasy scenarios to satisfy your desires for how reality should be. In this case, it includes the notion that republicans will all impale themselves in a vain attempt to defend McChrystal, alienate the military vote unto the seventh generation, and usher in a glorious era of enlightenment and union jobs for all. At no point was I trying to defend McChrystal. In fact, I can't seem to find anyone in this thread who is upset with his firing. That should have told you something, but it didn't.

Drysdale

24th June 2010, 09:00 AM

But there is one thing Bush did, no matter how Obama is accused of failing by Fox news they have the perfect Bush screwup to use as an analogy. So he really did a good job of setting new standards for failure.

Huh? You lost me.

Augustine

24th June 2010, 09:41 AM

Frankly, I don't understand the Petraeus selection. It's a demotion. GEN Petraeus goes from being responsible, as CENTCOM commander, for the Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and South and Central Asia - to being responsible for one of the twenty-seven countries he previously was responsible for.

Why not Rodriguez? Caldwell? GEN Mattis name has come up in conversations, so has Odierno's. Why Petraeus? Why shake up CENTCOM and ISAF/USFOR-A at the same time - two RIPs of two levels of the chain of command occurring nearly simultaneously, and at the peak of the fighting season in Afghanistan, and close to a major offensive.

Why exclude McChrystal from the planning session after his resignation was accepted? Why have the condition that he not go back to Afghanistan, his staff pack his things for him? Is that the best way to RIP with new command?

I have a feeling the Petraeus choice is one of those things that looks great in the moment, but unless someone thought through all these transition headaches, it will be a bumpy road while we change drivers.

Lurker

24th June 2010, 10:38 AM

Guess you'd also need to throw Obama himself in there criticizing Petraeus when W was the President no?

Did he?

Ziggurat

24th June 2010, 10:56 AM

Did he?

From what I remember, Obama was fairly careful to not criticize Petraeus personally, but he voiced the opinion repeatedly that the surge was destined to fail, and wouldn't really credit it (or Petraeus) as being the cause of improvements after the fact either. So his record with regard to Petraeus leaves something to be desired, but it's not disastrous.

dudalb

24th June 2010, 02:02 PM

What I want to know is, how do you get fired after handing in your resignation?

You can't, but there is the "You can't fire me I quit" situation where you resign about ten seconds before you get the ax because resigning looks a little better.
I have no doubt that McChrstal knew he was going to be relieved, and decided to resign instead.

leftysergeant

24th June 2010, 03:19 PM

Sure: you invent fantasy scenarios to satisfy your desires for how reality should be. In this case, it includes the notion that republicans will all impale themselves in a vain attempt to defend McChrystal, alienate the military vote unto the seventh generation, and usher in a glorious era of enlightenment and union jobs for all.

Wrong. The rightwhackers on the radio have been trying to tell us that thisa situation is going to end badly because the liberals hate the military and that Obama is going to use this as an excuse to abuse the soldiers in some way. I usually do not listen to rightwhack radio, but occassionally pick up a bit of the background noise at work or in some stores that play the radio. I try to limit my time in such situations, so don't ask for more than the couple of words it took to convince me that the rightwhacks do not know military science.

leftysergeant

24th June 2010, 03:24 PM

Frankly, I don't understand the Petraeus selection. It's a demotion. GEN Petraeus goes from being responsible, as CENTCOM commander, for the Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and South and Central Asia - to being responsible for one of the twenty-seven countries he previously was responsible for.

Patraeus wrote the book on what he is supposed to do there.

Why not Rodriguez? Caldwell? GEN Mattis name has come up in conversations, so has Odierno's. Why Petraeus? Why shake up CENTCOM and ISAF/USFOR-A at the same time - two RIPs of two levels of the chain of command occurring nearly simultaneously, and at the peak of the fighting season in Afghanistan, and close to a major offensive.

If it goes wrong, people will blame Obama. The troops might get the idea that maybe the Rushblob was right, and morale will go into the toilet. We could never afford that, and less so in Afghanistan.

