41
   

What Should Happen to General McChrystal?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2010 09:25 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
I think that is true for run of the mill soldiers, but not for the general in charge. Part of his job is being a spokesman for the military.

... and there's no showing that he was a bad spokesman when he gave press conferences and such. But the whole appeal of embedded journalism is that the content in the reporting is 'the real stuff', as opposed to the message-disciplined spokesman bullshit you hear at Washington press conferences.

My point is, the White House can't have it both ways. If it wants its generals to be spokespeople, let them give press conferences and don't let them sniff around in their daily business. That's what CEOs do in their corporations---they wouldn't dream of allowing journalists to follow their lieutenants around. Alternatively, if the White House wants embedded journalists who then talk about 'what's realy going on' don't complain if that's what they're hearing, and if that's what they're writing about.


If you ask anyone else, they're supposed to say "you'll have to ask the general." To some extent, this is true of the general's staff as well. A major or colonel on staff is chosen for his discretion and competency. These weren't run of the mill G.I.'s, it was the general in charge and his staff. Absolutely, they should have known what they were doing and they are responsible for every word.
[/quote]
jeeprs
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 05:12 am
What happened to McChrystal is that his karma ran over his dogma.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 06:52 am
About that whole business of this discussion running along partisan lines...

Shinseki and others were fired because of being opposed to Bush's policy. I don't recall anyone alleging that they had been derisive, disrespectful, disdainful, insubordinate or other of those kinds of adjectives that were attached to MChrystal and his aides' commentary. It becomes an issue of maintaining the integrity of the chain of command. As an NCO, I had to take a lot of hurtful criticism if it came packaged correctly, but I would not brook any insolence from subordinates - the whole structure could crumble with too much of that.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 08:45 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
My point is, the White House can't have it both ways. If it wants its generals to be spokespeople, let them give press conferences and don't let them sniff around in their daily business.
. Except that the general officers had better know what the politicians have to spout. I was hoping that Obama would take the generals resignation and put it in his desk drawer with a warning that its already been activatred so hes on shaky ground. The mission is important enough to swallow some of this insubordination (I thought) > Apparently Obama took the rod like Truman. Ya cant really have prima donnas with views divergent from the head guys. The war requires a tight team and MCChrsytal never figured it out.
Apparently his career had been one of being a smartass. That only works in ... well... it almost never works out well for the smartass.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 11:42 pm
Quote:
McChrystal surrounded himself with a staff of similar backgrounds as his own from Special Forces, according to military officials.

"There are different, specific individuals, but they are not totally different types," according to O'Hanlon. "They're all cerebral, hardworking. Frankly, they're quite loyal, quite respectful, despite this magazine portrayal," he said.

However, one military official who would not speak on the record thinks McChrystal's undoing may have been that his staff was from a similar Special Operations background. Special operations forces as tradecraft stay out of the limelight and the media to keep their anonymity.

"Gen. McChrystal and the special operations community have not been offered the opportunities to learn the art of dealing with the media. They tend to avoid media engagements at all levels," the official said.

"His staff either did not understand the differences, didn't care about the differences, or were so frustrated [with the administration] that they were blinded by the differences," the official said when referring to the rule of working with reporters.

Despite how the article's tale of the staff played out, O'Hanlon said it is a "reflection of bad judgment on the staff."

But, he says, "I've seen him [McChrystal] in action and been around him in private settings, and he doesn't act like this typically, nor does his staff."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/25/petraeus.mcchrystal.style/index.html?hpt=Sbin

OK, but how did it happen that one of our top Commanders did not have on staff Public Affairs officials who could educate his team, and protect him from this disaster? McChrystal's official who was in charge of this embed resigned immediately, and I have a bad feeling that whom ever this person is was also from the SF background, and thus was not up to the job.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 05:16 am
The problem with Afghanistan is that its always portrayed as a military problem, so the military appear to be in command. If it was considered as a state building exercise with the emphasis on building a secure government and a stable economy then the majority would feel more inclined to support our efforts. If we spent half as much again on the economy, then in my opinion we would be able to leave a darned sight quicker. Just look what the Taliban target? they know good services and a viable economy, wins hearts and minds. I just hope at some stage we put an engineering soldier in command instead of this special forces mentality.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 07:05 pm
Quote:
Stanley McChrystal to retire with four-star rank
Gen. Stanley McChrystal will retain his four-star rank when he retires from the military, the White House said Tuesday. The decision means the general will earn about $149,700 per year before taxes in military retirement pay.


Gen. Stanley McChrystalPresident Obama dismissed McChrystal last week after he and members of his staff made disparaging comments about Vice President Biden and other officials in a Rolling Stone magazine article.

McChrystal, 55, was promoted to four stars last year when he assumed control of military operations in Afghanistan. He announced plans Monday to retire from the military after 34 years, a process that's expected to take a few months.

Army rules state a four-star general must serve three years before they can retain the rank in retirement. But the president can bypass the rule if he chooses to do so. McChrystal would have earned about $140,832 annually as a three-star retiree, meaning Obama's decision nets him another $8,868 annually, according to military retirement figures compiled by the Pentagon.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/06/_cabinet_and_staff_news.html?hpid=topnews

not sure what to make of this, but sounds like an admission that McCrystal was not the officer portrayed by Rolling Stone. It is not about the money here, it is about the respect, the honor.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 12:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
Who is going to be shitty about a star and 9K a year? Not any decent boss I've ever known. And, yes, this was about respect. The respect an officer and his staff must hold for his Commander-in-Chief and his staff.

I'll bet the number of interviews by senior staff officers throughout the services to ANY publication or media outlet has dropped to less than zero.

