General McChrystal fired!

[Clarke]

President Barack Obama sacked his loose-lipped Afghanistan commander Wednesday, a seismic shift for the military order in wartime, and chose the familiar, admired — and tightly disciplined — Gen. David Petraeus to replace him. Petraeus, architect of the Iraq war turnaround, was once again to take hands-on leadership of a troubled war effort. Obama said bluntly that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's scornful remarks about administration officials in interviews for a magazine article represent conduct that "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_mcchrystal Comes across as an arrogant decision :mad: I know, civilian control, military discipline blah blah, but the guys on the battlefield are humans after all. You hand them a huge sh*thole and then ask them to go light on troops. Either grant the generals the numbers they need or leave the place and guard your borders within the safety of your homeland. Iraq must surely be a less complex place than Af-Pak and got a larger number of troops as part of the surge. Whats with this neither here nor there strategy ? Lets forget the 2011 deadline for now.

[Gunner_Mania]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236 For anybody who hasn't read the article

[straight.drive]

Obama is part of leftist loonie gang. Their hate for anything connected to military is evident for all.

[b555]

:hmmmm: any adverse affects with this?

[bharathh]

Obama is part of leftist loonie gang. Their hate for anything connected to military is evident for all.

Do read the article and tell me what the guy and his aides said in front of a reporter was nothing if not dumb and extremely inappropriate.

[Brainfade]

Do read the article and tell me what the guy and his aides said in front of a reporter was nothing if not dumb and extremely inappropriate.

I agree. When you are in a position of military leadership, there are some things you just do not do on the record. The general dropped his guard, and despite his stellar record, has to pay for it. Pres. Obama had no choice but to accept his resignation. Ironically, he had to go back to GWB's old friend, Gen. Petraeus, whom the Democrats had labeled "Gen. Betray us" during the 2008 campaign. (At that time, Sen. Hillary Clinton put forth a motion to condemn the people who labeled the general as such, but Sen. Obama abstained from voting one way or another).

[yoda]

Correct decision. If you have a military with no respect for chain of command allowed to go on without any punishment, the US will become like Pakistan. This is more important than any single mission even something as large as AFG.

[Lurker]

Comes across as an arrogant decision :mad: I know, civilian control, military discipline blah blah, but the guys on the battlefield are humans after all. You hand them a huge sh*thole and then ask them to go light on troops. Either grant the generals the numbers they need or leave the place and guard your borders within the safety of your homeland. Iraq must surely be a less complex place than Af-Pak and got a larger number of troops as part of the surge. Whats with this neither here nor there strategy ? Lets forget the 2011 deadline for now.

What didnt he receive?? He received the numbers he wanted and the support. Please read through the entire interview and see how the man comes across as a total jackass. He was given "life" a couple of times but seemed hell bent to destroy his own career.

[triam]

Well deserved action, you never NEVER go on the record to the press to belittle your superiors. This is bush league stuff, McChrystal comes across as an arrogant ***** not OBama

[triam]

But what makes the case is sad is the same general McChrystal was let off from the Tillman fiasco, he shud have been dishonorably discharged at that time itself.

[Clarke]

What didnt he receive?? He received the numbers he wanted and the support. Please read through the entire interview and see how the man comes across as a total jackass. He was given "life" a couple of times but seemed hell bent to destroy his own career.

Considering the task at hand, he must have been advised to go easy on the demands. Does anyone here think the middle of 2011 is ideal for starting a pullout ? It takes months to get the troops he demanded anyways. The **** the military has had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan would make any general mad on the inside. Is there such a level of accountability on the civilian side as well ? House Reps get away shouting at the president during his speech, some go further and apologize to BP while a four star general is absolutely sacked. I know, they're elected reps but a four star general is a four star general. Couldnt they have McChrystal come forward with an apology or something ? It reminds me of bad boy Patton; he too deserved the sacking more than once but you need your best generals when you fight wars on multiple fronts, especially when some of them command the respect of the soldiers (atleast McChrystal does). We have had Generals and Air Chief Marshalls criticize the govt for their babudom and red tape more than once, but we dont go around firing them. The point here is, listen to the general since he's on the battlefield, not your liberal senator.

