What Should Happen to General McChrystal?

I think that there are a lot of ramifications to getting rid of the guy right before the big offensive, and that he has a lot of support inside the ranks as well.

What does getting rid of him accomplish? Yes, the chain of command was ridiculed and disparaged and this guy was responsible for it even if he didn't say everything himself. Obama just seems like a guy who has tried to turn situations to his advantage when he could, and I have a hard time seeing him get rid of this guy when something more constructive could come from it.

edit: actually, I went back and read my initial post in this thread was a knee-jerk reaction. But I've reconsidered since I've read the article and thought about things some more.

Cycloptichorn

Hi Snood,
No I'm not, I submitted it through a news media teletext system. A bit like a nationwide forum on one of our tv channels. Anyone with a mobile can (could) submit.
They closed it down a few months back due to underfunding.
No need to get so shirty, either.
Have a great day Snood.
Mark...

For the amount of time left in the mission, I believe we have other generals capable of seeing it through. The president's timetable doesn't allow for long range planning now.

I missed that, Fm. Plus the early huffpo notice was confusing or got tempered a bit in passing.

I may have just misread your style as trying to appear mysterious. If I reacted too strongly (or 'shirty' - I kinda like that, and think I'll use it), I apologize.

Officially there are several layers of control between the Theater commander in Afghanistan and the President, some in series some in parallel paths. McCrystal reports to the Central Command Chief (Gen Petraeus) and to the Joint Chiefs of staff, and, through the Secretary of Defense (Bill Gates), to the President. The Secretary of State (Clinton) and the President's national Security advisor (Gen Jones Ret.) are also involved, though the specific details and roles of the various players vary from President to President. My strong impression (confirmed informally by some retired 4 star Generals who claim to know) is that President Obama has distanced himself from his military deputies far more than did his predecessor.

Certainly the prolongued Presidential review of the strategy and force requirements for the conflict in Afghanistan (the "right" conflict according to candidate Obama) after Gen. McCrystal submitted his new strategy immediately following his appointment by the President, suggested something less than perfect accord between the political leadership in the White House and the responsible General in theater. Other recent events regarding President Karsai of Afghanistan suggest conflicting views of the situation there among McCrystal, the U.S. Ambassador and the State Department and perhaps the White House as well. Where fault may lie in all of this is something I don't know. However, discord and confusion in the top levels of leadership of any organization usually means something is wrong at the top. We shall see.

The President has already relieved one theater commander in Afghanistan - a first since MacArthur in Korea - I think it will be difficult for him toi fire another.

I agree, Cyclo, that the timing of this is bad. Really bad for Obama as the war in Afghanistan is supposedly winding down (but with casualties this month being very high).
I did my time in VN with the Army. I did what I was told. I got into a bit of trouble near the end. I spoke to officers younger than me, a mere SGT, in defense of the guys in my squad about an issue. I took some heat, there. I spoke fervently in their defense but I was never disrespectful to the officers.
That is where General McChrystal has crossed the line. It is a line that I, Snood, Mysteryman and perhaps others clearly see (but I am not speaking for them).

He dissed his bosses.

We can do that in our civilian jobs but we can not accept that to happen, publicly, by the military. I say again: publicly
I fully expect that McChrystal will resign or get fired.
I hope so.

Isn't this the land of Free speach, 2nd amendment rights? If anything happens to him I would say lets just bring in the gestapo to do obama's bidding.

I#d really like that such would happen in the military of every country: this chaos certainly would minimize any war.

I guess I was wondering if this was sort of an an act of civil disobedience by this fellla, that is he chose to speak out publicly (possibly because he thought he was being ignored, or did not have real access to the top?) knowing he would have to resign/be fired and fully accepting that consequence.

I am of two minds.

On the one hand the military should not challenge the authority of a legally elected leader.

On the other hand, I can imagine what it is like to believe that fundamental and terrible mistakes are being made and not feel that you are being heard.

I thought the military people who whistle blew on what was happening under Bush were doing something very important...

I support free speech and the free press, but the Rolling Stone magazine has really f***ed this up bigtime. First - what soldier likes their political leaders? Do you think when they're kicking back at the end of the day, they all say 'by golly, those Washington fellas are SO CLEVER. They just understand our situation so well, and are so strategically informed about everything'.

I don't think so. I think the brass made the mistake of talking to, and around, this journalist, and saying things that really shouldn't be said. For that, of course they should be sacked, but they're in the middle of a minefield holding their backpacks above their heads, so to speak. It is something that nobody needs right now. It is a distraction in the middle of a potential catastrophe. Who benefits? I think, in all likelihood, the only winner will be bin Laden, if he's still kicking.

Did he challenge his authority, or just his decisions regarding Afgan. There's a significant difference I think. Not that it was right, but I don't think I have too much of a problem with him letting people know he disagrees. I don't like this war, and I want people to tell it like it is.

Is there a difference, in terms of likely Presidential reaction (from any President) re the two?

I agree there is a distinction, and I approve of free speech too.

Since when is a Rolling Stone article comparable to an official statement from a military officer?

His mistake was talking to any media. I wonder if he brought up these issue to the president himself.

I don't think it is making disagreements known is what all the fuss is about but rather the "contemptuous" remarks made by the General and his Staff. However, I am not sure the General himself made the remarks but just his staff. Making contemptuous remarks against the President and officials is against article 88 of the military code, no matter if it is an offiicial statement or just standing around talking to other people.


http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm88.htm

w.h. meeting is to start at 11:35 - so in about 2 hours we might know who is in and who is out .
rolling stone claims that mcc. KNEW that the interview was NOT off the record ... hmmm ...

Okay, so the guy met with Obama for only half an hour and then left the WH apparently; that doesn't sound like they are keeping him, lol

Cycloptichorn

I heard that Obama said"Get a lawyer"

Someone on NPR this morning . . . came into the room after the speech had begun . . . noted that McChrystal doesn't get along with anyone in Afghanistan.

McChrystal is bitching about a plan of operation that is his own plan.