Darth Rotor

24th June 2010, 03:45 PM

Frankly, I don't understand the Petraeus selection. It's a demotion.
Yes. Look for General Allen, Patreaus' Deputy, to get a nom from Patreaus to replace him so Patreaus can go back to being CENTCOM Commander.
Why not Rodriguez?
McChrystal Taint. Too bad, guilt by association, and what was he doing to make sure the staff weren't behaving like a bunch of college sophomores? Likewise, whomever was Chief of Staff for McChrystal ... run a tighter ship, Colonel! :mad:
Caldwell? GEN Mattis name has come up in conversations, so has Odierno's.
Mattis is a CINC, and at end of his career. His next posting is more likely retirement.
Why Petraeus? Why shake up CENTCOM and ISAF/USFOR-A at the same time - two RIPs of two levels of the chain of command occurring nearly simultaneously, and at the peak of the fighting season in Afghanistan, and close to a major offensive.
'Cos either Gates and Obama need a quick fix, quick run through the congressional approval, and they can turn to other matters while Patreaus gets a few actual replacements lined up.

By the way, McChrystal was a subordinate to Patreaus. Patreaus, is having to work over time since one of his boys screwed the pooch, and as I see this, it serves him right for not keeping General Snake Eater in check with the PR mess.

As for General McChrystal being a whack job: no, lefty, not even in the ball park. Most SOF guys that I have ever met are as sane and sober as one can possibly get. You are criticizing a caricature of an actual man, sorry.

DR

Ziggurat

24th June 2010, 04:06 PM

Wrong. The rightwhackers on the radio have been trying to tell us that thisa situation is going to end badly because the liberals hate the military and that Obama is going to use this as an excuse to abuse the soldiers in some way. I usually do not listen to rightwhack radio, but occassionally pick up a bit of the background noise at work or in some stores that play the radio. I try to limit my time in such situations, so don't ask for more than the couple of words it took to convince me that the rightwhacks do not know military science.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your vague impression of a handful of words from some unspecified guy on the radio as indicative of a general Republican electoral strategy. You just aren't a credible source, lefty. You've made far too many outrageous claims that fly in the face of reality for even your political allies here to take your opinions seriously.

leftysergeant

24th June 2010, 04:11 PM

As for General McChrystal being a whack job: no, lefty, not even in the ball park. Most SOF guys that I have ever met are as sane and sober as one can possibly get. You are criticizing a caricature of an actual man, sorry.

DR

You've never see a man lose his marbles after years of stress?

The man sleeps four hours tops and only eats once a day. The human body is not designed to work like that for extended periods.

Ziggurat

24th June 2010, 04:12 PM

If it goes wrong, people will blame Obama. The troops might get the idea that maybe the Rushblob was right, and morale will go into the toilet. We could never afford that, and less so in Afghanistan.

I don't seem to recall you being opposed to blaming the previous commander-in-chief for military problems on the grounds that it might damage morale.

Do you try for irony, lefty, or is it accidental?

KoihimeNakamura

24th June 2010, 04:15 PM

You've never see a man lose his marbles after years of stress?

The man sleeps four hours tops and only eats once a day. The human body is not designed to work like that for extended periods.

Evidence?

leftysergeant

24th June 2010, 04:17 PM

I don't seem to recall you being opposed to blaming the previous commander-in-chief for military problems on the grounds that it might damage morale.

I blamed the Shrub because he picked the worst Sec Def in my lifetime and they screwed the pooch, and abused the soldiers. They damaged morale themselves with some brain-dead personnel decisions, like firing the man who designed the force they were about to use in a way that could never have worked.

Corruption is far more damaging to morale than is criticism of the idiot-in-chief by a retired soldier. Those fools who were in contact with the reporter were supposed to keep that crap to themselves.

dtugg

24th June 2010, 04:19 PM

I find it maybe possible that McChrystal only got four hours of sleep a day. He had a lot of responsibilities and only so much time to deal with them. But only one meal a day? Come on, the guy is a *********** four star general.

leftysergeant

24th June 2010, 04:28 PM

But only one meal a day? Come on, the guy is a *********** four star general.