[triam]

Based on that interview alone and the type of macho bull **** crap he pulls off, they resemble a bunch of frat guys with guns. After that does anyone really think he has the ability to pull off what basically gets down winning Afghanistani hearts and minds? He comes across the typical american stereotype, who thinks he is Captain America, he has no business leading a batallion much less a complex war with counter insurgency tactics.

[Lurker]

Considering the task at hand, he must have been advised to go easy on the demands. Does anyone here think the middle of 2011 is ideal for starting a pullout ? It takes months to get the troops he demanded anyways. The **** the military has had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan would make any general mad on the inside. Is there such a level of accountability on the civilian side as well ? House Reps get away shouting at the president during his speech, some go further and apologize to BP while a four star general is absolutely sacked. I know, they're elected reps but a four star general is a four star general. Couldnt they have McChrystal come forward with an apology or something ? It reminds me of bad boy Patton; he too deserved the sacking more than once but you need your best generals when you fight wars on multiple fronts, especially when some of them command the respect of the soldiers (atleast McChrystal does). We have had Generals and Air Chief Marshalls criticize the govt for their babudom and red tape more than once, but we dont go around firing them. The point here is, listen to the general since he's on the battlefield, not your liberal senator.

Again, read the interview in its entirety and you shall realize how illogical your assertions are. Take time to read whats at issue here instead of spewing irrelevant utterings.

[Lurker]

But what makes the case is sad is the same general McChrystal was let off from the Tillman fiasco' date=' he shud have been dishonorably discharged at that time itself.[/quote'] Very much so. How can you be an Army General and essentially cover-up/mislead nation about soldiers themselves??? I can see a politician doing that but an Army General???

[Clarke]

Very much so. How can you be an Army General and essentially cover-up/mislead nation about soldiers themselves??? I can see a politician doing that but an Army General???

So u admit there's a different yardstick for judging a four star general vs some politician ?

[achilles]

So it is true! Barkha was blasting CNN for irresponsible reporting on her twitter yesterday.

[Lurker]

So u admit there's a different yardstick for judging a four star general vs some politician ?

My yardstick is more about posts, like yours within this thread, that seem to be completely oblivious to the issue at bare here.

So it is true! Barkha was blasting CNN for irresponsible reporting on her twitter yesterday.

You follow Barkha Dutt on Twitter??? Man what has this world come to

[Brainfade]

Based on that interview alone and the type of macho bull **** crap he pulls off' date=' they resemble a bunch of frat guys with guns. After that does anyone really think he has the ability to pull off what basically gets down winning Afghanistani hearts and minds? He comes across the typical american stereotype, who thinks he is Captain America, he has no business leading a batallion much less a complex war with counter insurgency tactics.[/quote'] A cursory glance of recent news would reveal that McChrystal was a strong believer in the "win hearts and minds" strategy. He initiated the change from the apparent bully-strategy of the GWB regime to the win-Afghan-hearts strategy of the BHO regime. While his demeanor is brusque, his strategy was not so. Nevertheless, he made a huge error in judgment and had to go. I am sure he went straight from the White House to a publisher's office to ink a book deal :-)! So, Pres Obama found no one competent enough and had to go back to the Democrats' old whipping boy Gen "Betray Us". The one who led the troop surge in Iraq; a strategy that Democrats opposed, but turned out to bring a semblance of order in Iraq giving then Sen. Obama the opportunity to promise troop withdrawals in 16 months. Funny how politics work, but good on Obama. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/28/afghanistan.obama/index.html

