What Should Happen to General McChrystal?

McChrystal submitted resignation - I added this to the other thread too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-mcchrystal-_n_621100.html
(scroll down)

to - General Stanley McChrystal has submitted his resignation, an unnamed source has told Time magazine. CNN tweeted a report of the resignation. More details to follow.

Let me correct myself...
It appears now that the pertinent meetings will not occur until tomorrow.

You "informed the UK public"? So, are you a journalist on a radio/tv show, or what? I've asked you this before, and you tried to be coy - even though you started a whole thread about how you don't understand the subterfuge of pseudonames online.

Will he faint?

WHile I agree its a firing offense by regs, this timing would be unfortunate for the mission. I think we should be trsining Gonzales to be a "closer" and give McChrystal some more months to make it happen so we can maintain the counter-insurgency and still pull out on target.

Look up at my post, apparently he's resigned.

weve known about the minerals in Afghanistran since just after the WWII. We never had much need for lithium and besides, between Bolivia, Peru, and Argentina altoplana salaris, we didnt meed to really calculate thye amounts. The USGS has recently published its Decenial Minerals Listings for the earth and the news guys just happened to be there to report. Its really no biggy, Its just a matter of timely announcements .

Remember. lithium is a component of Kryptonite.

I read the Rolling Stone article. Taken as a whole it is far less offensive than the excerpts being reported, sometimes out of context, would indicate. While, his actions don't come close to those of General MacArthur which prompted President Truman's firing of him, they do suggest confusion and/or competition among the top U.S. government folks in Afghanistan (McCrystal, the U.S. ambassador & Richard Holbrooke), and an unfavorable view of the President on the part of his General.

Many things could be involved in the probably mutual collapse of confidence, ranging from petty rivalries to serious disagreements among the parties. We'll likely have to wait until the history is written to get a good idea of it all..

There are flash reports of a McCrystal resignation on the web. I don't know if they are credible, but do believe that McCrystal's words can well be interpreted as those of a commander who has lost faith in his mission and our political leadership. In such a case resignation is the only responsible option for everyone concerned.

Yup. That was what he needed to do. Smart man.

He should be fired to let the military know the civilians are in charge. We dont want to become a bannana republic!

Osso, my original post was on the previous page. I said I think he should resign and I think Obama should refuse to accept it. He has a mission. If hes so damn smart and has asked for the extra trroops and Karzhi loves his ass, Hes THE MAN for now.

If he resigns and Obama accepts Obama will not be playing his cards correctly. Remember Eisenhower didnt fire Paqtton, Ike needed him down the road.

I find myself wondering how much access people in McChrystal's position actually GET to the President?

Having been involved recently in a very serious and urgent situation (infinitestimal, of course, compared with a war!!!) where a bunch of Government Ministers (your equivalent I guess would be people in Cabinet) were involved, seemingly simply in order to destroy any chances of success by going against all the best possible advice coming from the people actually involved, I was struck by how little access even the topmost people in the organizations that came together to try and assist in the drama had to the people who made the decisions.

It was one of the most frustrating experiences I have ever had.

Does someone like McChrystal have direct access to Obama> Or is it all scrambled through a chain?

Do you really want a government that cant be criticised by experts ? On the other hand you have guys like LeMay and MacArthur...they were capable of doing whatever they wanted which is far more dangerous than just criticising. The trick is to allow internal dissent but to follow orders regardless. Was he following orders and did he have the opportunity to voice dissent internally ?

its dumb form , it goes down to the lowest non com whowill wonder if he too isnt "entitled " to heap criticism of his own superiors.
My argument is what the mission needs right now. If Mcchrtsal has resigned, I think Obama should hand it back to him and tell him to get to work .

The president is commander -in -chief (Article II)many of the military dont like it, but tough darts. Thats the way we set it up.

I get emails from the NYTimes, NPR, the BBC etc. Interestingly, there has been no confirmation from those, as of 8:40 pm ET, of the CNN/Time report of a McChrystal resignation.

I didn't read the article, but in general, military leaders shouldn't be allowed to show open disloyalty to civilian authority - even bad civilian authority. Probably he should be made an example of.

My first thoughts were of Lincoln and McClellan. When I reached osso's report on his resignation, my second thought was this is what McChrystal wanted and this was the only way he could resign.

Lincoln & McClellan ?
Sometimes you amaze me with your wide-read knowledge.
Lincoln quipped: "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time."
McChrystal is the right man for the job. It's such a shame.


I liken it more to Lincoln & Burnside. Burnside had a hard time controlling his staff and generals.

I do believe that at this point Obama will refuse his resignation.

Cycloptichorn

Why do you think that, Cyclo? He, and/or his staff, ridiculed the President, the VP, and others within his chain of command. I can't believe that that can just be overlooked.
The General will fall on his sword, I think.
We will see, tomorrow.

That was a first report, with much temporizing on HuffPo a bit later.