Does this sound a little OCD to you? Would you trust him to fly a single-seat aircraft?

Would you trust his judgement to be as sharp as it should be?

leftysergeant

24th June 2010, 04:29 PM

Evidence?

That is hardly long enough to go into R.E.M. sleep. Keep it up long enough and you might start to halucinate.

Ziggurat

24th June 2010, 04:36 PM

That is hardly long enough to go into R.E.M. sleep. Keep it up long enough and you might start to halucinate.

You're a little slow on the uptake, lefty. He was asking for evidence that McChrystal only got four hours of sleep and one meal each day.

Oh, and you're wrong about REM sleep. Four hours is plenty of time to enter REM sleep, typically more than once. It may not be enough time to get enough REM sleep, but you will get some on four hours of sleep (in fact, sleep deprivation makes you enter REM sleep faster).

dtugg

24th June 2010, 05:05 PM

Does this sound a little OCD to you? Would you trust him to fly a single-seat aircraft?

Would you trust his judgement to be as sharp as it should be?

Where is the evidence that this happened?

Lefty, you are just as bad as the right wing nutjobs you hate so much.

Nogbad

25th June 2010, 03:01 AM

This is all a little bit crazy. So a soldier thinks the politicians in the Whitehouse are out of touch? This is news?

Far more important matters for RS should be

Afghan Black - is it still as good as it was in the 60s?
Tangerine Dream - too avant garde?

leftysergeant

25th June 2010, 05:13 AM

Where is the evidence that this happened?

Lefty, you are just as bad as the right wing nutjobs you hate so much.

McC seems, from all accounts of his behavior, to be trying to show how tough he is. The snake eaters do some pretty strange things just to display their machismo, and one gets the impression from the article that this one has gone off the deep end.

We need the generals to be smart, not tough.

Ziggurat

25th June 2010, 08:32 AM

McC seems, from all accounts of his behavior, to be trying to show how tough he is.

Once again, you missed the point by a mile. You made a factual claim about how much McChrystal had been sleeping and eating. You have failed (repeatedly now) to support that claim when challenged.

Augustine

25th June 2010, 09:00 AM

The claim about McChrystal's sleeping and eating habits was made in the RS article, more as "legend" than something rigorously fact-checked. I would suspect that the truth is more mundane, although I did know a BN XO in the Khost bowl whose "legend" was probably similar. (In actuality, his sleep varied based on OPTEMPO, and while he never ate in the chow hall, he would have NCOs or junior officers pick up a to-go box, or eat Powerbars which are ubiquitous.

drkitten

25th June 2010, 09:04 AM

Once again, you missed the point by a mile. You made a factual claim about how much McChrystal had been sleeping and eating. You have failed (repeatedly now) to support that claim when challenged.

Does he need to spoon feed you? It's all over the damn news media:

From CBS: (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5928642-503544.html)

And c) to work for Stan McChrystal is part agony - keeping up with his Spartan four-hours-of-sleep-a-night-one-meal-a-day work style is no easy task

From the Guardian: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/24/stanley-mcchrystal-obama-rolling-stone)

he now is famous for his austere lifestyle, which includes four hours sleep at night, seven-mile runs every morning and only one meal a day)

And from the Telegraph: (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100044398/i-confidently-predict-obama-will-sack-general-stanley-mcchrystal-for-his-rolling-stone-outburst/)

Gen McChrystal, the Spartan commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan who survives on one meal and four hours sleep a day (he also jogs eight miles),

I'd have tracked down more citations, but I got bored with cutting and pasting.

Ziggurat

25th June 2010, 10:00 AM

Does he need to spoon feed you?

No, he just needed to provide a single citation.

I'd have tracked down more citations, but I got bored with cutting and pasting.

I'm sure it made you feel manly to do lefty's homework for him.

