General McChrystal fired!

[Brainfade]

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. .

Therein lies his genius. He's a fratboy with his fratboys. He needs the fratboy subordinates to implement his strategies and he is their fratboy buddy. They trust him and that's the way they'll buy into his ideas. From all accounts, he has made tremendous inroads in gaining the trust of the Afghani civilians as well as the government. The author of the Rolling Stone article was interviewed on NPR, and was effusive in his praise. He said that his men would die for him before anything. Excerpt from RS artilce:

McChrystal and his team show up the next day. Underneath a tent, the general has a 45-minute discussion with some two dozen soldiers. The atmosphere is tense. "I ask you what's going on in your world, and I think it's important for you all to understand the big picture as well," McChrystal begins. "How's the company doing? You guys feeling sorry for yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you're losing?" McChrystal says. "Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir," says Hicks. McChrystal nods. "Strength is leading when you just don't want to lead," he tells the men. "You're leading by example. That's what we do. Particularly when it's really, really hard, and it hurts inside." Then he spends 20 minutes talking about counterinsurgency, diagramming his concepts and principles on a whiteboard. He makes COIN seem like common sense, but he's careful not to bullshit the men. "We are knee-deep in the decisive year," he tells them. The Taliban, he insists, no longer has the initiative – "but I don't think we do, either." It's similar to the talk he gave in Paris, but it's not winning any hearts and minds among the soldiers. "This is the philosophical part that works with think tanks," McChrystal tries to joke. "But it doesn't get the same reception from infantry companies." During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence. They want to be able to fight – like they did in Iraq, like they had in Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the Taliban," one soldier says. "Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing," McChrystal says, citing an oft-repeated maxim that you can't kill your way out of Afghanistan. "The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn't work." "I'm not saying go out and kill everybody, sir," the soldier persists. "You say we've stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don't believe that's true in this area. The more we pull back, the more we restrain ourselves, the stronger it's getting." "I agree with you," McChrystal says. "In this area, we've not made progress, probably. You have to show strength here, you have to use fire. What I'm telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?" A soldier complains that under the rules, any insurgent who doesn't have a weapon is immediately assumed to be a civilian. "That's the way this game is," McChrystal says. "It's complex. I can't just decide: It's shirts and skins, and we'll kill all the shirts." As the discussion ends, McChrystal seems to sense that he hasn't succeeded at easing the men's anger. He makes one last-ditch effort to reach them, acknowledging the death of Cpl. Ingram. "There's no way I can make that easier," he tells them. "No way I can pretend it won't hurt. No way I can tell you not to feel that. . . . I will tell you, you're doing a great job. Don't let the frustration get to you." The session ends with no clapping, and no real resolution. McChrystal may have sold President Obama on counterinsurgency, but many of his own men aren't buying it.

Those quotes, especially the ones I bold-faced, should give you new-found respect for the man. His heart is in the right place. I, for one, admired his disdain for pretentiousness, for the "finer" things, for the 4-star indulgences, and his preference for being out there in the trenches drinking tea with the locals. He's all steak, little sizzle.

secondly, this guy should have been gone during the Tillman episode itself, so atleast now he has gone

Now, that was a bigger gaffe than this recent one - it was almost criminal. I am not convinced however that he had malicious intent. I think he wanted to give the soldier the silver star and lied to make it happen. Not justifying it, just giving some perspective. All this said, I must also say that his description of Biden as a .... ahem ... dimwit is spot-on.

[Lurker]

Therein lies his genius. He's a fratboy with his fratboys. He needs the fratboy subordinates to implement his strategies and he is their fratboy buddy. They trust him and that's the way they'll buy into his ideas. From all accounts, he has made tremendous inroads in gaining the trust of the Afghani civilians as well as the government. The author of the Rolling Stone article was interviewed on NPR, and was effusive in his praise. He said that his men would die for him before anything.

Thats how Blackwater should operate, not any professional outfit.

[Brainfade]

Thats how Blackwater should operate' date=' not any professional outfit.[/quote'] With all due respect, I must ask if you read: (a) the rest of my post? (b) the entire Rolling Stones article? and listen to the author of the Rolling Stones article? If you did, you just may have come up with a better picture of what I was trying to portray. I don't reckon that a hardened military man in the trenches, in the facuwith his men at all times. The bottom line is that his men trusted and respected him immensely, as did the Afghanis. He was a tough, stellar leader - but loudmouthed, brash and brazen. Those latter qualities caught up with him.