Joe(PS: He's lucky he didn't get dropped to TWO Stars by his military bosses.)Nation
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 06:55 pm
Quote:
The memo is expected to reanimate the professional public-affairs cadre among the Pentagon’s civilian and military staffs, who have made no secret that they have felt challenged by the growing numbers of contractors hired for “strategic communications” issues. It was one such contractor who brokered Rolling Stone’s profile of General McChrystal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/world/03pentagon.html?_r=1&hp

I love the Army but this is just ******* nuts....they let a contractor run media operations for the Afghanistan Commander??!! A contractor is in it for the money, they don't care about the Army like a Public Affairs Officer presumably would. This kind of important high level stuff should NEVER be contracted out.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:02 pm
I totally agree.
There should be an office of Media Relations with a neatly lettered sign on the door.

Joe(KISS OFF!)Nation
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:15 pm
it all seems like a massive cock-up to me. He and his men should never have opened their mouth around that reporter. And how does this help anybody? How can this be anything other than a loose-loose for the US?

My son said 'bloody good reporting' (he is a journalism student). I disagreed with him. There is a lot at stake in all this. I am not pro-war, not pro the US military. But so much is in the balance and so many lives lost and so much money spent. Anything which detracts from the (slim) likelihood of a successful outcome (whatever that might look like) is a big minus.

So I think the entire episode is just a cock-up from start to finish.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:25 pm
@jeeprs,
Quote:
So I think the entire episode is just a cock-up from start to finish
How much to you want to bet the McChrystal never wanted Media around to start with, that he was "persuaded" by the Pentagon to play along with their attempt to sell the war to the Public? Thus the contractor with their "outside the envelope" idea to have Rolling Stone roll with the Commander for about a month. OK, so originally it was not supposed to be for that long but ROLLING ******* STONE! Come on now, what could they expect? My question is why didn't they go all the way hipster, and call up Hustler Magazine?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
actually it would be interesting to know the back-story. My guess would be as follows. The military is now long-accustomed to having (what is the word again?) implanted journalists reporting from the front lines. This reporter was going to be doing that. But Mount Unpronouncable blew up in Iceland and got them all stuck in Paris, so they all 'went to the mess and talked bull' (is that Army talk?)

And the rest, as they say, is now history.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:39 pm
@jeeprs,
Normally the Embeds go around with the officers while the Officers are doing Mission related work, but the officers dont take their embeds out drinking, and don't bitch about their bosses to the embeds. I am confident that McChrystal was told that it was a good idea to "let it all hang out", to make him seem more real and more sympathetic to the reader. I am betting the McChrystal took bad advise, followed bad advise, and that he knew instantly when the piece came out that he should have stuck with his gut, told his media people and the Pentagon to **** off when they came asking for him to participate.

I dont think he is the kind of guy to do it, but I hope somebody does tell us how this really happened someday.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:44 pm
It is my understanding that the reporter was not supposed to spend so much time with them -- the volcano stranded them in France and the reporter ended up on the bus to Germany with them. I think he was only supposed to be with them for a few hours and it turned into days.
jeeprs
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:49 pm
@boomerang,
when you think about it, it is a case where the best intentions of US democracy really blew up in their faces. (Improvised Reportage Device?) I mean, the idea of the embedded journo with unfettered access, even though many regard it as a propoganda ploy, really was a salute to press freedom and a demonstration of the fact that there was 'nothing to hide'. But in this case, it all went horribly wrong.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:55 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
Hastings then traveled with McChrystal in Afghanistan for more reporting. In the end, what was originally supposed to be a two-day visit, turned into a month, in part thanks to the disruptions created by the volcano.
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544711-volcano-disruption-leads-to-mcchrystal-scoop

if you follow the link you will see that it was supposed to be more than two days, it was two days in Paris plus some undefined time in Afghanistan...
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:58 pm
@jeeprs,
I agree!

I know one high ranking Army officer (Major General) very well. Since I have not seen him in person since this happened (and I know he won't comment via email or phone) I can't say for sure but I'm willing to bet he'll say.... "Freedom of the press -- that's one of the reasons I do what I do."
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 08:08 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
this question, too, appears to be turning on partisan preferences. Of the posters now calling for McCrystal's head, about half cried foul when Bush fired General Shinsake for publically questioning Bush administration cost estimates, in money and troups, of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

You're so clueless your post isn't even wrong. It's pathetic. General Shinseki (Shinseki, not Shinsake, he's not liquor) was never fired. The Joint Chiefs serve four-year terms. Gen. Shinseki was sworn in in June 1999. Retired in June 2003. He wasn't "retired" as a result of congressional testimony either. He announced his retirement and Rumsfeld named his successor A FULL YEAR BEFORE he testified about those hundreds of thousands of troops that would be needed to execute the then plan in Iraq. I don't know if you're too stupid to look up sources or if you're lying on purpose. Try fact check if the former http://www.factcheck.org/article275.html
Quote:
The Washington Times reported Shinseki's plans to retire nearly a year before his Feb. 25, 2003 testimony. The Times article was published April 19, 2002: Washington Times: He (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 10:30 pm
Quote:
Senior military officers were in widespread agreement that the president had no choice but to fire General McChrystal after he and his staff were quoted in a Rolling Stone article disparaging Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other senior Obama administration officials.

But they said the president’s decision to allow General McChrystal to retire with four stars was an important indicator for future potential employers — perhaps some defense contractors lining the Beltway around Washington — that he was not radioactive, at least as far as the White House was concerned.

Forcing him to retire with three stars “would have sent a signal that he was out of favor,” said John A. Nagl, a retired lieutenant colonel and president of the Center for a New American Security, a nonpartisan military policy institution in Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/us/politics/03mcchrystal.html?hpw

so I was more or less correct...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 03:08:02