he top U.S. commander in Afghanistan wants more troops and a new strategy -- but most importantly, he wants to win the battle for the hearts and the minds of the people in the war-torn country. "What I'm really telling people is the greatest risk we can accept is to lose the support of the people here," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview aired Sunday night. "If the people are against us, we cannot be successful. If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically." McChrystal is expected to send his request any day for more resources to combat the insurgency in Afghanistan, according to a senior U.S. defense official familiar with the situation. Earlier this month, McChrystal warned that more troops are needed there within the next year, or the nearly 8-year-old war "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen said McChrystal is basically saying the U.S. strategy and tactics to date have been, in fact, "creating more animosity, more insurgents than we've been winning." "We can't win the war or be successful with a campaign in Afghanistan without the support of the Afghan people. We can't get the support of the Afghan people unless we show we're going to be successful," Cohen said Monday on CNN's "American Morning." And if the U.S. wants to win hearts and minds, "You have to pursue Gen. McChrystal's strategy. If you say that's not acceptable and costs too much, it takes too long, we don't have our allies -- then you come up with a counterterrorist strategy, which means you're going to start killing people and thereby risk killing a lot of innocent civilians, thereby creating more insurgents." Now that McChrystal has given his assessment to the administration, President Obama is left with two choices, said Cohen, a Republican who served in President Clinton's administration. "So the political side of things, the civilian leaders now have a choice. They can say we agree with Gen. McChrystal, here are more troops, or we disagree, and we need to change the strategy. So those are the choices that face the president," he said. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Sunday that the administration is in the process of evaluating its strategy, and once it is confident the strategy is right, it will address the question of additional resources. Asked whether Obama has a choice to turn down a request for more troops -- given that top leaders in the military, including Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said more troops are needed -- Gates replied, "I think the president always has a choice. He's the commander in chief. "The reality is, do we need additional forces? How many additional forces? And to do what? And it's the 'to do what?' that I think we need to make sure we have confidence, we understand before making recommendations to the president," he said on CNN's "State of the Union." Video Watch what Gates says about the Afghanistan strategy » Obama has called Afghanistan a "war of necessity," and he's sent an additional 21,000 troops there, but he's also said he has to "exercise skepticism" any time he sends a man or woman in uniform into harm's way. On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters a decision on McChrystal's request was "a number of weeks" away. "We're going through the process of assessing where we are, what's changed, what needs to happen, where we need to go," Gibbs said, later adding: "We have seen the movie before, where you put a bunch of resources in a place and then you decide your strategy. I don't think the output that we've seen in those decisions has all together been good for this country or for our military." Some helping to shape the strategy support counterinsurgency, which would involve a large number of troops focused on fighting the Taliban, plus efforts to rebuild the country and its economic system. Others favor a counterterrorism strategy in which a limited number of troops would target only al Qaeda. While McChrystal has been pushing for an expanded counterinsurgency strategy and a focus on protecting the people, Vice President Joe Biden has advocated reducing U.S. troops and focusing on dismantling al Qaeda cells, The New York Times reported. Commentary: Obama should listen to Biden Other top Democrats have also expressed opposition to deploying more troops. In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, warned against rushing to judgment. "In the coming weeks, President Barack Obama will make the most difficult choice a commander in chief can face: whether to send more troops into harm's way," wrote Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Before we send more of our young men and women to this war, we need a fuller debate about what constitutes success in Afghanistan." Going ahead, Obama needs to address the nation and explain to the American public why Afghanistan is important, Cohen said. advertisement "Why are we in Afghanistan? Why does it matter? What is the mission? What are the costs? Are we willing to bear them and for how long? And are any allies with us, and how long are they going to be with us? "These are all questions he has to address, persuade the American people it's in our national security interests to do this, and then commit the resources necessary to carry it out," he said.

[Gunner_Mania]

You follow Barkha Dutt on Twitter??? Man what has this world come to

If you don't follow you dont pick up Gems like this.

[triam]

Cricaddict I know about his COIN strategy, but I find hard to believe a guy who behaves like a drugged up frat boy in private (all the time) will have the maturity to implement a strategy like that. secondly, this guy should have been gone during the Tillman episode itself, so atleast now he has gone.