But don't you find it a little strange that the formulation of all those quotes is pretty much exactly the same? And that it echoes the same formulation in the rolling stones article? You see, that doesn't indicate to me that this is a well-sourced bit of information: this indicates that it's a well-parroted bit of information. One which nobody actually seems to provide the origin for. Where did it come from? Did McChrystal ever tell anyone that's what he does? Is that what his aides say about him? Or is it just one of those myths that develops, the McChrystal "legend", as Rolling Stones put it? Maybe something that has happened, but not all the time. Not that it ultimately matters (I don't care about what he eats or how much he sleeps, I care about what he does, and he screwed up bigtime), but if you want to try to diagnose sleep deprivation psychosis (as lefty tried to do), well, you might want more evidence than this.

KoihimeNakamura

25th June 2010, 04:46 PM

DrKitten: Yes. Yes he does. When he makes a claim he needs to back it up because lefty makes a LOT of rambling assertions and without proof it's hard to believe any of them.

(Incidently, while I do note they all echo the article it COULD be true. )

Puppycow

26th June 2010, 04:37 AM

I have a theory:

McChrystal wanted to get fired. He did it on purpose knowing what the consequence would be. I can't prove it, but it makes sense to me and seems to fit the facts.

Why?

Because:

1) He was under a lot of stress and the war has been going badly. Perhaps he came to realize that it was going to be impossible to win. But he couldn't admit it because he is the one who devised this strategy and said it could work.

2) He was exhausted and needed a vacation, but he can't admit it because it contradicts his "stoic warrior-monk" persona. He prides himself in having almost superhuman endurance and self-control, and wants to avoid anything that contradicts that image.

So, he had to quit but he can't quit because that would be even more unacceptable than getting fired for insubordination.

So basically, it was a cry for help.

leftysergeant

26th June 2010, 05:04 AM

No, he just needed to provide a single citation.

I'm sure it made you feel manly to do lefty's homework for him.

It's right there in the article, so I didn't figure I needed to track down verification from someplace else. It is also consistant with his career path and specialties.

And doing with too little sleep will drive you crazy, eventually. But then, when a snake eater goes nuts, how do you identify the symptoms?

Undesired Walrus

26th June 2010, 05:06 AM

JihadJane

26th June 2010, 05:25 AM

Another insane murderer bites the dust.

leftysergeant

26th June 2010, 05:35 AM

He voted for Obama.

A lot of military people who did not like Obama voted for him anyway because they realized that McCain is nuts. They really do not want another war right now, especially not with Iran. Their resources are spread too thin and equipment is breaking down.

Cleon

26th June 2010, 07:40 AM

He voted for Obama.

If there's one thing that lefty has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it's that voting for Obama doesn't necessarily mean one is rational.

DavidJames

26th June 2010, 09:41 AM

If he's let go he will immediately become a Republican hero. I have seen nothing to support this so looks like I was wrong. Wasn't the first and won't be the last. And I'm just talking about today :)

geni

26th June 2010, 10:12 AM

That MSNBC article reads like pure comedy. I'm sure Obama will actually check the credentials of all the generals in all the different theaters in the future.

Don't quite understand how one can attain such a high position with such over-the-top bravado and cockiness. At that age and rank, you would think that he would simmer a bit....

Special forces. They tend to have a slightly less controled aproach to things. Since they tend to be made up of very good soldiers they can get away with it.

leftysergeant

26th June 2010, 11:53 AM

Special forces.

Worse, he is a Ranger. Not trained in civil affairs like the Special Forces. You don't need the high test scores to get into Ranger school that you need for Special Forces.

They tend to have a slightly less controled aproach to things. Since they tend to be made up of very good soldiers they can get away with it.

This is true of Rangers, but not of Special Forces. Rangers are totally about shock and awe and the ability to hit hard and fast and then get out of the way for the conventional forces that follow on. They are really only useful on an advancing front or for forays behind enemy lines.

I think we're kind of past the point where the Rangers should be the focus of our efforts in both theaters of the current conflict. Special Forces backed up by large formations of conventional infantry might be far more usefull at this piont.