[THX_1138]

I agree. When you are in a position of military leadership' date=' there are some things you just do not do [i']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).

no one labeled him so. he was the subject of a full page advertisement by MoveOn.org, a left leaning political actional committee for the democratic party that was released on the eve of his hearing before the congress on the status of the american presence in iraq. the advertisement suggested that would general petrayus be honest in his assessment or would he be one to toe the official line of the washington big wigs, thus the title of the advertisement was "general petrayus (i.e. give us the honest opinion) or general betray us (i.e. be another mouthpiece for the bush administration). the campaign was rather unfortunate. but it was not a label attached to him by either the PAC or the democratic party. nevertheless, lets look a little into the general mcchrystal's jacket. he has his hands dirty with the whole pat tillman fiasco and subsequent cover up. furthermore, its one thing to be critical of an administration's policies before a congressional or senatorial hearing, and another to call the commander in chief a weak person. he breached the code of conduct and thus was given the boot. unlike general casey who was dimissed for stating to the congress that the american troop level in iraq was inadequate and the then contemporary strategy was ineffective.

[Brainfade]

^^ THX, I have asserted (3 times :-)) in this thread that McChrystal's comments were unbecoming, and that he had to go. And I asserted (albeit only once) that the Tillman incident was almost criminal (no matter what his intent). Moveon.org is "by the democrats, for the democrats, of the democrats." Although not officially a wing of the party, they served as a voice of the party in 2008. George Soros is one of the Democrats' biggest donors. You cannot disown them when they become inconvenient. But like I said, (to her credit), Hillary Clinton put forth a motion to condemn the ad, but then Sen. Obama abstained from condemning them on the record. Interesting.

[Lurker]

With all due respect, I must ask if you read: (a) the rest of my post? (b) the entire Rolling Stones article? and listen to the author of the Rolling Stones article?

Oh rest assured I did both. If I could indulge you from a personal angle, I daresay this was one of the better pieces of serious journalism that I have read in a while(in Rolling Stones? Who knew?). The author paints, what I thought, was a fair picture of Stan McChrystal without vilifying him. I thought he was summed up rather well in the following snippet

He also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.

I don't reckon that a hardened military man in the trenches, in the facuwith his men at all times. The bottom line is that his men trusted and respected him immensely, as did the Afghanis. He was a tough, stellar leader - but loudmouthed, brash and brazen. Those latter qualities caught up with him.

I am sure you see the fallacy of your statement right there. The man is a part of a chain of commands, he is not at the top of the chain by any means. It is ridiculous to think those who were junior to me would follow him to death, while he would listen to his own superiors and make a mockery of them(in front of his juniors at times). How does that work out?? How do you garner dedication by making mockery of discipiline, which is the fundamental cornerstone of military foundation? In the end the man ran his Command like he ran Special Ops team....a band of brothers who would get you great results while sipping whiskey and blowing steam. Unfortunately Stan McChrystal was so much more than leader of a Navy Seal attack team..pity he didnt realize it. xxx

[triam]

Cricaddict, If he is smart and savvy as some claim (including you). What the hell was he thinking giving this interview? Didnt he guess the repercussions ? A 10th grade school kid knows if he is caught on record *****ing about his principal there will be hell to pay, how come he never realized that? Thats why I find it unbeleivable that Gen McChrystal was any good at strategy or deep political games which his own pet theory COIN calls for.

[Brainfade]

Reply to Lurker and triam: Lurker, he is an enigma, isn't he? From my very limited knowledge of the military (having been in 2 long, arduous NCC camps in the barracks with the men) - many military leaders are loud, informal & brazen, yet charismatic. They get their men to do their willing in battle; the men and the boys have fun together, but when push comes to shove, the boys know who is boss. Complex, to say the least. Triam, Your points are exactly what make this discussion fascinating. How *could* a man of McChrystal's intelligence (triam, from his biography, it was obvious the guy is smart - no matter what you say) and dedication have such a lapse in judgment? It is like asking how could a man as intelligent and ambitious as Bill Clinton fall for an intern when he knew that getting caught could tarnish his legacy. How could Martin Luther King be a "man of God," a reverend who fought for everyone's civil rights while exploiting women in his own personal life? How did these folks have the moral authority to stand up and face the public? How did people follow them? Did their flaws keep them from doing their job? Complex, indeed. The bottom line is that McC is a highly accomplished man whose flaws caught up with him. I am glad Pres. Obama let him go, but I take no pleasure in kicking him when he is down. My last words on this thread :-). Am off to India for a vacation :dance::dance: