This is criticism no CIC should accept. To accept it would show weakness, not to get rid of McCrystal.
Lots of precidences for this.
McCrystal should respect the hierarchy that comes with the military, that includes the fact that the CIC ranks above him even if he doesn’t like the guy in that position. But the military is full of a lot of politics I’m just surprised on how public he made it.
Yea quite surprising. But there is no accounting for what a general might do. Same thing happened with McClellan, Patton and with MacArthur
For example, the Office of the President of the United States commands respect. Especially for those directly in the chain of command. Regardless if many don’t admire the person with the honor of holding that position.
Do you know anybody who served under him? I know several, from the 75th in 1993, to JSOC as recently as three years ago. Many in NCO and officer positions. “Incomptent” was never a word they used to describe him, especially coming from those who served under him in Iraq.
And BTW, the name is spelled “McChrystal”.
[quote=EmperorNapoleon]LOL. I don’t care what his rank is. Actions determine whether or not he’s deserving of admiration and respect; not a pin on his hat.
What is most astounding to me is that (at least based on the available snippets) most of the comments were not substantive criticisms. They are mostly childish things like calling the national security advisor (a retired 4-star Marine) a clown, making fun of Biden’s name, etc. Even the comment that Obama was unprepared to meet with him was focused on the fact that McChrystal was annoyed that Obama didn’t know more about McChrystal. To add to it, the RS has come out today to say that they sent a copy of the article to McChrystal for fact-checking and he approved it to run as is! What did he think would happen when they did?
This is not McArthur disagreeing with Truman on whether to attack China. This is an ego bruised by bad press and lashing out at his boss.
McChrystal needs to go. I don’t think it matters if he gets fired tomorrow or if he is allowed to quietly retire in a couple months, but he should go. In fact, if he really feels this way he should have resigned a long time ago. I have already heard a rumor that a Marine general, Mattis, is being looked at to replace him.
His failures in Afghanistan demonstrate otherwise.
Continuing to allow warlords, with their militias and who’s loyalties are sold to the highest bidder, to dominate Afghanistan. The abysmal failure that was Operation Moshtarak. The list goes on; take your pick.
Unfortunately, that’s the nature of Afghanistan. I am not a military expert, and would like to see the Af/Pak War work out. But I very much question whether we have any business there. It has one foot in the seventeenth century and one foot in the seventh. No national cohesion whatever. It’s just a bunch of tribes.
What we have in Afghanistan is an extraordinarily corrupt central government, led by a man who cheated his way into office, which has 0 power or influence outside of Kabul that is being backed by army led by Generals who apparently have no idea what they’re doing. We’ve given them almost nine years worth of chances. I say it’s time to leave and let the Afghans duke it out amongst themselves.
Where those rules of engagement his? I thought they were a product of the Obama administration. From what I understood that was part of the reason he is so frustrated with the White House, his troops are getting shot at and can not shoot back.
Was this General not the one who hunted down and killed some top terrorist officials in Iraq?
From all the info I read, the changes to the Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan was Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s,. He spoke on a few occasions on working on ways to minimize civilians casualties. He also tied this in to the fight for credibility of the Afghan government
In his own words.
He spoke to The Daily Telegraph about his plan for revolutionising ways of fighting by focusing on the Afghan people rather than on the Taliban.
“Your security comes from the people,” he said. “You don’t need to be secured away from the people. You need to be secured by the people. So as you win their support, it’s in their interests to secure you, to report IEDs.”
This can mean patrolling without armoured vehicles or even flak jackets. It means accepting greater short-term risk – and higher casualties – in the hope of winning a “battle of perceptions and perspectives” that will result in longer-term security.
“If we respond with overwhelming fire to limited small arms fire from a compound we do protect ourselves but we destroy their livelihood and potentially the people,” he said.
“Even when we run around in armoured vehicles or personal armour we often send an unintended message that we’re more important than they are. If we’ve got more armour but in reality the people are at more risk they have to question the degree to which we really are protecting them.”
Ignore Afghanistan, go home and allow the Taliban to take over again was essentially the Clinton years strategy. When folks like the Taliban and Al Qaida have a whole country sheltering them that way, they are able to plan long term and highly complex terror attacks - like training suicide pilots, for example. Such things are much harder to do when you are hiding in a cave with the world’s most dangerous men hunting you.
I don’t have all the answers, but I am sure that people like Napolean who pretend to are full of, well, something smelly.
I too agree that blatant insubordination can’t be tolerated and that he has to go. No idea what to do next. Hope somebody does.
I pretend to no expertise on the subject. But this whole situation over there reminds me of nothing so much as the Indian Wars.
It seems to me that war with an implacable, primitive and vicious enemy involves employment of overwhelming and unremitting force, total destruction and the creation of much misery. It’s chasing the “Comanches” into their Palo Duro Canyon refuge, shooting all their horses, burning their tents and food supplies and leaving them utterly destitute. Then, and only then, one can tell them what they are to do next. Then, and only then, will they do it.
We’re not willing to do that.
Alternatively, one hires the Tonkawas to wage unremitting war on the Comanches,whom they already hate, keeps them armed and looks the other way while they wage a distracting war among themselves forever. There are those in Afghanistan who would do that.
We’re not willing to do that either.
If we get out, Iran will hire the Tonkawas and Pakistan will hire the Comanches. When Iran goes nuclear, neither the U.S. nor any other western power will ever venture to set foot there again. It will become a haven, not only for Al Quaeda, but for every other terrorist group on earth, just as it was before we got there. Now and then, Russia may drop a missile on some Chechen training camp, and we may drop a missile on some Al Quaeda training camp.
As little as it may seem so to many, Western Asia is an even more savage place than is the Middle East. Frankly, in my opinion, Obama sent the “surge” to the wrong place. There still is a chance that the line of at least some semblance of civilization may be drawn on the eastern border of Iraq, and we should try to ensure that happens. I think Bush was right in instituting “Round 2” of the Iraq War and in blasting the Taliban power structure. But having done the latter, he should have left, promising to return to do the same if the Taliban again conspired with anyone in any hostile act against the U.S.
But campaign rhetoric has a tendency to bind politicians into staying with bad choices.
I’m not so sure about that. Bush did the same thing. In 2009, Adm. William J. Fallon, then head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, was the subject of an Esquire magazine piece in which he questioned the Bush administration’s policies. He was forced to retire soon afterward.